₦airaland Forum

@otuwe,

otuwe:
i have to stop here.
but when the time comes and you're seeing your body beside u, just remember u have been told but u chose not to believe. alot of people have become earthbound because they didnt believe there was life after death.

I don't remember arguing against the survival of the soul beyond death. Infact, in quoting Rev. 6:9, that was the case I wanted to point out.

My point is: the soul does not cease to exist beyond death; and the subsequent posts were made to further explain what happens to man after death.

otuwe:
well we have alot to learn. I pray for the Grace and Strenght from the Almighty to understand creation aright and live accordingly.

Cheers.

@otuwe,

If you carefully read me, I'm not one who goes out trying to criticize people, whether or not I agree with them. You simply don't come on board and make statements like this:

otuwe:
why arepeople so eager to blame the devil for everything.
- - -
so i don't want to hear anything like its the devils fault here.

Now that you've tried to explain your input, I may let the matter rest. But then, there are people who are actually seeking answers who need to understand issues; rather than such off-handed statements.

@Kuns,

Again, another deliberate misadventure that beggars your IQ. If "denominations" is a phonetically re-engineered word for "demonisations", I ran the same matrix that your masters use for your name. Guess what the matrix came up with? Here:

Kuns [ph. reconst. = ] 'coons'
coons - n. meaning: extremely offensive name for a Black person;
an eccentric or undignified rustic.
by extn: Procyon lotor [common name for North American raccoon]

I also tried to run the same matrix for my username bari_kade. I won't tell you what racist bombastic extensions it returned.

Ol' boy, cool down. I know where you and Horus are getting this stuff from; and I can assure you that they have poisoned mind. You doubt me? Just simply type in your sister's name and see what the matrix will give you! And don't pretend you don't know what matrix they're using - if you really don't, it'd be a big shame that you're slaving on their racist idiosyncracies and you don't even have a clue!

Hi @jokepearl,

jokepearl:
the body we wear after we resurrect is different from the one we re weariing now.
Please explain.

Let's look at it this way:

(a) Jesus was raised in His own Body - the very same Body that was crucified:

   John 20: (25) The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord.
   But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put
   my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

   (26)  And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them:
   then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
   (27) Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach
   hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.


(b) The resurrected Body of the Lord Jesus Christ was a glorified one:

   1 Cor. 15: (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption;
   it is raised in incorruption: (43)  It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory:
   it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

   (44)  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
   There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.


(c) What happened to the natural Body of the Lord Jesus at Resurrection?

First, His Body did not experience corruption (decay) -- Acts 2:31:: 'He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.'

Second, His natural body was transformed/changed into a glorified (spiritual) body, which is not subject to the experiences of the weaknesses before He went to the Cross. That is why we read His glorious statement:

   Rev. 1:18 - I am he that liveth, and was dead; and,
   behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the
   keys of hell and of death.

   Romans 6:9 - "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more;
   death hath no more dominion over him."

   2 Cor. 13:4 - "For though he was crucified through weakness,
   yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him,
   but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.


(d) Now, after all this, what will the body of the Christian  be like?

Our bodies shall be changed (of fashioned/transformed) to be like His own; so that we shall have the very same glorious experience of His resurrection life - free from the weaknesses of our present bodies:

    Luke 20:36 - "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels;
    and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

    Isa. 25:8 - "He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears
    from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth:
   for the LORD hath spoken it."

    I Cor. 15:42 - "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption;
    it is raised in incorruption."

    Phil. 3:21 - "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto
    his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue
   all things unto himself.

   Rev. 20:6 - "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:
   on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God
   and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

   Rev. 21:4 - "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be
   no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain:
   for the former things are passed away."

And lastly, Romans 8: "(18) For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (23) And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

I hope this outline is helpful.

Regards.

@Dru,

Thanks again. Cheers.

@otuwe,

otuwe:
why do we read the bible as if we are reading a novel of some sort.

I don't count as such.

otuwe:
first lets understand, the bible we see today is not the complete bible we should know. alot was removed and alot was added.

Again, I don't pander to such propagandist theories. Please elucidate what were "added" and what was "removed" as far as "Scripture" is concerned.

otuwe:
when u die and u still have some stains on u keeping u from ascending, u come back on earth to redeem yourself of that guilt before u can make it back home. when your appointed time comes (for your spirit now not the physical body) there is no more grace of another earthlife, u go to where is homogenious to your nature cud be paradise or what u call hell ie the nether regions.

- - - and it is the spirit that will be judged not the rotten body ok.

My questions are these:

(a) if someone has to come back to redeem himself for a guilt that prevented their ascending, why then would that same person find later at the appointed time that there is no more grace of another earthlife?

(b) talk about redeeming oneself from such "guilty stains", it is amazing that for all of that some of those people will still have to end up in hell; or yet still find that such person will have to be judged again.

You see, otuwe, in order to circumvent the core issues of this very involved subject, some people will pretentiously sound 'Christian'; but their ideas reveal that they're far from being 'Christian' in substance. I raise this concern in hope that you'd have to help your readers know exactly where you stand.

Don't just "sound" it; BE ONE!

otuwe:
ok lets assume there was nothing like reincarnation and that everybody came once. then how do u think our fore fathers who never knew anything like God or the early men (primitive cave men) who didnt even have a language would be judged.

You've asked this question before; and a few persons have recommended you please go read Romans 2. There are precise answers to this question; and one shouldn't have to belabour the point.

otuwe:
just understand that there has been series of development since creation.

What series of development are you talking about?

otuwe:
one advice: lets understand the bible with our spirit. because one line in the bible can write a whole book. the bible is coded and its only the intuition that can decode it and not our physical brain.

To try and understand the Bible with our spirit without the revelation and illumination of the Holy Spirit is a futile exercise which will lead to even more darkness. To hunger for Biblical truth and yet distrust the Bible is not going to take anyone any closer to God's revealed will declared in Scripture.

otuwe:
just a tip about reincarnation: when the desciples were asking Christ if he was Elijah and all sort, what do u think was happening there. if there was nothing like reincarnation don't u think Christ would have told them DAT doesnt exist.

