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

[sojourner]

Your confesed here. According to the scirptures, there was no ISREAL and no JEW and no SIN when the Sabbath was made for all mankind *MARK 2:27-28; GENESIS 2:1-3.

Hope this helps

Except that “when the Sabbath was made” is a false date. The earliest known copies of Genesis are no older than circa 650 BCE. There certainly was a nation of Hebrews by then, and there certainly was a Judaic religious tradition out of which the concept of Sabbath arose.

The confusion isn’t with the poster.

 

[3rdAngel]

Except that “when the Sabbath was made” is a false date. The earliest known copies of Genesis are no older than circa 650 BCE. There certainly was a nation of Hebrews by then, and there certainly was a Judaic religious tradition out of which the concept of Sabbath arose.

The confusion isn’t with the poster.

You do know who GENESIS was written by right? It is a part of the Torah and Pentateuch (first five books of the bible; GENESIS, EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTRERONOMY). It is Word of God commiunicated to MOSES and written down by MOSES in the book of the covenant *EXODUS 24:7. According to the scriptures before the written Word of God there was the spoken Word of God *GENESIS 26:5. The boof of GENESIS is the written Word of God's account of creation and the fall of mankind. According to the scirptures, there was no ISREAL and no JEW and no SIN when the Sabbath was made for all mankind at creation *MARK 2:27-28; GENESIS 2:1-3.

Hope this helps

 

[sojourner]

Nonsense! Show me where it says in REVELATION 1:10 that "SUNDAY" (or the first day of the week) is "THE LORDS DAY"? The use of the GREEK "LORDS DAY" means the LORD'S ownership of the day which the scriptures day is the SABBATH DAY *MATTHEW 12:8

“this experience [John] asserts, occurred on the Lord’s day, i.e., on Sunday. According to Ignatius, writing a few years later, the first day of the week was sacred to the followers of Jesus Christ... Thus it was natural for Christians to call the first day of the week “the Lord’s day.”
— The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 12, p. 374, Abington Press, 1957, G.A. Buttrick

 

[3rdAngel]

“this experience [John] asserts, occurred on the Lord’s day, i.e., on Sunday. According to Ignatius, writing a few years later, the first day of the week was sacred to the followers of Jesus Christ... Thus it was natural for Christians to call the first day of the week “the Lord’s day.”
— The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 12, p. 374, Abington Press, 1957, G.A. Buttrick

Woops there you do trying to find sources outside of the scriptures. Thankyou you have just proven you have no scripture for your claims. As posted earlier you have no scripture do you. Yet it is the scriptures alone that say that "THE LORDS DAY" is the "SABBATH DAY" *MATTHEW 12:8

 

[sojourner]

You do know who GENESIS was written by right? It is a part of the Torah and Pentateuch (first five books of the bible; GENESIS, EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTRERONOMY). It is Word of God commiunicated to MOSES and written down by MOSES in the book of the covenant *EXODUS 24:7. According to the scriptures before the written Word of God there was the spoken Word of God *GENESIS 26:5.

1) Moses is a literary, not a historical, figure
2) Scholarship shows that Genesis is an amalgam of four primary sources, all different, none of whom would have been Moses.
3) many of the stories in Genesis come to us from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian mythos.
4) You can’t prove the Moses “theory,” or the “God dictated it” “theory.”
So your post is 100% hogwash and a waste of bandwidth.

 

[sojourner]

Woops there you do trying to find sources outside of the scriptures. Thankyou you have just proven you have no scripture for your claims. As posted earlier you have no scripture do you

The commentary exegetes the scriptural texts, and it is correct to use such sources when engaging the texts in scholastic pursuits. The fact that you disregard these scholarly sources says much about your willingness to view the texts in the light of any sort of reality.

 

[3rdAngel]

1) Moses is a literary, not a historical, figure
2) Scholarship shows that Genesis is an amalgam of four primary sources, all different, none of whom would have been Moses.

Well I guess if you do not believe the scriptures being God's Word. Seems you do not beleive they are God's Word. Thisis your problem.

3) many of the stories in Genesis come to us from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian mythos.

"Ditto"

4) You can’t prove the Moses “theory,” or the “God dictated it” “theory.” So your post is 100% hogwash and a waste of bandwidth.

I do not need to as I believe God's Word. You on the other hand you cannot prove that MOSES was not real or can you prove that GENESIS and the Torah was not written before Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian mythos.

Your welcome

 

[3rdAngel]

The commentary exegetes the scriptural texts, and it is correct to use such sources when engaging the texts in scholastic pursuits. The fact that you disregard these scholarly sources says much about your willingness to view the texts in the light of any sort of reality.

