₦airaland Forum

@ sage

To the topic though.
Nothing like a firey hell or hell fire exists. This is one of the many ridiculous teachings the church has imported.

The bible clearly shows that the dead have no feelings or thoughts whatsoever and that the reward for the wicked is death plain and simple. The soul dies and no such thing as eternal torment.

The eternal torment doctrine goes against Christianity because it ridicules the basis of the Christian Faith---- The Resurection hope and it belies the claim of a loving heavenly father.

The disagreeing brigade would soon land to castigate me but the truth remains what it is

The disagreing brigade huh? That was funny! 

Nothing like a firey hell or hell fire exists

I am sure you didn't mean for it to come out this way, did you? Of course syrup with his spiritual eyes was ready to show both of you toppling over each other, without reading between the lines, just to win an argument.

Interesting topic.

From what I understand hell is indeed a real event, but in truth it cannot be eternal, and here is why I say that. The bible says the "wages of sin is death, " The death of which it speaks is not only the natural death that we experience in this life, bu tit speaks of the second death.

Now, if the wicked will be in hell burning without end, then how can that be death? It is the opposite. The fact that people are feeling pain then it means their senses are still functioning. While I agree that some degree of punishment will take place, I cannot see a loving God allowing the wicked to burn indefinitely.

The fact that the fire is real means the event is real. Hell is not an imaginary or spiritual experience as some would have us believe and to which they attribute the experience. God has promised that He will make a new heaven and earth.

For all those advocates of eternal burning where will hell be when God re-creates the new earth? Where will the wicked be when God's righhteous people once again inhabit the earth made new? Where will Satan and his angels be? Will God allow Satan's presence to continue?

Listen to what the bible says about hell as it relates to the punishment of the wicked.

Malachi 4:1
1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Revelation 21:8.

"For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be." "The enemies of the Lord , shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away." Psalms 37:10, 20.

Plain and simple isn't it? The punishment ends up in death. Death is the final stage of the punishment in which the wicked will be finally banished from the presence of the Lord. The Bible says the wicked suffer "death" (Romans 6:23), will suffer "destruction" (Job 21:30), "shall perish" (Psalms 37:20), will "burn" up (Malachi 4:1), "shall be destroyed together" (Psalms 37:38), will "consume away" (Psalms 37:20), "shall be cut off" (Psalms 37:9), "shall be slain" (Psalms 62:3). God will "destroy" them (Psalms 145:20), and "fire shall devour them" (Psalms 21:9). Note that all of these references make it clear that the wicked die and are destroyed. They do not live forever in misery.

Hellfire will be just as big as this earth because it will be the earth on fire. This fire will be so hot as to melt the earth and burn up all "the works that are therein." The atmospheric heavens will explode and "pass away with a great noise."


Will the fire eventually go out? "Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it." Isaiah 47:14.

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth." "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." Revelation 21:1, 4.


Is God a Torturer? If God tortured His enemies in a fiery horror chamber throughout eternity, He would be more vicious and heartless than men have ever been in the worst of war atrocities. An eternal hell of torment would be hell for God also, who loves even the vilest sinner.

What will be left when the fire goes out? The fires will burn until only ashes are left. Even the bones will be completely gone. "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." "And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 4:1, 3.

https://www.bibleuniversity.com/images/CourseID2/afsg11-10.jpg


An eternal hell of torment would perpetuate sin and make its eradication impossible. An eternal hell of torment is not part of God's great plan at all. Such a horrible theory is slander against the holy name of a loving God. The devil delights to see our loving Creator pictured as such a monstrous tyrant, and he alone can benefit from such teachings.

@ Syrup

The fact that christians can twist God's words and claim God's gift all at once amazes me. , This is what I find a mystery. Not tongues.

Acts 5:32 says, 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Christians who incorporate pagan practises in church services, and thus fail to obey God's direct commands cannot qualify to recieve God's Holy Spirit in its fulness. While the Spirit will plead with ignorant christians to leave the system, He can do so much and no more.

You may not like the way this may sound. but the devil invented your brand of tongues in order to hold you in deception, but of course you're so caught up with it you cannot see the deception.

Keep "waving in the Spirit'. Its your choice. I have chosen to stay out of confusion.

@ Demmy

Rest assured my friend this ship has been sailing since, and is bound for the shores of Caanan, the heavenly one that is. The christian faith is built on God's sure word, and the bible has proven itself true. Its prophecies have come to pass and those yet to be fulfilled will be fulfilled in your very eyes if you live to see those events.

I hope for your sake you live to see last-day events fulfilled so that you can know for sure that God is not a liar, but all those who scheme and plot against spiritual values for mere convinience.

Its only a matter of time when he that will come, will come, and will not tarry.

Peace.

@ Syrup

@Bobbyaf,

I don't think my rejoinder was particularly addressed to you; but if it applies, then perhaps you felt somewhat put on spot. I went through the thread before making my input, and yours was not the only post on the thread.

It didn't have to be addressed to me to detect the level of cheekiness on your part as if you're the only one besides those who disagree with you, being spiritual.  

I really don't see the substance in yours if you'd have to be so forward to push your views on others while decrying anyone's opinion that differs from yours.

I am going the safe way and that is the bible way. You're making out tongues to be what it is not.

The common sense thing to do would have been to ask questions - just like TV01 did when he was not clear about my statements earlier.

Ask who? You? It is abundantly clear what your objective is, so why should I ask the obvious. Your intention is to twist the scriptures to suit your beliefs.

Bottomline is that experience puts to silence the academic arguments of men against what they do not understand - and that goes as well for the charismata of the supernatural gift of tongues.