In that very scripture (Matt. 17:10-13), there is nothing to suggest at all that Christ made a case in support of reincarnation. As was characteristic of His teaching, He wastes no time trying to argue every idea endless. Rather, He simply spoke the Word in such a way as to lead men to timeless truth.

I've tried to outline this earlier in one of my rejoinder's to Aproko on who the Son of Man was. In John 12:34-35, another example is given us where Jesus never sought to answer the Jews directly as to their question. Why? He had already made the point clear to them time and again; but they wouldn't take His answers for it.

The Bible is clear - once a person dies, he or she awaits the resurrection when the Judgement will take place. Only then shall every man have his praise from God (1 Cor. 4:5).

@otuwe,

otuwe:
a pastor has accused someone i know of being "evil" just because she was not shouting and stamping her feet in the church.

I don't think a pastor's over-reactions should be taken as standard practice among others. However, there are some answers in the Bible to other questions you have raised - which should help us all appreciate the blessing God has given to believers who may not be in our small denominations.


@Drusilla,

Drusilla:
Then starts talking to satan "Satan, take your hands off sister so and so", etc,etc.

If you are talking to God, praying, then why do you begin to pray to satan in the middle of your prayer?

I've also had to wonder about that as well. I think from what I've seen so far, prayer is a communication from man towards God alone. To even speak to Satan, in my humble opinion, is not prayer.

One may speak to bind and cast the enemy; but to address such speak to the devil while praying is not something that Scripture encourages.

Hi Analytical,

Great to see you "enticed" to log on!    Quite unfair, though, that you did so when I'm almost going into hybernation until holidays from school. Anyhow, I'll still pop in and out between times.



@TV01,

I'll acquiesce to Analytical's response to yours on both I Thes. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12. Perhaps later, I'd be making a bit of detailed outlines on some of the distinctions I see in other texts.

Cheers.

@otuwe,

otuwe:
so i don't want to hear anything like its the devils fault here. if u live against the laws (will) of the Almighty then u have sinned against the Holy Spirit whether its the Devil that Made u do it or not

If you're not willing to hear anything, even where you are greatly mistaken, then perhaps your points are not worth reading. Having a teachable spirit is one of the virtues of someone being led by the Holy Spirit.

If the devil influences people to live, say and do things contrary to the Lord, then by all means the devil should clearly be named as the culprit and thus defeated by the revealed truth of God's Word.

One thing the devil really loves is to hear people trying to parry with him and deflect their minds to something or someone other than himself (and this is what actually empowers him to wreck havoc in the minds of people). He hates truth; and when you tell the truth, his authority to deceive is weakened and defeated.

Cheers.



@Drusilla, thanks for that response.

otuwe:
except you're saying the spirit would come back from heaven and enter the body for judgement

Remember how this was actually described for us in picturesque language in Ezekiel's prophecy. Let's quote the passage from where God asked the prophet a salient question:

Ezek. 37: (2) And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many
in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry.

(3) And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD,
thou knowest. (4) Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them,
O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. (5) Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones;
Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: (6) And I will lay sinews upon you,
and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live;
and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

(7) So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold
a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. (8 ) And when I beheld, lo, the sinews
and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath
in them.

(9) Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind,
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain,
that they may live. (10) So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them,
and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

@otuwe,

As a Christian, it would be of great help to settle your thoughts on Scripture rather than mere humanistic reasoning. Even with that, there are a few issues that are of concern to me in the ideas you've tried to put across. A 5 year-old may not know the deep things revealed in the Word until he/she is mature enough to see what is being said there.

otuwe:
do u think the body can exist without the spirit, i don't because i know once the spirit has severed from the body, the body decomposes and turns to sand

You've both asked a question and answered it in contradictory terms. First, you don't believe that "the body can exist without the spirit"; but yet you speak of the spirit being "severed from the body"!

True, the body without the spirit is a corpse that soon decomposes:

Eccl. 3:20 - 'All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.'

Eccl. 12:7 - 'Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall
return unto God who gave it.'

However, the Bible speaks of death as "the body without the spirit" (James 2:26 - 'For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.'). So, yes - it is possible that the body can exist without the spirit; and by which term it speak sof death.

otuwe:
except you're saying the spirit would come back from heaven and enter the body for judgement

Scripture clearly speaks of the dead being raised from the dead (John 12:1). What this means is that the spirit enters the body again, as we read in the following texts:

Luke 8: (54) 'And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.
(55) And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.

1 Kings 17 (22) 'And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah;
and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.


On Judgement Day, people will stand before the Great White Throne to receive their judgement in their bodies:

2 Cor. 5: (10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive
the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Rev. 20: (11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth
and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. (12) And I saw the dead,
small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened,
which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in
the books, according to their works.


Yes, indeed - for man to be raised from the dead, the spirit has to enter the body again. However, there is a distinction between the resurrection of the just and that of the wicked:

Dan. 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Luke 14: (14)And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee:
for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life;
and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Acts 24:15 'And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow,
that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.'


Those who stand to be judged will receive their judgement while in their bodies; but they shall not be given to enjoy the blessing of glorified bodies reserved alone for believers who walked with the Lord Jesus.

1 Cor. 15: (51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Php. 3: (20) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour,
the Lord Jesus Christ: (21) Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like
unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all
things unto himself.

otuwe:
this physical body is just a cloke for the spirit to be able to operate here. its like u putting on a shirt over your body the real u is not the shirt right so also the real u is not the physical body but the spirit and it is the spirit that will be judged not the rotten body ok.

I think it is not too much to ask for a teachable spirit - it goes a very long way to determine how much we're willing to receive from God's Word.

Yet, man will be judged not merely in spirit; but as Scripture declares, that judgement will be served to man that he may receive for what he has done in the body. The body of those who stand to be judged will not be changed to be glorified as those which believers will enjoy.

