₦airaland Forum

@topic,

This is quite interesting. Maybe I should add a few:

                    Anything you get by compromise might as well rule your life.

Don't fuss about the small matters of the day: there's so much else to give good heed to.

@goodguy,

Lol, don't be surprised that the few previous entries did not make mention of the verse you offered - which is good, because everyone has something that adds to the general body of knowledge.

I was looking at the topic concerns as well when I responded; and the question that popped in my mind was this: is the topic addressing men's long hair; or rather their weaving the hair?

Believe me, I've seen guys with short hair also weave theirs; not to even mention that they add the accessories: earrings, handkies (used as scarfs) and all.

All the same, I think the verse you called our attention to is quite germane to this topic (IMHO). Cheers.

Hi Kingly,

I trust you made some good points. However, just a few things to add:

kingly:
but my point here is that the sin against the holy spirit is when one deliberately denies his faith by renoucing his faith publicly.

Apostacy and blasphemy are not the same thing either. An apostate is one who renounces the faith after having prefessed it; and the verses dealing with apostacy indicate that apostates never truly knew the Lord, but only went along with the crowd.

Blasphemy, on the other hand, is deliberately vilify the Person or the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy is not merely ridicling the work of God; rather, it goes beyond that to actually attack the very Person of the Holy Spirit by calling Him an unclean spirit and all kinds of diabolic names. It was not because they doubted as to renouce the faith; rather it was specifically "because they said, He hath an unclean spirit" (Mark 3:30). So, we see that the blasphemy agint the Holy Spirit simply points to calling Him diabolic names and referring to HIM as a demon spirit!

It was only when the scribes made this pronouncements against the Spirit that the Lord Jesus Christ stated the obvious warning

kingly:
that's why the scripture said it is hard for one who has tested of the holy spirit and then goes back to his old self by looking back and leaving the christian faith that for such a one to be restored back to the faith it will take the grace of God i.e it will almost be impossible to be restored. this is not talking about backsliding.i hope i made some point here

Well, you will recall that a blasphemer against the Holy Ghost "hath never forgiveness", says Jesus (Mark 3:29). With a blasphemer, there is not the slightest possibility of a recovery - for the simple reason that such people deliberately pronounced the Holy Spirit for what He is NOT!

But what about apostates - is there any hope of perhaps a recovery? I believe so. The Bible says of such that, "they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will" (2 Tim. 2:26).

I hope this was helpful as well.

. . . don't forget to give us a glimpse when it's done. 

Oops! since we cannot show our faces on the threads (personal reasons), just let us know what celebrations ensue. 

     https://www.water-bongs-glass-pipes.com/ImgGalery/Dictionary/Rasta-Man-Dreadlocked.jpg

 This guy's got 'em hairs in abundance!

The fact she got pregnant before her wedding does not prove she's not a Christian; nor does it prove she's one.

Indeed, there are many issues that some Christians have sadly fallen into; which should not make anyone of us happier over them. However, it is one thing to have fallen so sadly into such a situation; and it's quite another thing to be proud in it.

While I hope they enjoy their married life, I do hope they would not be prideful about their mishap. God is able to forgive them when as they truly seek His grace.

Well, one verse I remember in the Bible mentioning the issue weaving (actually, 'plaiting') hair was in reference to women; to whom apostle Peter had said:

            "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair,
            and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; "  --  I Pet. 3:3.

That men would like to plait/weave their hair in tune with the cultural trends of the day just simply shows what is happening to the hearts of many people under the name "Christian".

Guys with good hairdos are encouraged, as well the women whose deportment are encouraged in Scripture. Some may think the NT deplores women looking good (hello, the spirito-sistas  ). However, what is being pointed out is that the more important issue about our deportment should not be the outward person, but rather the inward person, which is of great value in God's sight as well as men who "observe". (Any wonder why someone asked why men go to church to seek their better halves?)

However, here's a translation (ALT) that I enjoy on I Tim. 2:9 - "In the same manner also [I want] the women to be adorning themselves in sensible apparel [or, behavior], with modesty and decency [or, self-control], not with braided hair [or, elaborate hairstyles] or gold or pearls or very costly clothing."

Now, wait until you begin to read the protest, pataks!  

------------

On a lighter note, let's see some matcho hairdos. Start with this one:

https://ourworld.cs.com/sugdad/0714afro.jpg

@Kuns,

Kuns:
So do they (you) observe this comandment in Seven day Advertist?

Did you even visit the links I offered, or you simple just want to drag on an argument that you are not interested at all in?

Kuns:
Mr Bari_kade It's time you start reading the Bible with more attention and awareness of the facts of what you are reading.

I have done so. It's now up to you to demonstrate that you have any understanding of the same Bible you're confusing.

Kuns:
Firstly, 1 Chronicle 21: 1 and 2 Samuel 24 : 1 are exactly the same stories being repeated , If you what to look at it from a belief prospective then you can make up all sorts of explanation , we all know the devil loves to argue.

Thank you. But neither passages suggested that the devil and God are the same. That is why even without any arguments I offered you to go through the first chapter of Job and see the difference.

Kuns:
These are clearly the same and exact stories about David there is no relation to Job , Check it up again on your own no tv, no pastors there giving it a religious meaning, apply sound right reasoning, based on the evidence of what you are seeing in these stories. Belief is personal and evasive, however, the truth (facts) is universal.

Did you apply the very same things in your study of those passages? My offers are not taken from TV shows or any pastor you never came across. If you care to study what is stated in both, then you would understand clearly what they point to. If you can't take the challenge to humbly do so, it won't surprise anyone that you're still confused about it.