And what is the test of that experience? It is never safe to use a gift as evidence itself since gifts can and have been counterfeited by so-called christians in church. How can one know for sure who is born again is not measured by professing to have gifts, as you're advocating. As the saying goes "all that glitters isn't gold"

While trying to be know-it-all about Scripture, your response only comes back showing how you deny the very thing the scriptures teach. If there is nothing mysterious about the gift of tongues, how then does the Bible say that "howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (I Cor. 14:2)?? This is why someone with head-knowledge but without the experience of heart-revelation will argue so much and deny what God's Word teaches.

Too bad if you fail to grasp the true intent of my statement. We are on two different wavelengths here. Your use and understanding of mystery is way different from mine. All I meant was simply that there isn't anything mysterious about what Paul was talking about re the subject of tongues in chapter 14.

1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

This is the problem verse for most advocates of modern-day tongue speaking in the church. Don't get me wrong I am not agianst tongues as a gift. What I am against is its methodology and how it is viewed.

Now if one looks at that verse in isolation, which is mostly done by those pushing the counterfeit tongues, you would walk away with the wrong impression. You'd think based on their argument that this brand of tongue speaking is one between God and the one speaking. In other words its a kind of prayer tool in which no one else seems to understand what is going on. This is the typical pattern in most of these churches.

Is that what Paul meant by that verse? Certainly not! In fact the word un-known is an applied word, and does not belong to the original transcript. Besides, since the word tongue means language, then the only word in the paragraph that suggests that the language is foreign is the word mystery. But even if the word unknown was applied to give meaning, then the word mystery only serves to qualify such an addition. In other words if a person gets up to speak in another language and those in hearing don't understand, then to them its a mystery, but to God it isn't who knows all languages.

As far as I am concerned the gift as recorded in Acts 2, and that spoken of by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians is the same gift. The language as spoken by the disciples was understood by those for whom the gift was intended, both the ones speaking and the ones hearing. What happened at Pentecost was done with a purpose, because God is not the author of confusion. God simply tied in the commission with the gift. All those who would become witnesses would have automatically used the gift as the necessity arose. If there were no need for it then it would not manifest itself.

The bible isn't always clear as to who the disciples met during their witnessing, bu tone thing is clear all those who were born again recieved the gift, but that was only because being born again was the first step to becoming a witness for Jesus Christ. The two go hand in hand.

Where in my posts did I suggest that the others gifts are not supernatural as well - especially after in my having quoted I Cor. 12:9 earlier? Let me get this: are you so given to arguments because there's really nothing else you can do? I really don't mind that; but at least be generous enough to make some sense in your arguments.

I wasn't accusing you, but seeing you're so self-aware, , carry on.  I am really enjoying this one.

Sad to observe again that you failed to see the whole picture. Tongues are as much a valuable gift in Church as is the gift of prophesying:

#1. Some of the fruit of prophesying is that men may receive "edification, and exhortation, and comfort" (I Cor. 14:3). Where tongues are interpreted, the church is edified as well (vs.5). This shows clearly that the apostle placed both prophesying and tongues on the same pedestal, as long as there is interpretation of tongues.

No such thing. You'd like to believe that. Listen again to what Paul said: 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Notice what Paul said? Notice further that Paul hinted that he who speaks in foreign language, or tongues, should interpret. Why would that person need to speak in tongues when the entire congregation already spoke one common language, unless he or she was a foreigner and spoke a different language. In that case that person would need to have his or her words interpreted so that the greater objective of church edification is achieved.

Obviously according to Paul it would be fine if all could speak with tongues, but only as the church is edified and not brought into confusion. Listen to what Paul said further: 6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Did Paul say that he came speaking in tongues to himself, or did he say came unto you speaking in with tongues? From that we must assume, for want of a better word, that speaking with tongues was not so much a private matter, but a public matter. Paul explained that he would rather come by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine. What we see today is the very opposite. We see the whole congregation being encouraged to speak in tongues all at once. Now, if that isn't confusion and a direct afront to God's word what is?

Paul continued: 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

Notice verse 9? I am not saying it, Paul is, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air

Gentle folks Paul is very clear about what he means by tongues. Tongues means languages, and nothing more. Its not some spiritual or heavenly language if you ask me. Too many people like to put a twist on scriptures in order to justify their beliefs. We must learn to see the context or bigger picture of what the original authors had in mind. This calls for the work of the Spirit alongside scholarship. You cannot throw out academics. You cannot throw out reason.  

Somehow these christians have been caught up with some type of emotional and hypnotic experience that they themselves cannot explain. They believe that because it happens in church it must be from God, but little did they know that Satan sits in church too. He is the author of confusion and the counterfeiter of the genuine.

Don't get me wrong I am not using this forum to suggest that because they are caught up in this phenomenon that they are not christians. For all I know they could very well be sincere in this matter, but my argument is not about sincerity so much, but about truth.

The road to hell is paved with sincerity, and many there be that find it.

@ Syrup

Only academic minds argue against the 'mysteries' of the Spirit that they cannot understand.

And what is that suppose to mean that everyone else who disagrees with your ideas is merely taking an academic position?

If the charismata of tongues were only meant to be interpreted by mere human philosophies, what then is the need for the corresponding charismata of "interpretation of tongues"?

The same can be said of you also, because your views cannot be supported by scriptures. There is nothing mysterious about the gift of tongues. Tongues simply means language, nothing more.

If the gift of tongues is a supernatural gift (as surely it is), then the interpretation of tongues is equally a 'supernatural' gift of the Spirit.

So what about the other gifts aren't they supenatural too? Didn't Paul say that he would rather the church prophesy rather than speak in tongues? Hence the gift of prophecy is far more important for church edification than that of tongues. (see 1 Cor. 14:1)

1 Cor. 12:9 ~ "To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues."

Exactly! Certainly this passage isn't saying that one must speak in tongues is it? Its certainly not making a rule here! It is simply saying that all the gifts have their place among God's people as God's Spirit sees fit. Its is God's Spirit that decides who recieves what, and not anyone trying to force something on people.