Hi TV01,

TV01:
Tha'ts pretty much where I am on this. I don't actually think a "Soul" exists seperate from the union of Body & Spirit.

May I ask this question: what do you understand by the distinct mention of all three entities of man in I Thes. 5:23 - "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

@Aproko,

Aproko:
so i'm convinced that when jesus refers to the son of man, he is referring to someone else e.g when the son of man will come, would he find faith on the earth, the list is endless.

Another very good question. In reference to what you've stated about the Son of Man, we just have to look into Scripture to be sure who is meant by that appellation; and we can rest our hearts by gathering our answers from the Word.

The Jews who heard Jesus preach actually asked the question: "who is this Son of man?" (John 12:32). It is amazing that they would still have to ask this question after the Lord Jesus had spoken in clear terms concerning Himself. Let's see a few of these:

John 3: (14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man be lifted up
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have eternal life.

John 8: (28) Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man,
then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself;
but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Are we anymore in doubt as to whom Jesus referred to as the Son of Man? So, you may perhaps understand my amazement as to how the Jews would have again had to ask Him whom He meant. let me quote the passage where that question appears; and then you see how the Lord Jesus did not even bother to repeat His answers to them:

John 12: (32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
(33) This he said, signifying what death he should die. (34) The people
answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever:
and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

It is clear that the Son of man actually is the Lord Jesus Christ; but the Jews themselves would not be satisfied with His answers; so He did not even bother to repeat Himself to them in the subsequent verses.

Othe passages where this point is made may be cited:

Matt. 16: (13) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi,
he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
(16)  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matt. 12: (40) For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;
so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Mark 10: (45) For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many.

We need to ask ourselves the salient question: are all those verses speaking about or pointing to the Holy Spirit? If no, then of whom was the Lord Jesus speaking?

Aproko:
and i'm so relieved you are not one of thsoe that think God was actually cricified too.

In a technical sense, I'm not one of those.

Regards. 

I really appreciate the views expressed so far - they're adding to my understanding of how people see things.

Cheers.

2 Cor. 9:7 - 'Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.'

Now, what does it mean to read that someone should give as he/she purposes in heart?

(a) a certain believer makes a commitment to give a certain sum - that is what he/she had purposed in his heart to give; and he does it cheerfully.

(b) it doesn't have to be so acutely calculated (not of necessity); and here is where I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that tithes always have to be 10%.

(c) give freely of whatever you are led to give; and praise God in it.

@Aproko,

I continue to enjoy the challenging questions you offer - they help me think and re-think my persuasions on this issue. But I couldn't find a verse for segebee's quote, though. lol.

Aproko:
i think you are missing some of the connecting dots here. if "justice and divine judgment come directly from the father, who commits al these unto the son, and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the son of man"[/b]i think what you are trying to tell me here is that the son of man has been giving the authority to carry out justice, [b]thus the son of man (which i have come to realise is the holy spirit) is indeed saddled with the responsibility of judgment and justice!!

I would have agreed that my connections were wrongly linked if actually there was any verse in the Bible at all that makes the inference that the son of man was Holy Spirit. There's just no verse that makes that connection or inference.

Aproko:
so what then is the grave mistake if we seem to be saying the same thing?only you have pointed out the bible verses (am so proud of you for fishing out these bible verses )

Lol, please don't yet be proud of me - I'm still learning; and so many people on the Forum are far more erudite than me.  

Aproko:
the concept of the trinity is a whole new topic on its own. but then this leads me to some questions of my own.

That's true - maybe one day we might get to discuss the Trinity as well.

Aproko:
claiming that the trinity is inseparable and that a part of the trinity cannot play a particular role is like saying the Almighty God and the Holy Spirit were crucified on the cross of calvary along with Jesus Christ, after all they cannot be separated. is that what you are trying to say? that God the father and Holy Spirit walked the earth at the same time? i need clarity on that one.

That is not the picture I was presenting. Let's look at it this way:

(a) That the Father and the Son are inseparable is how I have come to understand the references to the divine relationship in the Godhead; such as what we read of the Lord's own words in John 8:29 --

    "And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone;
    for I do always those things that please him."

(b) That the Father and the Son are distinct is how I've come to understand the fact that the Father is not the Son; nor are either to be confused for the Spirit. It was the Son that was sent (John 8:29); it was the Son as well who suffered on the Cross (Luke 23:46).

(c) That the only time that the Father forsook the Son was when He (Jesus) bore our sin on the Cross (Matt. 27:46). This expressly forbids the idea that the father went to the Cross.

(d) That even at death, this inseparable relationship between the Father and the Son remained unbroken can be understood from the Son's last words to the Father:

      Luke 23:46 - 'And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
                            Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit:
                            and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.'

Further to this, I understand from Acts 2:27 that the Father would not leave the Son (though it should not therefore be supposed that both the Son and the Father went to the lower regions):

      Act 2:27 - 'Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,
      neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.'

I hope these would be helpful to clarify the point I tried to make earlier?


But someone might ask: where is the Holy Spirit in this divine relationship when the Son went to the Cross for our Redemption?

Just one verse might help us see this for now:  "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:14).

There - through the Spirit, the Son offered Himself spotless unto the Father for our sakes.

Regards.

Good then. If you guys want to enslave yourselves to Saturday, no problem at all. My one simple request is this: do so in exactly as the LAW prescribes. Failing to do so is directly disobeying what that LAW says.

Hi mellow,

Don't enslave yourself to any day - look rather to the Lord Jesus Christ who is our true Rest.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
AS I have repeatedly said trying to pin SDAs to sabbath stipulations in the way they were meant for a particular experience during the Hebrews sojourn in the wilderness for 40 years, goes contrary to what Jesus said in His teaching of true sabbath observance. You have failed in your attempt to reconcile that reality.

I'm really sorry for you, because this again is another silly joke that only weakens your position on this very topic. The Sabbath Law was not meant as a 40-year wilderness experience - please open the Word of God and read it for yourself.