Kuns:
Anyone can see it is the same stories being told here, belief plays a trick on your minds.

The same stories being offered doesn't necessarily mean that God is equated to the devil.

Kuns:
In one place Satan tells David to number Isreal in the other it is the Lord. Please make up your mind, which is it?

In one case, satan instigated David to do so; in the other, the Lord allowed David to fulfill his wish. Try and read them in their original language constructs; ask yourself salient questions as to what exactly david was disobeying; and then go to the book of Job and see what is being represented there; and when you're done, please show me where the passages equate God and the devil.

Kuns:
Paul see clearly confessing with his own mouth that he lie For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie

If you fail to see the analogy that Paul uses and how two chapters later he clearly stated that he was telling them the truth, you will continue to miss the picture.

Kuns:
If you are dealing with truth why do you need to lie. Paul lied to make God look bigger.

Arguing like a child without looking at the text is not making you sound any wiser.

Kuns:
Do you think God needs you to lie to make him look bigger?

If you and I lied that God was small, it would still be a lie. The question in Romans did not involve making God of any size; and trying to cheat your readers here on that should make one wonder if you had the basic reading skills in school.

Kuns:
Paul lied to convert people.

Where? Accusations to vex yourself does not change the genuine conversion of those he preached to.

Kuns:
Now what did the scripture say about lies?

If you discovered your own lie, you would not be so presumptious.

Kuns:
What is a lie? John 8 : 44

John 8 : 44
" You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.."

Anyway, a lie is a lie. Paul lied.

A lie is a lie; Paul did not.

Kuns:
And here is where Paul lied about seeing (Yashua) Jesus.

And fool would see the discrepancies ,

Acts 9 : 7 Here those travelling with Paul heard a voice, but saw nothing (No light, No man).

Acts 26: 13, 14
Here they all fell to the ground. In Acts 9 : 7 the men with Paul stood speechless. Wow, if that is not changing your stories again (lie) then what is?

That is classic. Trying to lie to your readers to make Paul a liar is quite a sad adventure.

      Acts 9: (7) "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
                  hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

     Acts 26: (13)"At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven,
                  above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and
                  them which journeyed with me.
                  (14) And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice
                  speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul,
                  why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the
                  pricks.

Could you please highlight the changing of facts that might have been of concern to your reading?

Kuns:
Acts 22 : 9 Those that were with Paul did not hear the voive ni this version of the events (story), but they saw a light , contrary to Acts 9 : 7.

I'm glad you mentioned it. Please do a careful study of what is meant by NT writers by consulting the Greek language construct. What was being pointed out is that they certainly heard the sound of one speaking, but did not understand what was being spoken.

The same construct is expressed in John 8:43  where Jesus said: "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word."

Of course, they "heard" what he was saying as far as hearing the sound of His voice was concerned; but then they "did not hear" His words as far as understanding was concerned.

Again, looking in the same book of Acts 13:27, we find another connection in the same sense: "For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him." What is being pointed out here is that one might be hearing and reading, but the understanding is not yielding fruit.

Is it any wonder then that Paul particularly said that the voice which he heard spoke to him in the Hebrew language (Acts 26:14)? Certainly, the men that accompanied him heard the sound of the voice; but they did not understand what the voice said.

This is not a perculiar NT patio language-construct of events like this. Turn back again to the book of daniel and you will see what happened there:

            "And I Daniel alone saw the vision:
            for the men that were with me saw not the vision;
            but a great quaking fell upon them,
            so that they fled to hide themselves."
            (Dan.10:7).

The men were conscious that something extraordinary had occured; but though they did not see the vision, they felt its effect such that they fled to hide themselves.

I hope you will have a calm spirit to study issues before drawing inferences to make readers wonder if you actually went out to besmirch Paul; and thereby making grave mistakes.

Kuns:
Paul lied which he again contradict three times Acts 22: 6 - 9, Acts 9: 4 - 7. Accounts of Paul's version were copied from Matthew 17: 1 - 8.

The issue in those events are not the same; unless you want to continue to mix them up. The accounts were not copied; and wherever you got that idea makes for a good laugh.

In Matthew 17:1-8, the event was the Transfiguration - which happened on the Mount (most probably Hermon): whereas, that in Acts that led to paul's conversion happend on the Damascus road! How you confuse a "mount" and a "road" is quite a bit hilarious; but please take your issues as simply as would not consfuse you further.

Kuns:
How was he able to do this?

The book of Matthew was already out, Paul copied and plagarised it. Matthew 17: 5 - 8 is where Paul actually Plagarised the version, he got it from there.

The book of Matthew came out in 41 A.D, the book of Acts 61 A.D, twenty years difference. Acts 26 : 13; Acts 22 : 9 (Matthew 17: same story.

They are not the same story; refer to my answers above.

Kuns:
Don't shoot the messenger,

You're doing that already.

Kuns:
KKK use the book of Romans, they know where its from. Paul belonged to a group of people called the Romans. Paul created christianity Acts 11: 29 to get people away from the real teaching such as pertaining to the Law.

I was waiting for you to repost the same ideas where you copied it from; but you're smart.   The first time I saw that same inference by one vexed racist, he (or she) had said that Paul was a member of the KKK!! But now, you've adjusted that line of inference.

