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

[Soapy]

Scientists disagree amongst themselves and within the same category. Would you say that means it is also flawed?

Yes, of course science is flawed since it denies the existence of a higher intelligence that religion calls ‘God’.

But science often disagrees with each other even the greats like Einstein has been proved wrong or at least not fully correct…. which means ‘flawed’.

However, science is a strict discipline and is only allowed to progress after being ‘proved’ correct. Christianity, as a belief, contains so many offshoots of claims, disclaims, ridiculous nonsense, anti-truths, alternate realities, devilry, etc., that it is a belief that only maintains itself BY FAITH … it does not require ‘PROOF’ absolute!

 

[samtonga43]

I do not think so sis. He use to be a Christian and turned His back on God. Now he spends His life seeking to turn as many people away from God as He can.

LOL! He's not very good at it.

 

[Soapy]

I agree that it can be difficult to always answer respectfully.

And he should know not to insist on getting an answer : continually / repeatedly demanding an answer is a sign of poor debate technique… By all means log the fact of no response if that indeed was the case but don’t claim a none-answer just because it doesn’t agree with what he expected - or rather, wanted - you to say!! If the contender is wrong then he will know it… ‘Even Michael did not bring a charge against Satan when debating over the body of Moses but said only “May God judge you!”’

 

[samtonga43]

Okay. I may have been wrong. We do not have to treat the Genesis myths as if they actually happened.

It is rather amazing how quickly you failed to follow 1 Peter 3 15. I am a bit amazed.

A bit amazed? Oxymoron, SZ. If you want to know why, just ask me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As matter of fact you do, because the verse you keep quoting tells us how to act with non-believers who ask a certain question. I wonder why you missed this part?

No, now you are being excessively literal. It is really about explaining in general why one is a Christian. And that would include defending specific beliefs as @3rdAngel has. It now appears that you are just looking for an excuse to maintain the past bad behavior that you have shown here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A bit amazed? Oxymoron, SZ. If you want to know why, just ask me.

You do not appear to understand what the word "oxymoron" is. Yes, one can be a bit amazed. It is not an absolute.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, of course science is flawed since it denies the existence of a higher intelligence that religion calls ‘God’.

It does? Evidence, Soapy?

 

[samtonga43]

You do not appear to understand what the word "oxymoron" is. Yes, one can be a bit amazed. It is not an absolute.

Don't be silly. One is either amazed or not amazed. One cannot be a bit amazed.

 

[Soapy]

I see so there is a flood of scripture that disagree with your teachings. Does this not worry you? It should.

I see so your agreeing with me you have no scripture that says Gods' 4th commandment has now been abolished as we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest in honor of the resurrection of Jesus? Well at least your starting to be honest now which is a good start. So tell me are you not worried when Jesus says if we follow man-made teachings and traditions like Sunday worship that leads many to break Gods' 4th commandment that they are not worshiping God in Matthew 15:3-9? You should be if breaking anyone of Gods' 10 commandments is sin (see James 2:10-11) and practicing known unrepentant sin after God gives us a knowledge of the truth brings us into the danger of the judgement to come (see Hebrews 10:26-31).

Nope. Jesus and all the Apostles kept the Sabbath which was their custom (see Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2) and Gods' people continued keeping the Sabbath well after the death of the Apostles. There is not such thing as "a Jewish Sabbath" there was no Jew when God made the Sabbath for all mankind according to the scriptures (see Genesis 2:1-3; Mark 2:27).

No that is not true at all. Matthew 15:3-9 was about Gods' people making man-made teachings and traditions that led many away from Gods' Word to break the commandments of God with Jesus telling these people they were not worshiping God in doing this. Like those today who follow follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from God and His Word to break the commandments of God. Jesus says we are not worshiping God if we do this....

• MATTHEW 15:3-9 [3], But he answered and said to them, WHY DO YOU ALSO TRANSGRESS THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD BY YOUR TRADITION? [4], For God commanded, saying, Honor your father and mother: and, He that curses father or mother, let him die the death. [5], But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatever you might be profited by me; [6], And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. THUS HAVE YOU MADE THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD OF NONE EFFECT BY YOUR TRADITION. [7], YOU HYPOCRITES, WELL DID ESAIAS PROPHESY OF YOU, SAYING, [8], THIS PEOPLE DRAWS NEAR TO ME WITH THEIR MOUTH, AND HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS; BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME. [9], BUT IN VAIN THEY DO WORSHIP ME, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.

The scriptures disagree with you here.

Sorry your post here absolutely makes no sense at all. What are you even talking about here?

Once again prove your claims show me the scripture that says you can make any day your Sabbath. - There is none. According to the scriptures "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God" - Exodus 20:10. You do err not knowing the scriptures.