When you make reference to the true sabbath, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is not a question of the observance of any day; but simply a matter of rest for the soul. If you fail to grasp that reality, you will continue to make the huge mistakes you've made that informed my previous detailed response. For Christians, EVERYDAY is holy - and every single day they find their rest in the Lord Jesus Christ alone.

Bobbyaf:
Obviously when the command says "no work" you have taken that to include work in all its forms, What a joke! You're worse than the pharasees maaaan!

Thanks, and I don't mind any more of your slobbers. The Bible did not say some form of work was excusable such that you may earn money for your pocket or get paid salaries on sabbath-day labour. It simply says: "in it thou shalt not do any work" (EXODUS 20:10)!

In the Lord Jesus Christ, we find our true rest - and that is what I've been sounding out all along. Since you want to yoke yourself by the 4th commandment in Exodus 20, you will just have to obey what it says according to its prescriptions. There are no excuses for what the SDA teaches on that subject.

@HorusKuns,

HorusKuns:

If you notice the title priest of God Most High , up to this time Abram was serving the wrong God.

We notice that up until this time your efforts to be deliberately dubious haven't caught on your expected public ovation. Melchizedek himself said this:

     'And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God,
     possessor of heaven and earth' (Gen. 14:19)

And again, it is said:

     'And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath
     not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way,
     the LORD led me to the house of my master's brethren. (Gen. 24:27)

By trying so hard to be dubious with the clear declarations of Scripture and cheating on language misadventures and wrong inferences, your labours will continue to be exercises in futility. No vex, but it doesn't take a Harvard education to see through your facade.

magneto:
afterall our Lord Jesus said, "if u do this for the least of my brethren, u do also for me. . ." (don't know which verse of scripture)

Matt. 25:40 -- And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

It all depends on the circumstances upon which the vow was made. However, it shouldn't have to be a rigid exercise of pledging to God. There's a difference between giving to the poor; and administreing to the saints.

Yet, as along as there's a willing heart to do anything for His glory and the honour of the name of His Son Jesus Christ, He is well-pleased.

Cheers.

TV01:
I know, I know, totally off-point and off-topic, bit surely you meant "Shift"?

HAHAHAHA!!

@stimulus, please, please. . . abeg come explain O! This is more than a sacrifice in the uncomfortable zone!!

Beautiful.

I'd need to gather my points again to make a concise input as you've done. Well done!

Cough!  

Seun:
Even if there are some bad girls in church, the fact remains that all the good girls can be found in church!

I don't know if that's a fact. I know - I'm a Christian; but some of us may not agree with that inference. Ask acidrop:

acidrop:
all, no way man, u should rethink that. ino this chick, although she is like a housegirl, she is very good, but yet not allowed 2 attend church or go out, what can u say bout that

I wonder what the chick would have done if she had her way and was allowed to do as she pleased!  


Meanwhile, the qualities of "good" or "bad" are relative. Cough again! What a man considers as a "good babe" may also be another man's traditional no-go!

What criteria define the qualities "good"?

What defines "bad"?

I know one of my pallies who refers to his wife as 'bad' girl! No kidding. They've been married now for about two years; and whenever he calls her on phone, he'd always say, "Hey bad girl, whatcha up to now!" And after the tete-a-tete, he'd close with: "Hey, be bad to me when I get home. . . I mean, be reeeaallyy mean to me!" And he'd giggle.

Now, now. . . guys, please don't ask me what he means; all I know is, that is his way of expressing love wantinti with his woman!  

Okay, seriously: what define "good" or "bad" for y'all??

Spirit, Soul and Body - What's The Difference?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-59218.32.html#msg1213595

I'm taking the humble pleasure of responding to the call for a new thread to be opened for discussions on the above topic.

Scholars, observers, critics, applauders - welcome. 

@lafile,

lafile:
I think someone should open a thread on the Spirit/Soul/Body 'trichotomy'. Would really like to understand more. I've Always held bari_kade's view but Bobbyaf is making some sense.
Oya, somebody start. _{bari_kade?}

I agree also that Bobbyaf made some sense in his input; but as ricadelide said:

ricadelide:
@lafile,
i agree a new thread on this topic be opened up; perhaps you could do so, it will make for interesting discussions.

There. I concur. See it here:

Spirit, Soul and Body - What's The Difference?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-60507.0.html#msg1213924

Finally @Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
We know as SDAs that the situation isn't all that perfect in this world. What God had intended for the sabbath and humans is no longer idealistic, becaue of sin, but nonetheless realistic.

When has sin ever been absent from the history of man after the Fall in Gen. 3 so that you're now magnifying your exculpations above with the idea that what God intended is no longer idealistic?

Bobbyaf:
Sin has wrought changes and has thwarted God's plan temporarily. While we live under God's permissive will, we must do what we are able to do given the set of circumstances. If we do the best we can do then God will make up for the rest, bu tit doesn't mean we should neglect God's divine commands.

Did you read what you wrote before posting? When has God ever tried to "make up for the rest" of what the Israelites could not do? And how does the sabbath Law translate into an idea that brings it to the level of God's permissive will?

Bobbyaf:
Thats why Jesus was faced with the same problems in His time. The same jewish leaders attempted to make the sabbath look burdensome with rules after rules, most of which, if not all, were traditional.

First, Jesus faced no such problems in His time, because the Law had not changed as stipulated in the covenant of the OT. The Jewish leaders may have attempted to make the sabbath look burdensome; yet in correcting their misconceptions, not in any instance did Jesus try to make excuses with another set of rules that contravened the sabbath law. It had nothing to do with the "traditions" of the Jews (which we do not find written in the Law of the Sabbath); but it had everything to do with the Law as stated when revealed unto Moses.

Bobbyaf:
I don't think calling people from babylon is wrong because God has called His church to do exactly that. Those in the SDA church and those in babylon are all God's children just the same, and God doesn't love SDAs more than they, nor are we better by virtue of what we believe either. You can't knock SDAs for doing what God has commanded. As the remnant we continue what the apostles started. God has raised up the SDA church with a unique message fo rthis time, and that is to be ready and to prepare others for the judgement hour thats presntly taking place.