Read issues clearly before you drivel on anything. Paul was a Jew born in a Roman city called Tarsus (Acts 21:39 & 22:3). If he was a pure bred Roman, please note that the Romans back then did not persecute their own citizens; rather, for any crime of insurrection, Romans summarily executed any citizen found guilty of that crime! That was why Paul was asked this question:

                  "Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days
                  madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness
                  four thousand men that were murderers?" (Acts 21:38 )

His answer in the very next verse shows he was not as accused; and in Acts 22:3, he stated who and what he was.

Besides, as a Jew, he persecuted the church, didn't he? But when he understood that the Law does not justify anyone in God's sight, he then understood that the same Law testifies that the just shall live by faith; and not by the Law.

That is why you would not have been able to find anyone holding the Law against Paul - whether it pertained to the sabbath, or any other concerns of the Law. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law that those who believe in Him might find true peace of heart and enter into the true rest of God for the soul (Matt. 11:29).

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
I will agree with you that the soul is distinct from the spirit of man, but it is not an entity within an entity, and that is the point I have been trying to make from day one. Its simply an expression to describe life and the being or personage of man, or beast.

Partly true; but more than that, the soul is as distinct as the spirit is from the body.

'Soul' is sometimes used to denote the person in particular; other times as denoting the rational part of man; and yet at other times to distinguish that part of man that tends more to the animate; while yet a few times it points to the ethereal part of man where his faculties (mind, will, etc) are found.

The spirit, on the other hand, is the innermost part of man where he is able to have fellowship with God. John 4:24 - "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Once we get to see the bigger picture between these distinctions, it becomes easier to see why the soul is used in some instances where, as you said, its meaning might not have been so clear.

Lol, Synthase. . . most people didn't have to conduct a thorough search to know about the Kuns-connection.

My dear Po Deed,

Thank you for calling me back to grace. May God bless and enrich you; for we need brethren like you who would call us back from our excesses. I apologise, and good point you made.

Regards.

@Bobbyaf,

I wonder if you're just interested in mere arguments when you have not been able to defend the fallacies of the SDA built around what they cannot keep. You're wasting your time trying to defend a salary scheme wrapped around the SDA excuses for breaking a Law that they pretend they're keeping, but which you have unwittingly exposed as quite to the contrary.

Bobbyaf:
Listen, I have told you before that the principle of the law of 10 commandments has always existed, both in the Genesis dispensation as well as the Mosaic dispensation, and even in our dispensation, because those principles were meant to be eternal. The only difference is that for the first time it was transcripted on tables of stones when the author Himself wrote them with His own fingers.

You're the same person who could not find that Law in Genesis; and you're yet the very same person who could not find that Law given to Adam in Genesis! Infact, you are the same person who said that the Sabbath did not exist as a commandment in Genesis; but now, you're coming back to your convoluted statements again.

If you go back to Exodus again, you will find the clear imprints of the sabbath as a LAW! Now, since you argued for the seventh-day sabbath commandment from EXODUS (and not rather from Genesis), then you're expressing an idea based on the Mosaic Law! Doing so requires that you face the stipulations of the same Mosaic Law for the sabbath. Failing to follow the stipulations actually means that you have no sabbath law earlier than Exodus.

Since you cannot find a specific commandment any earlier than EXODUS for the seventh-day sabbath, there's no basis for pretending to uphold the 10 commandments in that book and refusing to adhere to its prescriptions.

Bobbyaf:
Sins committed now, and the those committed then, are still sins, and will always be defined by God's eternal law.

Good. The Law requires that Sabbath breakers be surely put to death - Exo. 31:14 & 35:2. Going to work on the sabbath so that you can make money for your pockets is actually breaking the sabbath. "Do good", Jesus says; but where did he excuse your salaries and getting paid for work done on the Sabbath? If the excuse for the SDA medical staff is just about a convenient exculpation to circumvent the Law, there is no reason for you to accuse anything against non-SDAs.

Bobbyaf:
Your accusing me of causing problems is tantamount to accusing Jesus of saying that it is permitted to do good on the sabbath.

You are not Jesus Christ; and if you excuse your breaking the Law, don't try hiding under that excuse. Jesus Christ never once referred to God's Law as "ridiculous" - the very thing you have done; and I wonder what he would be saying as He reads your post denouncing God's Law as "archaic"!

Bobbyaf:
He said it not me. I am simply repeating what He admonished in the light of the very same stipulations the jewish leaders brought on the disciples, and Jesus Himself.

Jesus Christ did not say anything about excuses the stipulations of the Law. If he ever did, please adduce texts for that. Do not put words in His mouth to justify your fallacies.

Bobbyaf:
Thats why I raised the idea of those stipulations that you're poinying me to in Exudus were meant for those rebellious people who didn't have the spiritual maturity to wait for the very same law that Moses went to collect from God. With their rebellious nature what else did you expect Moses to do, but to initiate stipulations so as to protect what was very important to God.

So, let me ask you: what is very important to God in your exemptions and exculpations to the stipulations of the same Law?

Accusing others of being rebellious and yet breaking the Law with your excuses is not demonstrating your obedience to that Law.

Bobbyaf:
If you were to go back to my arguments about babylon, you'd have realized that I didn't accuse persons of not being christians. Not once did I accuse person's sincerity about what they were led to believe. I accused them of being apart of a system that is seen as "babylon", or religious confusion, and that God through His end-time church is calling all those that belong to Him to "come out of her" (see Revelation 14 and 16)

I know quite well where we also debated that; and to have alleged that they are Babylon is precisely saying that those Christians are the one accused. You have not shown a good understanding of this subject before making such accusations; and that is wrong!