According to the scriptures God made the Sabbath for ALL MANKIND (Mark 2:27), There were no Jews when God made the Sabbath for ALL mankind. There was only Adam and Eve that God created on the 6th day of the creation week according to Genesis 1:26-31. After God finished His work of creation in 6 days of the week he rested on the "seventh day" of the week and blessed the "seventh day" of the week for all mankind as a memorial of creation (see Exodus 20:8-11). God set aside the "seventh day of the week aside from all the other day of the week for a holy day of rest as a memorial and celebration of God as the creator of heaven and earth. God made it one of His 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing when obeyed) and evil (moral wrong doing when disobeyed); sin (moral wrong doing when disobeyed) and righteousness (moral right doing when obeyed) see Exodus 20:8-11; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and Psalms 119:172. Jesus taught it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day in Matthew 12:1-12.

There was no Jew when God made the Sabbath for all mankind (see Genesis 2:1-3).

Gentiles are not Gods' people so do not believe and follow Gods' Word.

No Circumcision is not the same argument. Circumcision was a shadow law pointing to a new heart by faith for all those who walk in God's Spirit in the new covenant promise (see Acts 15:1-2). It has nothing to do with not keeping Gods' 10 commandments. This is why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:9 to the Corinthian gentile believers, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

As posted earlier, according to Jesus the Sabbath was made for all mankind in Mark 2:27 and there was no Jews when God made the Sabbath for all mankind in Genesis 2:1-3. All of Gods' people are called to obey all the commandments of God including Gods' 4th commandment which is one of God's 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken (Romans 3:20: Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4).

Once again there is no such thing as a "Jewish Sabbath". There was no Jew when God made the Sabbath for all mankind (Genesis 2:1-3). Jesus says it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day (see Matthew 12:1-12).

According to the scripture worshiping God in Spirit and in truth means to worship God according to what Gods' Word says (see John 17:17 and John 6:63). According to Jesus if we follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from God and His Word we are not worshiping God in Matthew 15:3-9. Now tell me how can you claim to worship God in Spirit and in truth when you do not believe and follow what Gods' Word says? You cannot.

Can everyone see what I say against 3rdAngel… his posts are so long that it requires an enormity of time to create a viable response… and any short cut requires ignoring some part of what he wrote - and missing some part in a response —- which he then claims as a ‘win’ against an opponent.

Does he have endless time to write so much? Certainly it requires so long just to read what he posts…. And that’s the point: FLOODING as a way to distract from the nonsense he writes.

Also, he is inconsistent in what he states - a fact easily lost in the swathes that he writes. And using huge blocks of quotes, repeated / copy-pasted text, makes his posts do unglamorous as a presentation that you don’t even want to read any of it….

YES!! He has even accused me CORRECTLY of not reading EVERYTHING he wrote….

Well, seeing that I have other tasks in my life to attend to daily, and hourly in each day, true… I don’t have time to read ridiculous repeated nonsense - and quite right, too!! The scriptures tells us that arguing with foolishness is foolishness in itself but doesn’t common sense tell us that any way?!!

But today I free so I will answer to all of what is in the post that 3rdAngel posted above.

 

[Soapy]

It does? Evidence, Soapy?

Ask the majority of scientists….!!

 

[2ndpillar]

So you know then that the Lord's day, or day of the Lord as expressed in Revelation 1, is a time of reckoning and glorification. There are, of course, other symbolic indications of the strength of the Lord. Much of it is symbolic in depiction but actual in the fulfillment, meaning the time is coming.

Rev 1:10, is with respect to the "Lord's Day", which would the day of the Lord's rest, which would be the Sabbath. It would a weekly sabbath which foreshadows the millennium, when the "dragon" is thrown into the pit, and the earth will rest from chaos for a thousand years. Right now, the "deceiver"/"dragon"/"devil" is the ruler of the world. (John 14:30), and his authority is put on the "beast" (Rev 13:4), and "all who dwell on the earth will worship him" (Rev 13:8), and the "woman"/"Babylon the Great" will sit on the beast. Keep in mind that the Gentile churches are harlot daughters of the "woman". (Rev 17:5).

 

[samtonga43]

No, now you are being excessively literal. It is really about explaining in general why one is a Christian.

No, it isn't. You are using eisegesis rather than exegesis. Here's the verse once more:--
"...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect".

Are you really unable to understand that the words I have bolded are about a specific question?

You want to ask me this question? Go ahead!

 

[Subduction Zone]

And he should know not to insist on getting an answer : continually / repeatedly demanding an answer is a sign of poor debate technique… By all means log the fact of no response if that indeed was the case but don’t claim a none-answer just because it doesn’t agree with what he expected - or rather, wanted - you to say!! If the contender is wrong then he will know it… ‘Even Michael did not bring a charge against Satan when debating over the body of Moses but said only “May God judge you!”’

The problem is that he wanted others to use the same poor technique that he uses that proves nothing. Now he would be right, for once, in denying claims if they used his technique, but ironically he does not understand how that also applies to his methodology.

 

[samtonga43]

Ask the majority of scientists….!!

You first. Let us know when you have asked the majority of scientists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! He's not very good at it.

Since his accusation was false on all levels, and also against the rules of the forum, I don't see why I would be good at it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, of course science is flawed since it denies the existence of a higher intelligence that religion calls ‘God’.