Trying to cover up for your accusation against other Christians is not going to wash with the facts of your sad pretext. Christians in other denominations are not "babylon"; and to have tried to make it appear so simply because they worship on Sunday and are not members of your own denomination is a direct accusations that is characteristic with the cults.

Bobbyaf:
In the mean time we must warn the world of the anti-Christ which has already established itself, and will soon bring upon this world its mark. We know God's mark or seal to be the sabbath, and we also know the mark of the beast to be Sunday which will be enforced into law sooner than you think. Thats why God says: "Come out of her my people" speaking of babylon or religious confusion.

First, the SDA has serious problems with his religious history. Second, the same SDA has its religious confusion. If it is easy for the SDA to surreptitously accuse others, they should look at their own gangrene first before arrogating to themselves a position that God has not given them.

Further, while you're confusing what exactly is the "mark or seal", here's what the Bible teaches:

(a) under the OT, circumcision was the seal:

Rom. 4:11 -- 'And he received the sign of circumcision,
a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had
yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of
all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.'


(b) in the NT, the Holy Spirit Himself is the seal:

Eph. 1:13 -- 'In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard
the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also
after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit
of promise.'

Eph. 4:30 -- 'And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby
ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.'

There is no place in the Bible where I've come across your inference; and to have supposed such where there's none is a classic example of cultic ideologies. Such cults deem it their brithright to accuse others while they often unwittingly expose their fallacious doctrines in direct contrast to what is revealed in Scripture. I do hope for your sake that you'd reconsider your rigid spirit to readily accuse others when infact your grounds are questionable.

Bobbyaf:
We are not pretending to see ourselves as such, we are the renmnant.

No problem; but making such noise while accusing others does not really mean the SDA is correct in that inference.

Bobbyaf:
We don't need to since there is nothing to show, but if it makes you feel good holding on to those archaic sabbath stipulations, then fine suit yourself. Its funny how you're not harping about those stipulations that were appended to adultery, or any other sins that were punishable by death. How come you're not crying out for those who commit adultery to be stoned to death as well? How come you're not crying out for the death of homosexuals based on the Mosaic stipulations concerning any sexual deviances?

The one thing I've sought to debate here with you is the Sabbath Law - the 4th commandment of the Mosaic Law; and not rather the whole Decalogue - the 10 Comamndments. The issue here is the meaning of the Sabbath, rather than the meaning of adultery or homesexuality.

Should you be interested in debating the other 9 Commandments, please be my guest; as I've never had any problem with any one of them in their exact and precise application.

My premise has been just this: the Sabbath Law was not made for Christians - for we find our true rest in the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and not in the observance of any day.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Why were there stipulations you have never addressed.

As for the stipulations, how many times did I ask YOU to outline them in the debate in the other thread where you always evaded that very question? I have again and again addressed it in length in the other thread; so once again, please try not pretending you don't remember having read them - unless you deliberately want readers to see how cheaply you often make these pretences. Here is a link to remind you:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-34371.160.html#msg873270

The reason why you find the stipulations in the Law is so that everyone understood both WHAT the Law stated and HOW they were to keep the Law. Even from the very first mention of the sabbath, stipulations/prescriptions were given as to both what it meant and how the recipients were to observe it: to gather a certain rate everyday, and on the sixth day to prepare that which they bring in (Exo. 16:4 & 5; see also vs. 23, 27, 29 & 30).

Infact, when you read the OT to see how God gave the Law unto the Israelites, you'll find that He wanted them to both know what He said and also understand how they were to keep His commandments. It was not by coincidence that Moses' father-in-law said, "And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do" (Exo. 18:20). The same principle was reiterated when Moses declared the Law unto Israel:

Deut. 4: (5) Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments,
even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do
so in the land whither ye go to possess it. (6) Keep therefore and
do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the
sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say,
Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

Deut. 6: (1) Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the
judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that
ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it: (2) That thou
mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his
commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's
son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.

It was not merely that the Law was given; but even more importantly, it was meant to be taught - so that everyone would understand exactly what was required of them.

Bobbyaf:
YOur attempt to tie SDAs into sabbath stipulations in the exact way it was given then is once again nothing short of frivolity and blindness on your part. You're making a mockery out of God's words.

My posts are not mocking God's word if you're making excuses to break His Law in order to do the very same thing that the Law expressly forbids! As regards the seventh-day, the Law said: "in it thou shalt not do any work (Exo. 20:10)! You take your sabbath law from EXODUS, not so? Then you are bound to follow that law as found in the very same EXODUS! Failing to do so is indeed blindness of a wicked sort on your part that pretends to preach the same Law while excusing its prescriptions.

Bobbyaf:
I pity your ability to read and understand plain English. I never said God's law was archaic. That was meant for the stipulations that seems to have lodged in your cranium somewhere.

Thanks for your slobber once again; but it doesn't make you the wiser in English. If you're not reading issues with crossed-eyes, please see another quote where you openly traipsed this same irreverence upon God's Word:

Bobbyaf:
We don't need to since there is nothing to show, but if it makes you feel good holding on to those archaic sabbath stipulations, then fine suit yourself

See? Calling God's Word "those archaic sabbath stipulations" shows what you are in heart and soul, whether or not it was a SDA device to make you feel better for your exculpations.

Bobbyaf:
Who is talking about excuses? I am referring to what Jesus said about doing good on the sabbath. Its you who keep harping on how SDAs break the sabbath law when they open their hospitals to help the sick. Its you who keep harping, however in vain, how SDA medical professionals work and collect pay on the sabbath so as to show how hypocritical we are.

Indeed, Jesus spoke about 'doing good'; but He made no excuses for working and getting paid salaries for SDAs on the sabbath day, professional or not. You can still do good to sick folks without getting paid salaries for work done on those sabbath days; and arguing vainly for your exculpations does not overrule God's Word.