Bobbyaf:
This is not my teaching, but God's.

Appending "God" to your fallacies does not make them correct.

Bobbyaf:
All this was based on the fact of what Jesus Himself said about calling His scattered sheep back to His flock or fold. You as well as I know that there are hundreds of denominations all teaching different doctrines. Besides, you of all persons could never fail to bear in mind what Jesus reminded us of in Matthew 24 about the rise of false prophets and teachers coming in His name.

False prophets and false teachers - we know how many of them existed in the history of the SDA. The SDA should not pretend to see herself as that "endtime church"; and to suppose so is to carry this debate to the appropriate thread to discuss the cults.

In all of these discourses so far, you still haven't shown anything to the point that a sabbath Law in Exodus excuses the SDA from breaking it by denouncing it as "ridiculous" and "archaic"!

I'll just like to quickly add this:

Who is the Holy Spirit?

There are so many answers and understanding that people have to this question; and while most of them are based on human inferences, perhaps it might be more helpful to see what Scripture says about Him.

Citing a common example: many people attribute justice to the Holy Spirit while Jesus is ascribed to love. I'm persuaded that this is a grave mistake. Justice and divine judgement come directly from the Father, who commits all these unto the Son. Remember what Jesus said in John 5? "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son . . And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man" (vss. 22 & 27).

And what about love? The Trinity is involved in this as well, for we read of love of the Father (1 John 4:9); the love of Christ (Rom. 8:35; II Cor. 5:14); and the love of the Spirit (Rom. 15:30). These are not all different kinds or even different expressions of love - they are all one and the same divine love of God which has been shed abroad in our hearts (Rom. 5:5 & 8:39).

So then, because the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are inseparable in love, justice and judgement, I think it's a grave mistake to arrogate just one role or element to just one of them. So, who is the Holy Spirit?

First and foremost, the Holy Spirit is a divine Person. He is not a 'force' as some have erroneously thought. Both His attributes and works demonstrate the fact of His divine Personality as are the Father and the Son.

Second, in context of our subject, He is the reality and very expression of God's holiness. For all that we would ever know or understand about God's holiness are found in the Spirit of God; for which reason in the NT we often read of Him as the 'Holy Spirit'. You know the Holy Spirit is present where you find holiness in reality; and where He is present, there you will find the very presence of God.


Later, I'll take up other issues.

God bless.

Hi @kaypinchi,

I was trying to post this reply earlier but had technical hitches. Here now.

Thanks for your question. Upfront, I would say that my knowledge and insight on this subject is quite limited; and I learn as well from others. Howeevr, here are my thoughts on the question you have asked:

kaypinchi:
from all what we see around us in the world today regarding works of miracles and healing that we can violently argue that they are stage managed and/or not real or that the powers being used are not of and not from God.

Would this thought or pronouncement be regarded as Blasphemy against the Spirit too?

I quite appreciate the way you articulated this question. We know that many miracles performed today are false - even if they come in the name of Jesus Christ. Two verses for this thought:

Matt. 24: "(5) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ;
and shall deceive many.

(24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that,
if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

II Cor. 11: "(3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve
through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the
simplicity that is in Christ.

(4) For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have
not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not
received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might
well bear with him.


However, people have been opposed to the idea of miracles that they lose sight altogether of what to make of any alleged case of a miracle. As a result, some have been doubtful and consequently said that the miracles they observed or heard about were not of God.

Now let's remain with that for a moment. If someone doubts a miracle and says that "it is not of God", would that be the same thing as blasphemy? I don't think so, because Scripture doesn't put the case of blasphemy that way. Being doubtful of what spirit is operating in any given setting is not the same thing as blaspheming the Holy Ghost.

If, however, a person has been convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the miracle being observed is actually by the power of the Holy Spirit, and yet he/she deliberately pronounces blasphemously that the Spirit who gave such miracles was none other than "the prince of demons; Beelzebub; an unclean spirit", etc. . . I'm afraid that such a person is fulfilling Jesus' Words in Mark 3.

Now, people wonder about this question and ask further: does it then mean that a blasphemer against the Holy Ghost is incapable of even trying to repent?

My answer is that, quite to the contrary, such a person may try to seek repentance. There are cases where people have done and said things after making dire pronouncements; but when they sought repentance even in tears, they could not find it. A case in point is recorded in Heb. 12:17 - "For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears."

Jesus said that forgiveness will not be granted to blasphemers against the Holy Ghost - either in this age or in that to come (Matt. 12:32). But here is something we should be reminded of: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a deliberate action that is made after several warnings! Let me share on this:

In Matthew 10, Jesus remarked that they had called Him (Jesus) Beelzebul (vs.25). But notice that Jesus did not take up issues with them. His accusers already knew in their hearts that He was a teacher come from God ("they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth - Mark 12:14). But even at all that, some of them still went ahead made the utter seal of their fate by openly blaspheming against the Holy Spirit!

I have often said that those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit do not do so in ignorance! It is a deliberate act!

For believers, please rest your heart: God's Spirit resides in you; and He is well able to preserve your hearts.

Cheers.

@Bobbyaf,

There are a few things I'd like to pick up from yours to stimulus. I'm really concerned that many times when people try to discuss issues, it becomes a laugh to read that passions are offered as substitute for reason. This has never helped and will never help progress any subject being discussed.

Bobbyaf:
You tell me! They are not the issue. I am addressing medical professionals, not any other type of profession, since medical professionals are the only ones who are given permission to help the sick, or to attend to anyone who needs  on the Lord's day.