Trying to academically figure out the mysteries of the Spirit only shows that such a person has no experience of divine mysteries; and one who is bereft of the supernatural will predictably scorn what he has neither experienced nor understand.

And I suppose you have all the experiences of divine mysteries, heh?

The gift of tongues is a supernatural charismata given by the Spirit of the living God to Spirit-filled believers.

The gift of tongues was never meant to be a sign of being Spirit-filled? Jesus didn't say "by their gifts ye shall know them', rather He said "by their fruits ye shall know them"

The fruit of the Spirit bears more evidence of true conversion than the gifts of the Spirit, and that is why Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13. The consistent lifestyle of a child of God is far more reaching in its effect than just merely professing to have the gift. How many of these tongue-yielding pastors have they caught prostituting, and aving sexual relations with the young girls in church, and committing the most atrocious acts, ripping off poor people's money and living the big life.

Paul says "though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels" it profits me nothing if I lack love.

True indeed Trini_girl

And that is why we have to keep going back to the original hebrew and greek in deriving a better understanding of difficult passages. Believe you me, there are some very difficult passages that will throw you into a spin, if all you're doing is simply taking them at face value.

My translation of choice is the NKJV.

As I have alluded to before whenever God sets up a genuine institution, fully intact with a central motif, the devel sets up a counterfeit. Tongue speaking as presented by these charismatic organizations, is based on righteousness by works, and the sad thing is they are not even aware of doing it.

In other words if one doesn't speak in tongues as evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit, then according to them one doesn't have the fulness of the Spirit. That is one issue.

The other issue is that their total failure to make a comparison with what happened at Pentecost, as accounted by Luke, and what actually happens in their congregations amounts to dishonesty.

This is what happened at the day of Pentecost:

1. The Jews from 16 different nations in the diaspora came to Jerusalem to celebrate with those living there, the feast of the passover and Pentecost.

2. While they were there the disciples who tarried in one accord in the upper room recieved the Holy Spirit, and began speaking in diverse tongues (different languages)

Acts 2:4, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Notice how verses 5 and 6 put it plainly that even a child could understand it. , observe: 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

In other words the jews from the diaspora heard the disciples speaking in their own language which surprised them because they knew that these men were Galileans. The gift was both in the hearing and the speaking.

Notice again that there was a set of persons who spoke and there was another set who heard and understood. Tell me the truth goodly people, is this what we see in these congregations today? Is it the same scenario we are seeing here? Certainly not! What we see is nothing short of confusion, and plain babbling. They have built a religion around the use of 1 Cor. 14:2, which has been removed out of its context all together. And this is done without paying attention to the other things Paul said about speaking in tongues in the very same chapter.

In conclusion, the central motif for the gift in the first place was to empower the disciples who were commissioned to go in all the world. They had no time to learn foreign languages. The God who commissioned them simply gave them the gift by default. As a matter of fact all who recieved the Spirit and the gospel commission automatically got the gift.

Regards.

Thanks Trini_girl.

Jesus once said that the stones would cry out, and they are certainly testifying to bible truth, aren't they?

Nature has a strange way of shutting up bible bashers.

Bless.

I hope you'll find the book informative, but be prepared for an eye opener.

I choose grace over the law.

So nurses and doctors,hospital and nursing home personnel,firefighters and a host of others that definitely have to work on "sabaath days" are not condemned as the law would say.
I doubt if those professions are off limits for Christians since by SDA teachings they should be.

You never fail to amuse me!

Just to let you know that we do have all those professionals mentioned in your post who happen to be SDAs. We operate hospitals, clinics, in which our nurses and doctors attend to the sick. I personally used to attend to the sick on the sabbath while I managed the department of diagnostics at one of our own hospitals.

If there is a firefighter who holds church membership he or she is allowed to attend emergency cases. If the case isn't emergent then such persons usually get the sabbath off.

Now you know.

Here is the oline book with contents.

http://www.pacinst.com/terrorists/preamble.html

You're most welcome Trini_Girl.

Good to have you back. Always look forward to your posts.

I am astonished that there are people that actually raise this question: “Should one or should one not call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God”? Because if Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how could the Virgin who gave birth to Him not be the Mother of God?

Well yes she was Jesus's mother, and Jesus is God, but the motive behind calling her the mother of God is far different for the RCC. In fact they have tied all that in with calling her the queen of heaven. Is it any surprise that the RCC teaches that we must pray to Mary the "mother of God"?

Isn't it a fact that the RCC teaches about the assumption of Mary, meaning that she did not see death and is now in heaven acting as an intercessor?

This is the belief that has been passed down to us by the Holy Apostles, even if they did not use this specific term. This is the teaching that we have received from the Holy Fathers,

And who were these holy fathers may I ask?  

The Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of God since she supernaturally gave birth to the Christ, the Savior, who has taken on our flesh and our blood, and who on the human level, comes from the same substance as His Mother and ourselves.

Which leads me to ask of you. Was Mary a sinner? Was she born in sin and shapen in iniquity?  The RCC leadership doesn't believe so.

Fellow Nairalanders, what do you think?

Mary was a chosen vessel for the birth of Jesus, God's Son. No where does scripture stress the importance of Mary, or nowhere does it stress the need for us to be calling her the mother of God.

I can certainly see that Trini_girl,

And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

From time to time this topic is discussed in church and as usual some are of the view that its safer to be comfortable in life than to be rich. As a christian do you believe that:

1. , your life would be more spiritual if you were rich?

2. , God wants you to be rich personally (I ask from a sense of your having a personal conviction)

3, there is a difference in what Christ said in Matthew 19:24 and what John said in 3 John 2 which says: 2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

Tell me what you think. Its a book every christian should read.