Or else, why do you think that Jesus was angry at the practice of commerce in the Temple (Matt. 21:12-14)? Carrying out Temple service/work was no problem; but getting paid salaries in the name of such work is antithetical to the revealed truth concerning such service. Infact, when you read vs. 14 you find that "the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple; and He healed them." My question is, where did He ask for salaries for the healing He gave to those sick folks? As long as you continue to be irreverent against the same Law that you preach but hypocritically excuse for your salaries, I'll also keep reminding you of what the Law precisely says.

Bobbyaf:
The point is firefighters, and emergency workers, and others are all paid anyway whether or not they choose to do good on the sabbath. Let us use the case of a firefighters for example. If a one such worker recieved a call while in a church service, such a member would not have to think twice about responding to such calls, because the SDA church has already made it clear what the requirements are concerning emergency workers.

Two things here:

(a) fire fighters who want to keep the sabbath law can still do good by not taking paid salaries for the work they do on such days when responding to such calls. Remember there are six days on which to work, and the Law does not state an excuse for emergent cases; infact, it is directly antithetical to such excuses.

(b) the fact of not being able to practically and simultaneously keep the sabbath and work shows why in Jesus Christ we have our perfect rest for the soul; and not the observance of a particular day!

I've always made the point clear: the seventh-day sabbath law was not made for Christians; and anyone still wanting to go by the sabbath law will find it in Exodus, and is therefore bound to keep it according to its prescriptions in that Law. It was for this reason that the same Law states: "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day" (Exo. 35:3). This law was particularly in reference to the Jewish people; and not to the nations. There was only one manner of Law to all who were native Israelites and the stranger who sojourned among them (Lev. 24:22; Num. 15:16). Thus, if the sabbath Law applied unto Israel in their geographical boundaries, the same law also applied beyond those geographical boundaries; for "it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings" (Lev. 23:3).

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
God asked Moses a simple question before the 10 commandments were given on Mount Sinai, and this was the question:

Exudus 16:28 "And the LORD said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?"

What do you gather from that Bari_kade? Its very simple. God's law is eternal and its principles are not confined to a written code. Although the bible doesn't highlight in a very specific way that the sabbath was known and kept by God's people, there is room to believe it was, based on what other passages have said about the law and the sabbath. Why else would God even speak about "how long refuse ye to keep my laws" if as you are suggesting God had introduced right there and then a sababth law? I am more inclined to think that that phrase suggests that Israel had a long history of not practising God's requirements. They were so steep in Egyptian practises that they had forgotten about their forefather's covenants, and the age-old sabbath law.

Again, you have reharshed another issue we have both discussed earlier in the other thread. Do you really have anything new to say, or you just simply want to pretend that you don't remember the earlier debate? Please go to this link and read my answers there to your fallacies this same allegation you often make that israel was "steep(ed) in Egyptian practices" --

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-34371.160.html#msg871818

You keep making the mistake of thinking that the Sabbath Law was revealed before the children of Israel left Egypt. Your inference is wrong, because it is clear from other texts that the LORD did not reveal this Law to any other people until He did so at Horeb unto Israel(Deut. 5:2-3). If they were so steeped in Egyptian practices, they would not in any way have been calling upon the LORD, regardless of the hard times they faced while they were still there (see Exo. 2:23-24 & 3:7).

When you read Scripture, don't be carried off merely by your thoughts that anywhere you see the words "laws" and "covenants", then they must suggest the "10 commandments". That is why you continue to make these colossal mistakes. Now let's read God's response to their groanings in Exodus 2:24 - "And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob."

The question is, what "covenant" did God make with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? It certainly does not mean the same covenant that God made specifically with Israel in mount Horeb - and that is what Deut. 5:2-3 clearly enunciates: "The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day."

Secondly, turning to Gen. 15:14 & 18, we read of God's covenant with Abraham: "And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. . .In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates." You need to understand that this "covenant" which God made unto Abraham, was also reiterated unto Isaac (Gen. 26:4), and unto Jacob (Gen. 28:13 & 14).

Not only so, but God also confirmed the same "covenant" as a LAW unto Abraham's progeny:

Psalm 105: (8 ) He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded
to a thousand generations. (9) Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath
unto Isaac; (10) And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an
everlasting covenant: (11) Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of
your inheritance: (12) When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few,
and strangers in it.

The point of all this is pivotal; and that is, God did not state anywhere that He gave the 10 Commandments unto Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. The fact of Deuteronomy 5:3 cannot be over-emphasized or gainsaid on this point. To make the claim that Abraham already knew the 10 Commandments/Law is to deny the clear statements of Scripture and continue to propound the flawed theories you have been offering over and over again! Scripture is very clear: whenever you subscribe to an idea, if you have no verses clearly stating your arguments, then your position continues to be weakened and untenable.

Bobbyaf:
By the way please don't tell me that they called upon God because of their faithfulness. They only did so because their backs were against the wall. Listen to God's words as it describes the over all situation with the Hebrews:

Only two of the thousands of Israelites who left Egypt followed God fully and were able to enter the promised land of Canaan. Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt , shall see the land , because they have not wholly followed me: Save Caleb , and Joshua , for they have wholly followed the Lord." Numbers 32:11, 12.

I really don't see the sense you're trying to make here. Caleb and Joshua recorded in Numbers 32:11, 12 do not tell us what exactly happened to Israel in Egypt; nor do we read in those verses at all that Israel was "steeped in Egyptian ways" as a result of which they forgot the Sabbath Law! You're fond of accussing people of what you do not read; and that is not a virtue!

The people cried unto God by reason of their burdens; and God both heard them and "remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob", as explained above - Exo. 2:24; Gen. 15:14 & 18. We are not told that Israel had the 10 Commandments revealed to them prior to their leaving Egypt; and infact, we have seen that only to Israel did God give the covenant in Horeb which entails the decalogue (10 Comamndments) - Deut. 5:3.