Medical professionals, as you stated earlier, work "like any other persons who work" - and they get paid for it. You shouldn't try to excuse the SDA for circumventing and exculpating the requirements of the Sabbath according to the same Law that they preach but cannot keep!

Bobbyaf:
All those examples above are irrelevant to the point of discussion. It is never an issue as to what non-SDAs choose to do on Saturdays depending on what they know about the Lord's requirements and commands.

As far as you have stated that those medical professionals in the SDA work like any other persons, they are relevant examples. You can't parry this issue now, no matter how embarrassing to the SDA they are.

Bobbyaf:
You have not yet dealt with the real issue have you? If Jesus said it is permitted to do good on the sabbath then who are you to think otherwise? Why try to complicate the issue? SDAs don't seem to have a problem following Christ's admonition, so why should you?

Did Jesus Christ ask anyone to make money and get paid under the excuse of "doing good" on the Sabbath Day? It is well to do good - let that be stated; so that you don't continue to think anyone here is saying we should not do good. But the question is: where did Christ ask us to make money on the Sabbath Day under the excuse that we are "doing good"?

Bobbyaf:
What does deliberately breaking the sabbath have to do with what Jesus said about doing good on the sabbath? I really wonder who is the object of laughter here, based on such silly reasoning?

It is now a laugh to try and make excuses for salalries for SDA professionals, but think that non-SDA are Babylon if they do not follow the ideas of SDA about the Sabbath. This hypocrisy is not a virtue for anyone who seeks to harangue others for what they can't keep.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Just to avoid a long drawn out discussion with you I will say this much. SDA medical professionals do free work on the sabbath. We do not get paid for acts of mercy on the sabbath. Not once have you ever asked if that were the case have you?

Even at that, you do realize that you have blown your own arguments for the Sabbath, don't you? Asking that people should obey the seventh-day sabbath according the Law is not going to help you. That is why I asked you so many times to clearly state where you derived your law from - GENESIS or EXODUS - and you kept dodging that very question even up until today!!

Your question of "acts of mercy" should not be an excuse for the huge problems you've caused by admitting to the exculpations for making money on the Sabbath day. What is of grave concern to anyone who reads your argument is that, just because people are not SDAs does not mean that you should have accused them to be "Babylon" for worshipping on Sunday. Whether by Biblical history and doctrine of the Word, the SDA got it wrong! And that is what I've demonstrated here.

If you can see that Christians were not called to obey the Law of the Sabbath in EXODUS, then try not accusing non SDAs as Babylon or whatever else you're accustomed to. When you open your heart and eyes to His Word, then you will find most of your problems dissolved.

Bobbyaf:
If you have any further questions I'd be more than glad to assist you!

You really have nothing to say. There are questions you have refused to address, so it's no use advertizing what you can't do.

Regards.

@stimulus,

stimulus:
If you go by what Jesus Christ Himself stated, you'll find that sinning against the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as blaspheming against the Holy Spirit - they are two different things; and that is what bari_kade has repeatedly been calling attention to!

I appreciate your reference to what I've repeatedly tried to share. Maybe some are not seeing it; but there again, I'm thankful to God that I'm not the authority on this or any other subject. Everyone has concerns; and perhaps my answers are not actually addressing their deepest needs - that is why they will continue to ask questions; and more knowledgeable folks will help us out. Thank God for such folks.


------

@Aproko,

Appreciate your input as well. See? Answers are not the monopoly of any one man! That is why yours are a blessing in measure to me.

------

@topic,

More thoughts of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. . . anyone, please?

God bless.

@Kuns,

Kuns:
Or are you confused?

No, I'm not. If you had examined the same facts for yourself carefully, you would be humble and slow to exhibit a self-righteous spirit. let's see what you call "right reasoning".

Kuns:
Let's look at the Laws of Christianity which christians are suppose to observe

Leviticus 11 : 7, 8

"7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8: Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch;"

Today you will find that most denomination prepare ham based produces for their congregation for snacks when the bible clearly commands you not to touch it in Leviticus 11 : 8.

Many christians are still eating pork, bacon and ham (Macdonalds burgers etc, etc).

I eat ham and burgers, thank you. And I don't take have to pretend to be a Jew, because obviously I'm a Christian. before Paul was converted, it was God Himself who showed this vision to apostle Peter, and please mark well what He said:

       Acts 10: (11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him,
                     as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the
                     earth: (12)  Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth,
                     and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

                     (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. (14) But Peter
                     said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

                     (15)  And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath
                     cleansed, that call not thou common.

So, God has cleaned all things; and He has instructed that we do not call those things "unclean".

Kuns:
Concerning the Sabbath , Christians do not observe this day which is from Friday Sun down to Saturday sun down, instead their go to church on Sunday.

Leviticus 19 : 30

"30: Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. "

Now if you are following Jesus then you meant to keep these Law as Jesus (Yashua) himself said that he has not come to destroy the Law.

Matthew 5 : 17, 18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Well, heaven and earth have not yet passed away ,

If you care, please go to these two threads and see how far you seventh-day Sabbath Law can take you as a Christian.

   (a) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-55857.0.html#msg1167802

   (b) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-34371.160.html#msg869146

If you don't get much help, ask and I'll show you what the Law can do to you as a legalist; and why you truly need Jesus Christ!

Kuns:
The religion of Christianity was in reality created by Men as Yashua never refered to himself as a christian.
As a matter of fact Paul was the one who first called his followers (Timothy, titus and co) christians. Evidence of this is found in Acts 11 : 26.