As I have said the truth is out there Bari_kade, and everyoone else viewing the topic. Its either God's law is still in force, or its not. We'll see as events develop. I am sure we can agree on that much.

It was an exercise worth committing to in discussing with you, and I trust that God will bless you and see you through to the end.

Shalom.

As I have said the truth is out there Bari_kade. Its either God's law is still in force, or its not. I am sure we can agree on that much.

It was an exercise worth committing to in discussing with you, and I trust that God will bless you and see you through to the end.

Shalom.

@ Bari-kade

Now verse 10 unequivocally shows that God's law is better served when it is internalised, when it is planted in our minds, when true conversion takes place by God's Holy Spirit. Listen to Paul as he continues:

Heb. 8:10, For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

To enable people to internalize His law, to love it and obey it eagerly and willingly, God makes this promise: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them" (Ezekiel 36:26-27). God's Spirit enables His people to obey His laws!

And what Law/Commandment/Covenant are you speaking about? Merely quoting verses were the words "Law" or "Commandments" or "Statutes" or "Covenant" appear does not mean you're convey the sense of the verses about them.

There is one moral law and that is the 10 commandments. There is one covenant that is built around the law. It is this law that will be placed in our hearts when the NC begins between us and God.

This is a joke, right? Nice one, but I'm not amused as yet. How many times have I asked you to state clearly as to which Law/Commandments you were basing your arguments - and one and all you evaded any answers thereto? You haven't even the moral spine to quote a Genesis verse of a non-existent commandment for Adam about the Sabbath; and you have the temerity to twaddle about distinguishing between the Law and 10 Commandments!

I have always based my arguments on the moral law of 10 commandments which you insist have been abolished. Jesus said in matthew 5 that you'll will be regarded as the least from a heavenly point of view. It is you who continue to mis-represent God.

However you delineate the Law or 10 Commandments, you still are skipping verses to show Paul's inference about the subject you know nothing of. Here, take it or leave it ~~

I am afraid its you who don't know anything about the subject. Its always you who use out-of-context passages to continue a lie.

Rom. 7:4, 6 - "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. . .But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

A case in point is this very text. Being dead to the law doesn't mean that the law is abolished. What it means is that we can never be affected by the law as long as we remain in Christ. s long as we are alive in sin the law will always condemn us, bu tif we are dead to sin it cannot condemn us, because we are alive in Christ. Jesus said "if you love me keep my commandments"

You see the way you apply scripture is with the motive to discount God's law, when Paul was not necessarily writing with that purpose in mind. Paul simply pointed out the reality of the struggle between sin, faith, and the law. You have taken that to mean what you want it to mean, so as to continue your anti-law agenda.

It is only as a matter of convenience that the SDA arbitrarily sees some laws of ceremonies and other laws of sabbath and yet other of rituals. On the contrary, the New Testament position does not bring Christians under the Law of the OC

God's law of 10 commandments is eternal and belongs to both the OT and the NT. That is why I quoted Psalms 111:7,8 to show you that His law is eternal. They are done in truth and righteousness. Hence my constantly reminding you of the necessity to make a difference betwen the various codes of laws.

So I am not surprised when you quote one section of the bible to contradict another, just so that you can continue in a lie.

including the seventh-day sabbath! That is why Paul states clearly that, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" (Col. 2:16).

This is a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand this passage in question. Paul wasn't using this passage to show that the creation sabbath was a shadow. How could he when the creation sabbath was made before sin manifested. He was referring to those other sabbaths that were institutionalised during the time of Moses, under the Old Covenant, which included the feast days, and which served as shadows pointing to Christ who was the sunstance. Different days meant different things to some jews who often argued which of those ceremonial days was more significant.

You cannot use the seventh-day sabbath (which you do not even understand) to judge other Christians and call them "babylon" - that is the only language the accuser of the brethren understands (Rev. 12:10).

As long as you continue to mis-represent God's truth about the sabbath, and push Sunday as the Lord's day, when it is not, then you are in babylon. By so doing you pay homage to the anti-Christ, rather than Christ. In time you will see that reality.

Is this the best of your carping because your intellect fails you? As daft as you've made yourself, what have you been trying to prove - that your IQ intimidates you when you encounter bari_kade and the best you can do is attack and slobber about? Sorry, but you'd have to grow up and be schooled.

Who are you to encounter? A god perhaps? Hahahaha, , you're making me crack up Bari_kade.

All I asked were questions - which you evaded perennially.

Questions that flooded the thread you mean with your repeated dribblings. You keep raising the same old issues we had argued about before.  

I offered contextual inputs by comparing scripture with scripture - and you had none in Genesis to prove your case. I answered everyline of yours and offered calm exchange of ideas - and the best you could do is drivel about with silly lullabies.

I dealt with that Genesis issue ages ago.  I have made my point and that is it. There is nothing more to discuss about the Genesis issue. I have been a witness to you on that, so i will leave you to discover the truth in time.

Your anti-grace fog is feeding your contradiction. If a covenant cannot change, what is the meaning of Heb 8:13 - "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away"? And what about Heb. 10:9 - "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second"? Clearly the Bible negates what you're arguing.

The covenant has been re-newed. Its the same agreement. The only thing that is different is the terms of the agreement and how it has been ratified. So even though the bible uses the term "new" its really the terms under which the renewal takes place is new.

Originally it was the people of Israel who promised God to obey even though they were not ready to obey. Its the same principle of obeying and live, and disobeying and die as was layed out in the agreement. The blessings and cursings that God pronounced then has not changed because His Son has died. This time around God has promised to place His law in our minds, and to give us the enabling power to obey. This power is recieved when we accept Jesus as our supreme sacrifice who will give us His Spirit.