Bobbyaf:
Note the difference! God's law says "remember the sabbath" , but Moses stipulates how the sabbath should be kept based on the circumstances at the time under which the people found themselves.

Sorry, but both the Law and the stipulations were directly given by God Himself! The injunction in that Law says: "in it thou shalt not do any work (Exo. 20:10)! Going to work to get paid salaries while stating that your medical professionals work "like any other persons" is to directly flout the sabbath Law in Exodus!

Bobbyaf:
Israel's spiritual maturity was no where near where God had wanted it to be. They were a rebellious set of people who had grown accustomed to the ways of their Egyptian counterparts, and needed strict stipulations as to proper sabbath observance, until they could operate by faith. Ever wondered why Paul said they missed that rest? Wasn't it because of unbelief?

Their unbelief was not based on their having been in Egypt! You can live anywhere in the world and still express unbelief in God's Word, if that is why you can't cure yourself of this fallacious accusation against Israel.

Second, you must have such a rigid spirit to think that God would give a set of Laws to Israel when their spiritual maturity was no where near where God had wanted it to be"! Abraham was in Egypt, but he did not express unbelief, even though the Law of 10 commandments was not revealed to him (Gen. 12:10). God also covenanted with Abraham that his seed would go into Egypt and be servants there until the appointed time (Gen. 15:14). All through their sojourn in Egypt, they knew the LORD and nowhere is it said that they were "steeped" in Egyptian idolatory or worshipped some other deity.

Fact is that in lifestyle, beliefs, customs and persuasions, the Israelites while still in Egypt were very distinct from the Egyptians. First, the Israelite midwives refused to obey the murderous policy of Pharaoh - a fact of great faith in God (Exo. 1:17 & 21). Second, the simple nomadic occupation of the Israelites was an abomination to the Egyptians (Gen. 46:34; Exo. 8:26). Third, the Jews would have had no difficulty at all knowing who had sent Moses; for it was the very same God that they had been calling upon until He sent his servant Moses unto them (Exo.3:18 ).

The idea that Israel must have been steeped in Egyptian ways in order to have forgotten the Sabbath is a cheap interjection that ignores the facts in order to launch unbridled accusations against them for a sabbath law that you cannot find in Egypt.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
The problem you're forever faced with is being able to not confess that Adam was the progenitor of mankind, and has to be apart of that over all plan that God intended for humans to experience through keeping a sanctified day in order to celebrate His creation. That is exactly what the sabbath commandment entails. It gives us a reason as to why we should remember to keep it, and that reason is, God is Creator of heaven and earth.

I'm asking the same question again: are you not the same chap who said that the sabbath was not given as a commandment in Genesis? Why go back trying to confuse issues for yourself all over again? If the sabbath Law existed right from Genesis, please simply give me that verse where it says it was a commandment!

Besides, we've debated this issue before; and I gave you reasons why your argument here is critically flawed. Pretending to bring it up here again is weakening your position all the more; and i'll repost what I said in the other thread so you can withdraw your pretences:

Your research would have lead you to understand that the Lord Jesus in Mark 2:27
did not refer to Genesis at all, but rather to the Law of Moses as confirmed in
Matt. 12:5. You cannot use a Law that was enacted centuries later to imply anything
upon Adam who was never given such a Law.

That is why I again and again asked for such a "command" for Adam, and in all cases
as recently again, you confirmed that no such command exists! As long as you say
that no such command exists, then plainly Adam was not given such a command that
did not exist!

Source: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-34371.160.html#msg869146

You keep circling around issues that you have no answers to; and to force your own thoughts into Scripture is what is called eisegesis - the very thing that cultists do!! Instead of reharshing debates from other threads and pretending that they're new issues altogether, you could simply go back there read the points that expose your flaws.

Bobbyaf:
We are not pretending to uphold it, we are! You too need to uphold them likewise. I can assure no harm will befall you only good.

I am not a Jew; and to pretend to be one and then make excuses for your inability to keep that Law is a weak assumption to make.

Bobbyaf:
I notice you never once brought out anything positive in the Mosaic writings concerning the law,

I never stated that the Law was bad; so insinuating that I never said anything good about it is hilarious. My point has been consistent all along: if you want to keep the LAW found in Exodus, then you are bound to keep it according to its stipulations and no excuses will atone for dribbling round it.

Bobbyaf:
but here is a little something for you:

"And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes [commandments] , for our good always." Deuteronomy 6:24.

You see all along God gave them the law for their own good. If they were obedient they would have recieved the blessings, and if they failed to obey, and they had no reason not to, they would be punished. No one had a reason to disobey especially how they had been a witness to the great undisputable miracles that were wrought by the hands of their God.

Are you a Jew, Bobbyaf? Who are those being referred to as "US" in that verse? Before you come back slaving endlessly with another boring inference of a 'generic Adam', let me point out who were being referred to in that text by quoting it in its context:

Deut. 6: (20) And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying,
What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments,
which the LORD our God hath commanded you?

(21) Then thou shalt say unto thy son,
We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the LORD brought us out
of Egypt with a mighty hand: (22) And the LORD shewed signs and
wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his
household, before our eyes: (23) And he brought us out from thence,
that he might bring us in, to give us the land which he sware unto our fathers.

(24) And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD
our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.

(25) And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments
before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Notice two things, Bobbyaf. .  pay close attention:

(a) according to vs 21, before you can begin to count yourself as part of the "us" in that text,
you must be able to say: "WE were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt!"
Question: who among the SDAs can honestly make such a claim today
of having been Pharaoh's bondmen/women?

(b) secondly, and more importantly, vs 25 says that as a Jew the Law shall be your righteousness.
Question: do you take your righteousness from the LAW, Bobbyaf?

If you take your righteousness from the Law, then you would be confusing your Christian state and standing before God. Why? Because the whole argument in the NT simply tells us that NO ONE is justified or made righteous in God's sight by the Law! Sample a few of these:

Rom. 3: (20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified
      in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (21)  But now
      the righetousness of God without the law is manifested,
      being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
     (22) Even the righetousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ
     unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference
(28)  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Gal. 2: (16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law:
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

(21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law,
then Christ is dead in vain.