Nonsense. If you choose to believe man made teachings that even scholars do not agree on, over the scriptures it is between you and God. I do not. I choose to beleive the scripture over the teachings of men that deny God's Word. This I believe is where your problem lies. You put the words of men before the Word of God when only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it.

 

[sojourner]

Well I guess if you do not believe the scriptures being God's Word. Seems you do not beleive they are God's Word. Thisis your problem

Seems you have on willful blinders to the reality of the texts. Your bad.

I do not need to as I believe God's Word. You on the other hand cannot prove that MOSES was not real or can you prove that GENESIS and the Torah was written in earlier Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian mythos.

I jolly well can prove it. Take a look at Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East: Revised by Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin. Just a quick scroll through the table of contents.

 

[sojourner]

Nonsense. If you choose to believe man made teachings that even scholars do not agree on, over the scriptures it is between you and God. I do not. I choose to beleive the scripture over the teachings of men that deny God's Word. This I believe is where your problem lies. You put the words of men before the Word of God when only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it.

I do so choose, because it allows for a fair and unbiased reading and interpretation of the texts, unlike the tripe you’re vomiting.

 

[3rdAngel]

Seems you have on willful blinders to the reality of the texts. Your bad

According to the scriptures, I would say this applies to you if you do not believe the scriptures over the teachings of men. JESUS said the same things in the scriptures to those who did not believe God's Word...

MATTHEW 13:15-16 [15], For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. [16], But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

I joy well can prove it. Take a look at Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East: Revised by Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin. Just a quick scroll through the table of contents.

Ok then prove it. Prove your claims that the TORAH was not written by Moses, there was no Moses and that the Torah was not written before Babylon? All I have to do my side is show the biblical historical record to show what your promoting is not worth the paper it is written on

 

[3rdAngel]

I do so choose, because it allows for a fair and unbiased reading and interpretation of the texts, unlike the tripe you’re vomiting.

Who says what you promote is fair and unbiased? Do you know the people writing what your promoting and if you do why is there no consensus between their peers? Your mistake is that you put the writings of men over the Word of God which is foolishness in God's eyes according to the scriptures.

 

[sojourner]

According to the scriptures, I would say this applies to you if you do not believe the scriptures over the teachings of men

The scriptures ARE the teachings of human beings.

JESUS said the same things in the scriptures to those who did not believe

Jesus also taught against the texts in various places: “It is written... but I tell you...”

All I have to do my side is show the biblical historical record to show what your promoting is not woth the paper it is written on

That’s not all you have to do, because the biblical record and the historic record are two different things.

 

[sojourner]

Who says what you promote is fair and unbiased? Do you know the people writing what your promoting and if you do why is there no consensus between their peers? Your mistake is that you put the writings of men over the Word of God which is foolishness in God's eyes according to the scriptures.

Who says yours isn’t? There is consensus on the validity of the scholarship presented. It’s called “peer-reviewed research.” It’s a real thing in scholarly circles. Check out peer review if you don’t believe me.

 

[3rdAngel]

It is indeed true according to the scriptures the natural man 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 *1 CORINTHIANS 2:14

 

[3rdAngel]

Who says yours isn’t?

God Word you claim to believe but clearly do not.

There is consensus on the validity of the scholarship presented. It’s called “peer-reviewed research.” It’s a real thing in scholarly Ickes. Check out peer review if you don’t believe me.

Nonsense prove it. Post your claims and I will post you a scholar that disagrees with you. Here you go again putting the world and words of men over the Words of God. For me I choose to believe and follow God's Word over the teachings and traditions of me that do not know God.

 

[sojourner]

It is indeed true according to the scriptures the natural man 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 *1 CORINTHIANS 2:14

“Spirit of God” and “biblical exegesis” are not the same thing.

 

[3rdAngel]

The scriptures ARE the teachings of human beings.

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.

Jesus also taught against the texts in various places: “It is written... but I tell you...”

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. All JESUS is doing is providing the correct meaning of what the scriptures teach. I problem mankind has always had especially whey they put the teachings of men before the Word of God as shown in MATTHEW 15:3-9.

That’s not all you have to do, because the biblical record and the historic record are two different things.

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

 

[sojourner]

God Word you claim to believe but clearly do not

Au contraire. I simply don’t take the texts irresponsibly at face value, like you do.

Nonsense prove it. Post your claims and I will post you a scholar that disagrees with you.

So... either you’re saying that peer review isn’t a thing, or you’re unwilling to check it out as I asked.

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.

 

[3rdAngel]

“Spirit of God” and “biblical exegesis” are not the same thing.

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.