The NC has never been about God abolishing His law. Its been about changing the terms and conditions under which this NC would have been established and ratified. That is why Jesus made it clear to the jewish leaders who thought that He came to somehow radicalise the system, that in actual fact He came not to "destroy the laws or the prophets" He came to fulfill, and by fulfill He meant to broaden the scope of the spirituality of the law. The word fulfill as used in Matthew 5 simply meant to fully utilise or to fill to the full. The law had lost its true meaning under the jewish leaders, and especially the sabbath, and Jesus made sure to teach the people that true purpose, by the way he lived, and through His death.

I am glad I am sharing a lot with you though. Keep praying and studying and you will see the truth. Whether or not we see eye to eye on interpretation, the fact is the truth is out there. Its only a matter of time.

Bless.

@ Shahan

Welcome! I just want to ask you a simple question.

Before the law of 10 commandments was given on the mount how did the people who existed before Moses know how to distinguish right from wrong?

Are you 100% certain that there were no standards of righteousness before the mount Sinai experience, and how was that standard expressed if there was any?

Whenever people, including the patriarchs sinned how did they know that what they did was wrong if they were not told about what was wrong and what was right?

I want you to view those questions in the light of:

Roman 2:14,15, For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

@ Bari_kade

Its only a pity that with all that long windedness on your part you've still not arrived at the truth re the Lord's sabbath.

If only you knew that God's New Covenant is not about a Saturday or Sunday, much less any day ~~

If only you had a thorough knowledge of what the New Covenant is all about. In fact it has to also do with God's law, among other things. The scriptures reveal that Christ came as a Mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8:6) The popular belief that the NC has abolished God's law of 10 commandments mis-represents both the OC and the NC. That notion is an insult to God and what He is really trying to reveal to us.

What our anti-law friends fail to see is that a covenant cannot change, but the terms under which it was first made can. Hebrews 8:6 did not say that God's law was abolished. It said this:

Heb. 8:6, But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

As you know a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties. Bear that in mind as we discuss the subject of the NC. Paul goes on to say why God had to re-establish the NC on better promises.

Heb. 8:, 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

In verse 8 Paul qualifies what made the covenant faulty in the first place, and the fault rested squarely with the people with whom God made the covenant. These people who were once in Egypt and who have failed as a whole to continue in God's covenant before they left, found themselves in the wilderness with the same rebellious spirit. Listen as Paul explains in verse 9.

Verse 9, Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Please note that this mount Sinai covenant was not the only one that was introduced to God's people, and it was certainly not the only one to have been dis-regared by God's people either.

Under the OC at Sinai God had written the law on stones which was external to their mind set and motives, seeing they were not converted as a whole. Sometime ago in your response you raised the point about Israel crying out to God for deliverance as proof that they somehow were faithful to God. This was your rejoinder:

It's very easy to make accusations like these especially when you ignore what the Scriptures teach. If Israel was steeped in Egyptian idolatory, why then would the Egyptians have persecuted them with such hatred for simply the Jews' faith in the LORD? If the Jews/Hebrews were deep in Egyptian idolatory, to whom were they praying/crying out to that the LORD God heard them? See for yourself ~~

Exo. 2:23-25 & 3:9 - "And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage; And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them. . . Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them."

I'd rather you don't let your imaginations fly wildly to make accusations against God's people every which way.

Compare that with what Hebrews 8:9 says: , "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."

The fact is God did make a previous covenant with their fathers even before they had landed in Egypt, and not even that covenant did they keep, and God allowed them to suffer under the hands of another Pharoh. He regared them not. I will hasten to say that God did indeed hear their cry, and did eventually deliver them in order that His promise to Abraham become effective.

Now verse 10 unequivocally shows that God's law is better served when it is internalised, when it is planted in our minds, when true conversion takes place by God's Holy Spirit. Listen to Paul as he continues:

Heb. 8:10, For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

To enable people to internalize His law, to love it and obey it eagerly and willingly, God makes this promise: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them" (Ezekiel 36:26-27). God's Spirit enables His people to obey His laws!

Nowhere does Paul or the prophets Jeremiah, and Ezekiel intimate that God would have done away with His law, and hence the galations and other passages you have introduced into the discussion, are your typical out-of-context use of scripture to continue believing a lie. Its people like you and your kind that make it appear that scriptures cantradict themselves.

So because I know better than to believe your mis-conceptions of scripture, I will hold the forte. You have a responsibility to ensure that whenever Paul speaks about law, you make it your duty to distinguish between he is talking about the law of ceremonies, or the law of 10 commandments. Look at how obvious it is to make such a distinction. I hope you're paying attention.

This is your misuse of a text in galations, Gal. 4:9-11"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

Compare the above with the same Paul who wrote to the Romans concerning the law of 10 commandments:

Romans 7:12-14 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14vFor we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Any one who is led by God's Spirit could not in their right mind not see that Paul is making a big distinction between the law of ceremonies and the law of 10 commandments. One set is considered as "beggarly elements" and one set is regared as holy, just, good, and spiritual.

Bari_kade if you build a set of beliefs on lies, whethr kowingly or not, you'll be forced to see the scriptures the way you have been seeing them. You go about the forum quoting from one section to another to prove what? That you're versed? Far from it!!!

Sooner or later and I hope for your sake sooner, that you will see the truth as it is in Christ Jesus.

Bless!!!

@ Bari_kade

I was waiting for you to desperately rush to Hebrews - and let me ask you:
Question #16: what did Paul mean by Hebrews 4:9?

Hebrews 4:9, There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.


Exactly what it said. The greek word sabbatismos as found in the Greek Interlinear means "a sabbath rest"

If we are to go by the exact translation, and most translations seem to use the term "sabbath rest" then the evidence is clear that God expects His people to keep the sabbath, which is a fitting symbol of the eternal rest to come.