No, science is neutral on the existence of a God. It neither confirms or denies. Now it might refute certain versions of God. Most Flat Earthers are Christians, at least that I know of, and they often based their belief on the Bible. They have a "Flat Earth God". Has the Flat Earth God been refuted? Does that refute all versions of God?

But science often disagrees with each other even the greats like Einstein has been proved wrong or at least not fully correct…. which means ‘flawed’.

Einstein has not been "proven wrong" there are merely areas where his theory does not apply yet. His theory does not apply one the quantum level. That does not mean that it is wrong, it only means that there are limits to its use. The same applies to Newton. His work is even more "wrong" by that standard. Yet Newton's Laws were what was used to get us to the Moon and back.

However, science is a strict discipline and is only allowed to progress after being ‘proved’ correct. Christianity, as a belief, contains so many offshoots of claims, disclaims, ridiculous nonsense, anti-truths, alternate realities, devilry, etc., that it is a belief that only maintains itself BY FAITH … it does not require ‘PROOF’ absolute!

And this is also incorrect. Nothing in the sciences is "proven". That is more of a mathematical term. Ideas in science are taken to be provisionally true if they are well supported by evidence. For example gravity is closer to a fact than almost anything that you can name. But various both Newton's Law and Einstein's General Relativity are incomplete. That does not mean that one can step off of a cliff with impunity. But yes, science is evidence based. Religion is faith based.

 

[samtonga43]

You need to quit debating like a child. When you screw up apologize first. Then you can politely ask qu.

Speaking of questions (qu?),

SZ said: There are questions that you have not answered. That is how you run away. How do I prove this? By continually asking the same questions.
SAM. said: Good advice. Let’s try this out; let’s see if it works.
1. SZ, you accused me of repeating false personal attacks with no evidence.
I responded: “False personal attacks? In my post above?” Where?
SZ runs away.

2. How can anyone have a serious discussion with someone who :--
a Is unable to provide one shred of evidence for accusative statements he has made?
b Pretends he is not answering honestly because the person he has accused falsely is not debating honestly!
c Runs away because he is afraid to admit that he has no evidence.
?
SZ runs away again.

3. Where did 3rdAngel distort what SZ?
SZ runs away.

Do you see? To prove my case I only need to ask the questions that you run away from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it isn't. You are using eisegesis rather than exegesis. Here's the verse once more:--
"...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect".

Are you really unable to understand that the words I have bolded are about a specific question?

You want to ask me this question? Go ahead!

I would disagree with you. The intent is clear. I am not adding any. An excessively literal approach is an abuse of exegesis. And let's say that you are right. Does that still excuse you and 3rd's bad behavior?

3rd would get angry because I would not play his little game when it came to supporting my claims. Instead I just repeated the questions that he dodged again and again and again until he finally had to answer them. Now there are definitely more posts than I can count on the fingers of one hand that have examples of him running away from questions. I thought that it was much better to actively show him guilty of what I claimed that he was doing rather than doing the near impossible, quoting all of the posts where he did not answer those questions. There is more than one way to support one's claims and when someone is not doing something it can be all but impossible to prove it with quotes. It was much better to catch him in the act again and again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speaking of questions (qu?),

SZ said: There are questions that you have not answered. That is how you run away. How do I prove this? By continually asking the same questions.
SAM. said: Good advice. Let’s try this out; let’s see if it works.
1. SZ, you accused me of repeating false personal attacks with no evidence.
I responded: “False personal attacks? In my post above?” Where?
SZ runs away.

Nope, I did respond to your questions. I can show that. I just did not give you the response that you wanted. That is not running away. We already went over this. I even offered to quote since that would show that you asked bogus questions and I explained why I was not answering them.

[/B]

2. How can anyone have a serious discussion with someone who :--
a Is unable to provide one shred of evidence for accusative statements he has made?
b Pretends he is not answering honestly because the person he has accused falsely is not debating honestly!
c Runs away because he is afraid to admit that he has no evidence.
?
SZ runs away again.

3. Where did 3rdAngel distort what SZ?
SZ runs away.

Do you see? To prove my case I only need to ask the questions that you run away from.

Well since I was not guilty of what you or he claimed then I would have say everything. What part of responding to questions but not giving answer to bogus ones is running away? He ran away. You have run away in the past on other threads, but I have not hit you with questions for you to run away from yet. But if you check the responses, with the possible exception when I was flooded with posts you will see that I responded to the false charges brought up by you two.

Once again, not someone posting an answer that you do not like is not running away.

EDIT: And yes "qu" was supposed to be question. I was using a tablet and it often gives words that it "thinks" that one may use and one taps it to use it. Sometimes it does not register a tap. I missed that one. Thanks, I will fix it, but not to worry, my error was preserved in your post and in my response here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't be silly. One is either amazed or not amazed. One cannot be a bit amazed.

Once again you are being overly literal. You would be hard pressed to prove that there is only one level of amazement.

I can see it now: "No, you are not amazed, you are only astonished." and "Oh great! Now you over did it. You are not amazed you are flabbergasted. "