Acts 11 : 26
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. "

This was long after Yashua (Jesus) had supposedly died.

Go read Acts 11:26 again - it does not state that Paul was the one who first called them Christians. Christianity as a relationship by faith in Jesus Christ was not man-made; and that fallacy has long lost its hilarity.

Jesus never called Himself the Lamb of God also; but are Christians to reject the testimony of Scripture because people like you who are "not into religion" have failed to understand what is written in the Bible?

Kuns:
Paul single-handedly changed the message that Yashua (Jesus) was teaching , and created a breed new religion based on belief or believe where you did not have to observe and of the Commandant , which Jesus said that he had not come to destroy. Yashua (Jesus) was for the Laws of God (fact) , while Paul was for anything goes (beliefs).

Paul was for the revelation of the Spirit to which the OT all pointed. Even Jesus Himself said in Luke 24:44 - "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

If you don't get the understanding that Jesus fulfilled the Law, you will never be able to see its clear implications. Don't even go there.

Kuns:
And Paul also lied to creat his new religion

Roman 3 : 7
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? "

If you are talking about truth , why do you need to lies? This is the question we should ask paul.

Romans 3:7 shows an analogy in Paul's discourse to his recipients; not rather that he was lying. If you can read that, are you honest enough to see what he stated in the same book of Romans chapter 9 vs 1? He said: "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost!"

Just because you're looking for something that shows you for who you are does not mean that you should pretend that dishonesty is intellect.

Kuns:
This is satanism because the Lord is another name for SATAN , according to the bible.

If satan is the name of your master, I can well see why you have problems being honest.

Kuns:
1 chronicle 21 : 1
"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

2 Samuel 24 : 1
" 1: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."

Why are the Bible authors refering to the Lord as SATAN? Even though they have changed (edited) the bible hundreds of times they still left that place alone , because the caucasian race know who their GOd is.

They are not the same, even though many people do not see the implications of what was recorded there. If you read the book of Job chapter 1, you will understand the key to those scriptures. But if you're bent on serving satan, no worries to me or any other Christian.

Kuns:
Satan is the God of the Caucasian race and they have our people worshipping their image which is the image of the beast.

Oh, I guess you're an apprentice racist newly subscripted for your colony. You know what? racism (blacks against whites and whites against blacks) is self-defeating. That is why racists are so confused; and anything 'white' is a dread to them. Why are you guys so phobic against whites and people of any other skin colour in order to keep up your dishonest misanthropy?

Kuns:
Yashua had hair loke lamb's wool Revelation 1 : 14 , Jesus has Fur like animal (beast) hair.

What is stated in Rev. 1:14? "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow." Does that speak of your black theory?

The "Jesus" you worship may have fur like a beast; and no worries again; because the Bible already warns that people like you will go around preaching "another jesus".

Kuns, your racism will lead you nowhere. As long as you continue to dread white men and blame them for all your troubles, you will remain a slave forever.

Hnd-holder:
@bari_kade
Thanks you are right.I love your person. I have written alot on this tithe issue. Even the history of tithe it was a bloody issue in IRELAND at a point in time. I am going home now till monday. Best regards

Enjoy, bros.

Hnd-holder:
But no record that he tithe every month he did it once. Not from his hard earn money.

It was a simple question. Whether he tithed every month or just once is not the issue here.

Did Abraham give tithe? Yes - Gen. 14:20. Even Levi who was not yet born was said to have also paid tithes in Abraham - Heb. 7:9.

I just wanted to know if in Abraham's case, your general rule of thumb applied as that his tithes were agricultural products.

Thanks.

@Hnd-holder,

Hnd-holder:
"[1] Gen. 14:20, "And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he [Abram] gave him [Melchizedek king of Salem, the priest of the most high God, Ver. 18] TITHES of all [all the goods of war, Ver. 16]."[2] Heb. 7:1-10, "For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who meets with Abraham returning from the combat with the kings and blesses him, to whom Abraham parts a TITHE also, from all, Now, behold how eminent this one is to whom the patriarch Abraham gives a TITHE also of the best of the booty. And, indeed, those of the sons of Levi who obtain the priestly office have a direction to take TITHES from the people according to the law, And here, indeed, dying men are obtaining TITHES, And so, to say, through Abraham, Levi also, who is obtaining the TITHES, has been TITHED, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek meets with him."There are a number of things we can learn concerning tithing from this section of Scriptures. In this, the first mention of tithing in the Bible, Abram gives to Melchizedek (a priest of God who was also the king of the city of Salem) a tithe of the best of the booty taken in war. Notice that this was not wheat, corn, wine, oil, or cattle from Abram’s personal possessions, but rather booty taken from conquered nations. There is nothing stated here that would cause us to conclude that Abram (later changed to Abraham) ever tithed on a regular basis on his own person possessions. Although Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of the booty of war, he told the king of Sodom that he would take none of it for himself."

I think it might be a bit helpful to make a neat outline of this so we easily see what is Scripture as distinct from your opinions. Just a request.

Cheers.

@Hnd-holder,

Hnd-holder:
We are all waiting to read your on contribution on this topic that is more than 3 years old. Try to remain in the frame " TO tithe or NOT to tithe.

I've stated that I would make my inputs soon; and I think you can forgive the fact that I'm not quite 3 years old on Nairaland. If you ask TV01, I'm not one to derail topics on threads.

Hnd-holder:
Nitpicking Gnats This was words from stimulus  and  GNATS are bitting flies, while Nitpicking refers to unjustified critism

I see his concern - and I partly agree with him that this thread is once again spiralling out of context.