Gal. 5: (4) Christ is become of no effect unto you,
whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

1 Cor. 1: (30) But of him are ye in Christ Jesus,
who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness,
and sanctification, and redemption.

Php. 3: (6) Concerning zeal, persecuting the church;
touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. . .
(9) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law,
but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.


So, you can see that arguing for the righteousness of the Law from Deuteronomy 6 for the Christian is to confuse the clear teaching of the NT regarding true righteousness found in Jesus Christ Himself alone.

@Bobbyaf,

Apart from the fact that you've managed to reharsh the debate of the other thread into this one, you really haven't said anything fresh or concrete to address the core concerns raised here. After having read through your entire missive, it is amazing indeed that you continued to evade the core questions offered you (such as proffering verses for your exculpations to the Sabbath Law in order to excuse your working on the sabbath days to earn salaries, make money and get paid for such WORK - an utter violation of the same Law you pretend to keep).

My approach here will be somewhat different; in which case I intend to be detailed in my response in order to lead you back to Scripture and point out how and where you have continued to contradict issues for yourself.

Bobbyaf:
I see youre still hell bent on being technical and Pharasaical, huh? You are wasting your time trying to make SDAs look bad because we choose to do good on the sabbath. If we had closed our doors you'd be arguing how legalistic we are, right?

Stop pretending with this hooha about being 'technical'. Your excuses to make money on the sabbath day while calling others "babylon" is worse than pharasaical - it's sickening. I've asked for a single text from either the NT or OT as to where Jesus ever excused making money or getting paid for WORK done on the sabbath day; and you have given none up until now! If the SDA wants to feel bad for their rebelling against a Law that they preach but can't keep, they can continue to be double hell-bent on that; but neither you nor the head of the SDA cult can cheat anyone on what the Bible says on this subject.

Bobbyaf:
You're still confused about the law and its principles. You know that God's law was not in the written form from the beginning. It doesn't take a 6-year old to see that. As a surface reader of the bible you fail to see that the same principles of the 10 commandments as given to Moses on the mount, are the same ones that governed sin and morality in the times of the patriarchs. To make it easier for you let me show you the relationship between law and sin.

What are the "principles" of the LAW if you have been arguing against the STIPULATIONS of the same Law? Whether written or not, the Sabbath Law did not exist until God gave it to Moses in Exodus. That you want to take this back to Genesis is to contradict and further knot yourself, since you still haven't been able to find that LAW any earlier than in Exodus after all your arguments.

Bobbyaf:
Now Bar_kade you cannot go around the plain teachings of God's word. If the law defined sin in previous times it still defines sin in our time. In other words sin has no time barrier. All men from all dispensations were subject to the same shortfalls as us in this dispensation. As far as God is concerned time doesn't change the definition of sin, nor does time change the principles that are built into His laws.

Bobbyaf, if sin is to be judged by the same Law, then that same Law in Exodus clearly says that anyone found working on the Sabbath day must surely be put to death!! (Exo. 31:14 & 35:2) Since you cannot keep the Law that you preach (and you have said so yourself), why then all the noise for the excuses to keep working and making money for your pockets on the sabbath day?

WHERE DOES THE LAW ALLOW FOR SUCH EXCUSES??

Bobbyaf:
The attempt to argue as to whether God had a 10 commandment law back in the time of the patriarchs is pointless and fruitless.

If it is pointless and fruitless, then why has it been utterly difficult for you to show that same LAW any earlier than Exodus? Infact, 'pointless and fruitless' would mean that you simply have no case for your arguments since you're trying to apply a non-existent law to people who predated it.

Bobbyaf:
As I have explained not finding a distinct passage revealing the law does't prove that its principles did not apply to the patriarchs back then. You're not in any psition to gainsay that no matter how hard you try.

Neither are you in any position to pretend that the LAW existed any earlier than when God revealed it. If you feared God, you would not have referred to His Word as "ridiculous" or "archaic"!! To make excuses for why you cannot obey the clear stipulations of His LAW is actually to gainsay His Word; so your crying round Eccl. 12:13 heavily applies against you and none else.

Bobbyaf:
First and foremost the sabbath law is not a Mosaic law. It is God's law! It was God who wrote it with His own fingers and delivered it to Moses on Mount Sinai. The sabbath was given to man from the beginning based on what Jesus said in Mark 2:27, 27 And He said to them,“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

The case of Mark 2:27 has been well debated and you still have not answered the questions I left you in the other thread. The Sabbath LAW was not given to Adam or Eve; and we've debated this issue before in the other thread (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-34371.160.html#msg869146).

Further, you're making a grave mistake by straining at this issue of the 10 commandments being "God's law", as if the other laws and commandments did not originate from God as well. Time and again, Scripture shows that God gave all the commandments and laws that governed the religious life of His covenant people Israel; and not one Law or Commandment came from Moses without his first having received such from the LORD:

Deut. 4:5 - "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments,
even as the LORD my God commanded me,
that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it."

1 Kings 2:3 - "And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways,
to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments,
and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou
mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou
turnest thyself."

Ezra 7:6 - "This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe
in the law of Moses, which the LORD God of Israel had given:
and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand
of the LORD his God upon him.

Neh. 8:1 - "And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street
that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring
the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

The same 10 Commandments you're calling "God's Law" is also called "the Law of Moses":

Mal. 4:4 - "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him
in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

It was God Himself in Mal. 4:4 above Who referred to the 10 Commandments as "the law of Moses" which He commanded unto Israel in Horeb. Going back to Deuteronomy 5 where Moses reiterated the same 10 Commandments, this is what he said in verse 2: "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb"; and in the ensuing verses (6ff) he repeated the same Law (10 Commandments). So, your argument that this was not a Mosaic Law simply shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

@ricadelide,

Good recommendation. Bless.