Not only does God expect us to utilize the sabbath rest while on earth, but He will see to it that that eternal institution remains forever. In the new heaven and earth that God will re-create the sabbath will again be kept as it was intended to be. Listen:

Ish. 66:22-23, For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

This is clear scripture as to how God feels about His holy day.

@ Bari_kade

I'm glad for your sake that you're coming close to the stated precepts instead of just making unsubstantiated implications. However, if you follow closely the background to this incident, you find that this was the first time God specifically made reference the sabbath. The fact that "all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses" what happened on the sixth day (vs. 22) shows that they hitheto were not keeping the Sabbath - not even when they were in Egypt! On that occasion, Moses then said, "This is that which the LORD hath said" (vs. 23) - and please notice the tense of his reply and see that Moses was reminding the elders of what he earlier said to the congregation of Israel in vs. 4-5.

The fact that there was no mention of the sabbath before Exudus 16 doesn't mean that there wasn't one. You're assuming that because scripture is silent on something that it doesn't exist. What if you're wrong?  

In the history of Israel as a covenant people of the Lord, it is on record that anytime reference was made to the Sabbath as a Law/commandment, it was often in reference to the time God spoke of it to Moses. This is clear in Nehemiah's prayer in Neh. 9:14 -

Then why would God from creation sanctify the seventh day? You're still going around this fundamental principle. If one sanctifies something don't you expect that one to go into details about the purpose of sanctifying that something? You're harping about a direct law telling Adam to observe the sababth as if that will absolve you from the responsibility of being obedient to God.

Bari_kade no amount of theological expositions can absolve you from seeing the plain trut of scripture. There has to eb a connection between the creation sabbath of which Jesus made reference to in Mrk 2:27 and the very same one mentioned in Exudus 16.

If you notice how the question was posed by God to Moses. God asked: And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

If at that point of the experience it was the first time that God introduced the sabbath then why ask "how long refuse ye to keep my commandments and laws" This suggests to me in an obvious way that there were previous experiences before which God's people refused to obey.

Besides, long before Moses heard anything about God's laws Abraham did. Listen:

Genesis 26:5
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

"And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant."

Again, in Jer. 17:22, God Himself hinted that this commandment was given to the patriarchs of Israel:  "Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers."

Now, I wonder why God did not state in the latter that they should hallow the sabbath day as He commanded Adam?? This is why I have asked you many times to please go into Scripture and see WHAT and HOW God said the sabbath was to be observed and kept.

Mark 2:27 clears that up when Jesus said: "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" So if Adam was a man, which you seem to deny, then the sabath was made for him. Simple ABC.

Tall hope - I'm not the one spinning a web around the issue, and that warp and weft is best suited to your exercise. Now your contradiction has come to the fore by stating now that God's law existed long before it was written, while stating the opposite earlier that no such command existed! See again what you stated:

Typical confuser of the real issues. There is no contradiction in what I said and more so what I meant. You know as well as I do that there was no direct wording or command as such of God instructing Adam re sabbath keeping. We agree on that, but I went on to argue the point of God's sanctifying the day and hence the fact that He did made it highly improbable that He never made Adam and Eve aware of such an act. So when I say God's law existed before it was written what I meant was that God's law in principle existed even before it was written on tables of stones. What is so hard to grasp about that?

John says in 1 John 3:4 the following: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

My question to you is. Did Adam and Eve sin? And if they sinned there must have been a set of principles that they transgressed. The same set of principles has come to be known as the 10 commandments. Listen to David as he descirbes them:

Psalms 111:7,8., The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. 8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

Psalms 119:142, "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth."

I still contend that God could not have blessed, sanctified, and hallow a day for Himself. He did it for mankind in order that they might remember His act of creation. Hence the seventh-day sabbath is a memorial of God's creation. The scripture is very clear on this as stated in the 4th commandment.

Notice how the 4th commandment ends in verse 11:

Ex. 20:8-11, 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 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: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

That verse carries a reason why God's people should keep the sabbath. It is to be kept as a memorial of creation and the fact that God Himself rested. Now, if in a sinful environment God still desires that His people remember Him as Creator, then why wouldn't God also not desire that His upright humans at the very beginning remember His acts of Creation?

I find that a very strange piece of arguiment.

Not only was the sabbath kept by the patriarchs, despite the OT's silence on such, and which is no reason to believe that the sabbath was kept anyway, but there remains a sabbath day of rest for God's people. Listen to Paul as He speaks:

"There remaineth therefore a rest [margin: 'keeping of a sabbath'] to the people of God," Hebrews 4:9.

Lets revisit Ex. 16 for a bit.

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

I contend that God's law was always there. David says His law and statutes are forever. No one can change them. Exudus 16 is one prime exampe of a people who had forgotten His law. God doesn't just up and create laws just to prove a point if there weren't any in the first place, and especialy to a people who had forgotten. For over 400 years they had adopted the ways of the Egyptians, and even complained about desiring to go back on more than one occasions. The manna experience was to be a fore-runner of the time God would once again re-establish what was forgotten by His people in Egypt, hence the mount Sinai renewal of the covenant, the basis of which was the 10 commandments.

The very fact that an agreement was made and then broken by the chidren of Israel shows how spiritually immature those people were, and how deep they were in the idolatrous ways of the Egyptians. For the very first time God's set of divine precepts would be transferred to two sets of stones, the first four representing love for God and the second six representing love for one another. The best way to instill memory is to have visuals, and that is exactly what they needed considering their level of spirituality.

Once again no truthful argument has come forward to explain why God would sanctify, bless, and hallow a day, right after creation and not desiring for the first couple who represented mankind to enjoy such rest with their Creator. Unless ofcourse the words sanctify, bless, and hallow have totally different meanings.

Bari_kade you can quote all you want it doesn't make sense quoting out-of-context passages that have no bearing on whether God made the sabbath for mankind, inclusive of which was Adam, and all the rest of the righteous patriarchs.