Hnd-holder:
"For example, people take great pains to ensure their dress codes are keeping every bizarre fashion trend at bay by the application of nitpicking policies"

And the point is?

Hnd-holder:
In using the proverb of gnats and camels, Jesus was vividly illustrating the foolishness of convoluted priorities

“You blind guides, you who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:24)
nitpicking gnats As far as straining gnats, I'd like to say that I for one am NOT a big fan
of eating gnat soup! Jesus was NOT so much condemning gnat straining in His
famous quote so much as He was condemning camel swallowing. So I guess the
question we need to ask ourselves is this: what exactly is the camel we are
swallowing? Is it that we are spending too much time "nitpicking" our
worship and not enough actually doing it?

I think stimulus explained what he meant:  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.864.html#msg1206301

I can understand that he might have been appealing that we don't take our persuasions merely from one text or a few without looking at the whole picture. I don't think anything's wrong with that either.

I'm Christian. Everyone who makes the same claim has a denomination. What's the reason for your asking? If it's about taking stats about what denomination Christians attend, I think there are several threads for that. Try this one:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-58538.0.html#msg1185299

@Kuns,

Kuns:
Sorry, but I'm am not into religion.

The facts is my way of life ,

Paul was actually the anti-christ , who hated Yashua (Jesus) , and everything He stood for.

Whether or not you're into religion, you haven't stated anything here close to truth. Paul was not the anti-christ; and your inference is false.

@Hnd-holder,

Hnd-holder:
What they tithe was Agricultural products Not money

Does that mean all that Abraham gave Melchizedek as tithes were agricultural products?

Hi TV01,

TV01:
The NT exhorts giving, clearly details it as a grace, (grace in action II Cor IIX), and comes with Christian maturity and love. Evidenced by the "had all things in common" approach of the early Chrisitnas (Acts), the sacrificial offering of the Macedonians (II Cor IIX). Never as an obligation, but as a hearts response. The very term "give", means it is not mandatory.

Since it was not mandatory, Abraham gave tithes - Gen. 14:20. I think stimulus would be happy now to see that you've come round stating his very point.

@Synthase,

Thank you for your lines. However, I don't think that the seventh-day sabbath LAW leaves room for any money making vocation - whatever exculpations anyone gives. It is either Christians are under the Sabbath LAW; or we are not.

Bottomline: Christians find their true rest in Jesus Christ, and everyday (not just the seventh day) is holy. Work and earn your living - but let no one pretend that others who work on Saturday are rebels simply because they are not SDA.

Hi all,

I've been busy all day even though this thread is moving so fast! But I just needed to say here that you guys are making it difficult for me to share anything because it is fast becoming a quarrel and hilarity than a thirst to examine truth.

The first time that tithes were mentioned in the Bible is in Gen. 14:20 -- "And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. "

That verse is loaded with deep truth; but quite so often, those who argue against tithing from the LAW that came centuries later will find it difficult to see the implication of that verse.

I'd like to share a bit more on that - but certainly not while the quarrel is going on.

Bless all.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
Bari_kade reasons the same technical way the jewish leaders would have in the time of Christ. SDA christians operate hospitals and clinics, and our approach to health care is far different to how its normally carried out in the secular world. It is this uniqueness that we bring to the public based on the philosophy of uniting health, education and evengilsim as one ministry, the same manner in which Christ did.

You've been the one often quoting the Bible saying that "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law" (Matt. 5:18 ) - as you just did to mekoyo. Everytime that very line is presented to you in its full import, your SDA scheme for making money as excuses for your pockets is exposed; and then you begin to complain about the way bari_kade reasons. I've asked questions; you have no answers. Your excuses cannot atone for the hypocrisy of calling to every jot and tittle while making exemptions to break that very code.

Bobbyaf:
Now how would look if we closed our hospital doors to the public on a sabbath because we are SDAs? How would it look if an SDA doctor in church were to ignore a medical emergency because he is not supposed to navigate from some archaic, geographically based set of rules and stipulations?

I see how you reason. Ever since I've been pointing you back to your exculpations for the SDA exemptions, not one time has the core concern been about geography. The Sabbath Law applies in every location where you want to preach it, because "it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings" (Lev. 23:3). If the SDA really wants to "do good", they should serve the public in their hospitals irrespective of their geographical locations without taking salaries and making money on the Sabbath days.

Now, let me ask you: Do you get paid on such sabbath days when you and your SDA medical personnel work in your hospitals?

Further, it is immoral and dishonest to preach the Commandment and Law for the seventh-day Sabbath, and then complain that it is "some archaic, geographically based set of rules and stipulations" simply because you have found it difficult to keep the same Law that you preach! Why even bother preaching a "thus saith the LORD" when you can so irreverently refer to the LORD's Law as "archaic"? If it seems to you that the Sabbath Law is antiquated, why have you been sweating to hold the same Law against others when you cannot keep it according to its divine injunctions?

Bobbyaf:
How would Jesus have dealt with a situation of this nature if He were here in our generation? Would He have given the same pharasaical advice as Bari_kade?

If bari_kade's posts are pharasaical to you, I'm sure that not even Jesus Christ would advocate an excuse for the SDA to make money and collect salaries for what they do on sabbath days. You want to go by every "jot or tittle" of the Law? Then do exactly as the Law stipulates without complaining that it is archaic!

Bobbyaf:
Bari_kade knows he cannot side step God's words, so he looks for technicalities to promote his arguments.

Even a child would understand my appeal to go by what God says in His Word. The 'technicalities' you're complaining about simply expose your fraud for preaching the Law while yet excusing yourself in order to make money for your pockets.

There is just one simple principle that I apply in my study of God's Word; and it is given by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself:

"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?" - Luke 10:26.

You can't cheat any careful reader of God's Word by pretending to uphold it and yet irreverently regarding it as "archaic"!!

Bobbyaf:
SDA medical professionals are paid like any other persons who work. To argue that we collect pay for work done on the sabbath is grossly inept, and only shows up deficiencies in such frivalous arguments. If that is how he debates truth he has got something coming.

Now, my dear Drusilla, can you see how your SDA 'pompey' has managed to burst his own bubble?

Bob, you have only ridiculed every line of your argument since we started debating this issue. Having proclaimed a "thus saith the LORD" and "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law", you have now exposed the SDA hypocrisy of preaching what they cannot keep! Here, let me remind you of what the Law says about your own seventh-day sabbath:

Exo. 20: (9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger
that is within thy gates.

Exo. 31: (14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you:
every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever
doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
(15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest,
holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day,
he shall surely be put to death.

Exo. 35: (2) Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there
shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD:
whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

I remember you boasted that "only time will prove who is right, or who is wrong!" Ol' boy, look again at all the "thus saith the LORD" above - they're from EXODUS: the very same book from which YOU have been preaching your Sabbath Law! As you've done before, call it 'archaic' or 'grossly inept' or even 'ridiculous' if you may; but not even the SDA will be able to obliterate what the Law says. Remember your fav quote - "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law"? Now, it is staring you in the face - fix your dilemma!

----------------------------


The point I've been making is quite straightforward: the Sabbath Law was not made for Christians. We find our true rest in Jesus Christ Himself; and not in the ritual observance of any day, for EVERYDAY is holy and blessed for the Christian.

So, whether you work on any day at all, what matters at the end of the day is that you find your true rest constantly in Jesus Christ, while at the same time walking in holiness every single day regardless of where you work!


@Drusilla, talk to your brother - he knows the Law but would rather regard it with irreverence in order to make money for his pocket while accusing non-sabbatarians with his typical SDA slobbers. Regards.

davidylan:
ah thanks for exhibiting your "Christlike" nature earlier. As a confirmed "dog" i agree 100% with you.

Lol, I no fit laugh again!! 

@simmy, wetin I tell you before? You don forget? Okay, here again  :

bari_kade:
Trying to read hypocrisy in others, you have only managed once again to exhibit yours; and I'm afraid it dwarfs those you complain against.

We're getting to understand more of your drama-free and unhypocritical "Christlike" nature. Dude, do you have some more skits for the evening? 

@Drusilla,

Let me say you would have a point on just one basis: who are we talking about?

If we're discussing the levites, I'm sure that would spiral off again into something else. But if we're concerned about what applies to EVERY person who keeps the sabbath law (in which case they often argue from EXODUS), then we would have to ask such people to proffer the exemptions from that very same Law. Failing to do so is failing to understand the core issue; and all else are excuses.

Let me point out a few things:


         Levites lived from their TEMPLE services.
         Question: are we levites as Christians?


         Levitical services were in the TEMPLE.
         Question: does that translate to a secular job in the hospital?


         The levitical priesthood was a gift (Num. 8:18-19)*.
         Question: are hospital staff in SDA a gift? Unto who?


         The Levitical priesthood was not established to take salaries.
         Question: where is the verse that excuses earning salaries on sabbath days?


         The Christian priesthood was not derived from the levitical priesthood (Heb. 7:11-17)*.
         Question: what excuse does a Christian have for making money on Sabbath days?



I could go on and on; and however we look at it the jigsaw often picked for such exemptions to profane the OT Law of the Sabbath would never fit for salary observers. Not even remotely in one single line.

Baseline: there are no exemptions in the Law for a secular job (hospitals outside the levitical TEMPLE) to earn salaries under the guise of "Jesus said to do good!" If any sabbatarian wants to "do good", he should do so and reject any salaries acruing to him or her on any sabbath day they go to work. Mind you, that would again be working - a direct infringement on the stipulations of the sabbath Law.


----------------------

*Here are the references cited for easy reading:

       Num. 8:18-19  --  "(18) And I have taken the Levites for all the firstborn of the children
                                    of Israel.

                                    (19) And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons
                                    from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of
                                    Israel in the tabernacle of the congregation, and to make an
                                    atonement for the children of Israel: that there be no plague among
                                    the children of Israel, when the children of Israel come nigh unto the
                                    sanctuary."


       Heb. 7:11-17  --  "(11) If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,
                                  (for under it the people received the law,) what further need
                                  was there that another priest should rise after the order of
                                  Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

                                   (12) For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity
                                   a change also of the law.
                                    - - -
                                   (14) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which
                                   tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

                                   (15) And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of
                                   Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

                                   (16) Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment,
                                   but after the power of an endless life.

                                   (17) For he testifieth,
                                   Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

@simmy,

simmy:
I'm a xtian but i am constantly apalled by the hypocrisy that exists in the xtian world today (in some cases its not hypocrisy but ignorance which is worse)

Trying to read hypocrisy in others, you have only managed once again to exhibit yours; and I'm afraid it dwarfs those you complain against. The drama aside, can you do just one thing? Nothing strange or any different from the previous request:

Read your history books again.

Olufidu:
Classic example of destiny!!!

You have prophetic insight to have seen that!