You're the biggest spider on this forum.  , Keep spinning your way straight into oblivion, because sooner or later the truth will stare you in the face and I wonder what you will do when its too late.

Its a pity that you can't think for yourself rather than having to copy and paste what others have to say on the internet. Its no wonder your dribblings are so long.  

Since the bible is true then we have to accept it as such. It says there is no repentance in the grave, and that is exactly true.

Think about it for awhile. Imagine a person living a life that in most part rejected God's call to repent. If that person on his death bed still refused, then do you expect any amount of prayer to change the truth of God's word? No other person save me can choose to repent.

@ bari_kade

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.

My research bari_kade would then lead me to ask you to please tell the forum as to when Jesus instituted the sabbath. Was it instituted at the time of Moses, or was it at the beginning as reported by Genesis.

You cannot use a Law that was enacted centuries later to imply anything upon Adam who was never given such a Law.

The law as given to Moses might not have existed in its form then at the time of creation, but the principle of it did. What did Eve commit when she stole the forbidden fruit? When Eve listened to Lucifer's voice rather than God's did she commit idolatry? When Adam put her before God did he commit idolatry also? When Cain killed Able there was no written law saying "thou shalt not kill" but such laws were already built in their hearts and they were vey much familiar with its principles.

Besides, I never had to use any law to clearly show why I believe Adam, Eve and the rest of God's righteous people kept the sabbath. Genesis 2:1-3 has already explained about God "sanctifying" the seventh day. As I have told you repeatedly the word sanctify means to set apart for holy use. This also begs the question, why would a wise God set apart a day immediately after creation and watch it being profaned by His people? What would be the purpose of making a day holy, and then have that day mean nothing to those who lived in the time the day was made holy?

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!

Thats because your brain is so wired that you're not able to see the command. You're looking for a direct command written in words. The act of God in making the day holy and sanctifying it needs no explanation. The question to ponder, was Adam aware that God sanctified the day? If he was, then he knew what he aught to have done with the seventh day. He knew that at every seventh day, he and Eve would cease attending the garden and rest in order to commune with their Creator.

I know that SDA has championed this art of "using other passages to explain" what is not in the Scriptures! And that's what you have been doing all along and still can't unknot yourself from your misconceptions.

Isn't your statement a contradiction? Are you accusing us of something that the bible itself says we aught to do? Are you saying that you have never used scripture to explain scripture? Are you saying that everything in scripture is clear cut and direct at all times? The misconception lies in your frontal lobe.

If Jesus said the sabbath was made for mankind, who are you to argue against that? Cannot you see that you're the one who is mis-concieved?

You miss the whole purpose of the Sabbath in Genesis, and that's why SDA thinks 'God looks partial' (sorry, I don't take that careless vacancy of thought). I have already discussed this in my previous rejoinder, and you can just go over it again. But it would again be interesting for you to provide texts for Jared, Enoch and others about HOW they kept the Sabbath (at least, someone has asked that question earlier).

The same principle would apply to all the patriarchs. They lived in the same time era as Adam. They were comtemporaries.

It may be the most ridiculous argument by Sunday-keeping Christians because the SDA is so confused about issues relating to the Sabbath and are very quick to condemn others for not keeping a Saturday observance. As you asked earlier, "Why merely follow rules for rules sake?"

And I still maintain it is the most ridiculous argument because its true. Its you and your kind who have rejected the plain "thus saith the Lord", by keeping a day that was established by the RCC under Rome.

Let me give you an example of how one can use one passage to shed light on another that isn't so clear. Look at:

Genesis 5:23,24, And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 24 And Enoch walked with God:

and he was not; for God took him

.

Any honest person reading a text like this would go away wondering what was meant by "and he was not; for God took him"

Listen to Paul as he expounds in Hebrews 11:5, 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

What was not made very clear in Genesis is now made clear in Hebrews 11. Thats just one of many examples.

God is far wiser than you're able to give Him credit. Long before there was ever a covenant that was administered by Moses, and long before Moses recieved the law of the covenant, God reminded His people to be faithful in observing the seventh-day sabbath. This re-inforces my point that the sabbath was still being observed by God's people, and that God intended for it to have been kept, long before it was written on tables of stones, listen:

Exudus 16:4, Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.

I wonder what law God was talking about? I wonder if that law also had anything to do with the sabbath. Lets see.

23 And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.

If as you say that the sabbath was introduced under the Old Covenant which never materialised until they got to mount Sinai some time after this part of the wilderness journey, then how come Moses reminded the Hebrews about the sabbath if they weren't keeping it before?

Listen again as Moses speaks living truth: 26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. 27 And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. 28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

So now you see that God's law that included the sabbath command existed in the people's hearts long before it was written on tables of stones.

Let me see you spin a web around this one now!

@ Bari_kade  

After your accusations, now you're attempting to provide answers to my questions.

Listen to yourself! As if your questions are oh so important.  , what a pompous fellow!

A few remarks before I deal with your failed attempts. In the first place, you intoned that you were not aware that there were any stipulations

My saying that I wasn't aware of any scriptural stipulations is exactly that. This format of debate between us is unique. I hardly saw the relevance and I still don't, as to your line of questions as it related to the relevance of the sabbath truth.

Sabbath keeping will vary according to cultural differences.

I find that a very strange statement coming from you, especially when you tried to use Matt. 5 to prejudge me earlier.

My statement on cultural differences has nothing to do with Matthew 5.

But did you notice that your statement above again falls short of the Word of God? If you are advocating a relaxing of the Law according to "cultural differences", then in Matt. 5:18-19, Jesus said quite the opposite to what you just said. The Word of God is not subject to cultural differences concerning the Laws and commandments that He issued:

I am not aware of relaxing any law based on what was said about cultural differences. If you don't know what I am talking about don't be afriad to ask for clarification. Some other time I will clarify what I mean by cultural differences.

Exo. 12:49 - "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."

Its strange how you can use this text to support your argument yet you fail to see its relevance as it relates to people other than the jews keeping the sabbath.

Secondly, I see you're now often abandoning your Genesis argument in favour of the Law of Moses in your quote of Exodus 20: 10 & 8, with this subscript:

I am glad you say argument and not idea! I have no time to waste with you on the subject. What I have said is said. If you desire to keep bickering on the matter go ahead.

What this says to me is that you're confusing issues all the more for yourself, because the same Law you denied Jesus made reference to in Mark 2:27 (when compared with Matt. 12:5) is the very same context you're now applauding. My concern has been that, if you can't find a text for your Adam-sabbath commandment in Genesis, then your arguement will appear weak thereto.

Let us examine Matthew 12:5 that you keep harping on. It says:

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

First of all law in the sentence means the writings of Moses. Jesus' references to this law was to highliht the hypocracy of the jewish leaders and how they viewed the sabbath. Your duty is to fully understand what Jesus meant by the priests profaning the sabbath without being blameless. You need to seek the context of Jesus' words, and stop loosely using passages for which you lack the proper understaning.

Yes Jesus gave a discourse, but was He denouncing the sabbath, or was He showing them to look at the more weightier matters of the law? Why merely follow rules for rule's sake? Your showing Matthew 12:5 doesn't change one iota of truth about true sabbath keeping. It doesn't contradict in any form or fashion the general principle that the sabbath was made for mankind either.

You keep harping about my not finding a command for the sabbath given to Adam as if that will somehow prove you right and me wrong. I already said to you that no such command exists, but that Mark 2:27 implied a purpose for God giving the sabbath to mankind generally, and more specifically, Adam, and no doubt strengthens Genesis 3:1-3.

What you have failed to do is prove that Adam was not a man. And I will remind you constantly that the word "man" in Mark 2:27 is used generically to mean mankind. Go do some research and you'll see that truth. One doesn't need a command to see the obvious, or what is implied in both Mark and Genesis. The fact that God on day seven sanctified or set aside the day, its pretty obvious that the moment He did it, it meant that any person whom He created would have come to that realization, especially when we stop to think how beneficial the sabbath is. The following passage gives the reason for remembering the sabbath.

Exudus 20:10,11, 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: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

In other words God set an example for mankind. He didn't rest becasue He was tired, but set aside a day in which we can celebrate His creative works. Each time the 7th day came around, Adam and Eve were to rest in celebration of God's creatorship. So, the coined argument about there not being a command for Adam and Eve to have kept the sabbath can be taken for what it was, pointless and meaningless. It means nothing. There are a lot of things that were not explicitly said in scriptures for which we have used other passages to explain, and the ones in Mark and Genesis are no exception.

So according to you by virtue of your understanding of the whole issue, is that only the hebrews/jews were previlaged to be able to appreciate that God was Creator? All those righteous patriarchs like Jared, Enoch, and others were never made aware of the need to commemorate God's creation. So God had to suspend the purpose of the sabbath some 2000 years after creation for a people called the Hebrews. This is the most ridiculous argument among Sunday-keeping christians. It makes God look partial.

The Bible says in it that shalt not do "any work!" Of course, I am very aware that elsewhere, there's an injunction for the work not being servile; but you earlier hinted that the Sabbath was for recreation. Now my concern is this: If the Sabbath is for recreation as you said, what is wrong with people or footballers player a soccer game on Saturday?

Re-creation not in that sense of the word. Besides, playing football is not considered resting.

@ Damest09

I believe they ain't real

Why do you say that?

By Alexos

When you speak in tongues, do you understand what you are saying

Good question! In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul addressed the same question. In other words, why should a person not understand when they speak in tongues? I find that notion of it not being a problem if one doesn't understand a problem.

In fact nowhere in scripture does it argue a case for it. So those people who use 1 Cor. 14:2 to support such a case are either being dis-ingenious, or are being ignorant.

Naaaw, Free aint bored at all. She just wants more proof I guess. , wait till she sees one then you'll see how fast she runs back to this thread,

@ Orikinla

From my childhood, I have always loved evangelism and playing Jesus Christ.
I just love sharing the Good News with absolute strangers. And when I received my own share of seven tracts in church today, I did not waste time to go and share the word of God after the service.

I met seven people I have never known before and they gladly accepted the Good News.
One Engr. James who said he works for the Nigeria LNG on Bonny Island welcomed me and we discussed the only Truth-Jesus Christ and how Nigerians can be saved only by living according to the Word of God and not by lip service or eye service.

I returned home feeling like a happy child.

Very nice testimony. God's love for us compells us to share the good news.

@ Bari_kade

What is the Lord's Sabbath

Ex. 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:

- and HOW did the Bible say it was supposed to be observed?

Ex. 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 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:

There are two components to sabbath keeping and they are both connected:

1. Keeping it holy

2. Resting from your work, or labour.

As regards #1 the sabbath is already holy and God desires that we keep it that way. Keeping it holy involves worship and doing good in the act of keeping it.

As regards # 2 it means not doing your usual mundane stuff that can be done during the 6 days allotted you for those stuff, and that are not dedicated to worship.

Of course the word work has to be taken into context, because at church services work is done, but that is not the kind of work that the command highlights. I mean lifting the tithes and free will offering requires work. If we have communion there is some degree of work. I believe you get the gist.

Moses no doubt gave guidelines of specificity as far as proper sabbath keeping was concerned in his time which were based on the prevailing circumstances. In our time we are faced with our prevailing circumstances and so our approach to sabbath keeping will be different today.



Sabbath keeping will vary according to cultural differences.