And God blessed the 7th-day and made it holy ...WHY?

[cj]

All I was doing is saying why it was flawed. I understand your point.

Perhaps you see it that way, but based on your writing it is obvious that you did not understand my points.

Ok, man. Sure. I'm laughing. Seriously. You need to calm down. Seems you took it too personally. And what good response, btw, could I come up with to refute points that really have no points?

I'm perfectly calm, but this does not mean that I won't call it what it is.

As for not being able to refute points that have no points,... who said anything about refuting? I just said you were not able. Which could mean you simply did not understand.

Ad hominem and insults. Not the best way to gain credibility...

I have no need of gaining credibility, scriptures says it is the Lord who vindicates.

And once again, I call it as I see it, what you said was silly.

I never said anything like it. You are arguing against that other me again. There was no reason to address this. It doesn't have any bearing on anything.

I quote you as follows...

Your first statement had no scripture to back it up. Nothing to tell me where it came from.

Seems you either can't read and understand what you write, or have no problem being dishonest.

Both of which, BTW, have "bearing" on a discussion.

And btw, if man was created on the 6th day, his first day would have been the 6th day. Unless you are saying he took all day and brought him to life at the very end of the day at evening starting the seventh day. However there’s no indication of that in scripture, making this an irrelevant point. Pure speculation to make something fit with whatever it is you are trying to convey. If there is anything in scripture that has anything like this, please show it to me.

A Jewish day began at sunset and ended at the following sunset. This is a day according to Jewish OT ways.

Genesis tells us that God created man on the sixth day. Whether it took a moment, an hour, five hours, or the whole day is not important, what is important is that by the very fact that man was created in the sixth day this tells us that the first day (full 24 hours, sunset to sunset, which make one day) could only have been experienced by man on the day that followed the sixth day.

This is not speculation or conjecture, this is a perfectly obvious fact delivered to us in scripture.

Therefore, since this is declared by scripture it must be relevant.

The question now becomes,.... "How is it relevant?"

And to this question you have no answer as you have never before been confront with this truth.

And don't be offended by this, God reveals as He sees fit.

2..... Nothing in the Bible is insignificant, everything is just God's speaking and He is not frivilous. Therefore the fact that God created man on the 6th day thus making the 7th day, God's eternal day of rest, man's first day must be important in the truth/reality it contains.

Fact is, again there is nothing unscriptural about what I said.

See above.

Not only did I see it, but I also exposed it as the silliness it is.

So if the seventh day is Yahweh’s eternal day of rest, then do you or do you not believe in keeping it?

Absolutely I believe in keeping it, and do keep it, just not according to the ways of religious men.

Being saved is the same as being brought by God into His eternal rest.

Today, God's Sabbath is not an ordained day in time, for the Lord and reality of the Sabbath has come, and by believing into Him we have believed into both His lordship of the Sabbath and the Reality of the Sabbath.

As I remain in Christ, on any day of the week, I am abiding in God's eternal rest, His true Sabbath.

Arguing irrelevant points. See above.

Again, not only did I see it, but I also exposed it as the silliness it is.

I also said some of the points were irrelevant, i.e. the ones above.

Which we now know was not correct on your part.

Hahaha! You are still arguing against that other me. You didn’t get the point of what I had been saying. See above.

No, I'm just calling it as it is.

See your own words I quoted above.

Again...

The truth is, you deleted what you wanted because you could not come up with a good response to it, and instead of being honest about it you attempted to (and are still attempting to) hide your inability in a cloud of foolish speaking.

I'll end this post now ad continue later.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Well, I appreciate the thought that you care. However, that still doesn’t change the fact that I think you are still incredibly wrong and cannot figure out what I am saying. Also, you seemed to pick out the things of what I said only to find some reason to insult me or make me look bad or something. I know you might say the same thing, but I didn’t throw out anything you said. I understood your “reality sabbath†point. What I disputed was the evidence you used to make that point and therefore took out the irrelevant points that I either agreed with or that didn’t have anything to do with what I wanted to say.

When I attempt to point something out it is to establish the proper ground on which to have a fruitful discussion.

What I saw you do in your response was dismiss the entire context in which I was speaking right at the beginning of your response.

This can only lead you to misunderstand what I was saying (which you did) for you will apply your own context to my speaking (which you did).

Everything in my post flowed from the reality of the Sabbath Day, and how this reality relates to man.

If you dismiss these two things as unscriptural (which you did) then the rest of my speaking is seen as being unscriptural (which it isn't).

I know from much experience that continuing a discussion in this way will bear no fruit and only waste our time, so I was attempting to bring your attention to the fact that it was silly to so quickly dismiss what you dismissed.

And forgive me,.... but it is silly.

What use is there in having a conversation where the person you are speaking with ignores the context in which you're saying what you're saying?

And further,.... you then go on to declare how "wrong" I am, and do so based on a total disregard for the context of my speaking.

From your action there can only be one result,..... you will misunderstand everything else that follows. Therefore, what honest ground do you have to stand on and declare that I am wrong in my speaking?


God called this (scripture - Job)..... darkening counsel by (speaking) words without knowledge.

You have dismissed the context of my speaking (thus by your own actions have no knowledge of my speaking) yet seek to tell me that I am "wrong" (the same as giving counsel).

God called this...... speaking (or opening your mouth) in vanity.



So, that said, I tell ou what, lets start anew and to begin with focus only on the first points I made.

In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

I never said anything like it. You are arguing against that other me again. There was no reason to address this. It doesn't have any bearing on anything.

I quote you as follows...

Your first statement had no scripture to back it up. Nothing to tell me where it came from.

Seems you either can't read and understand what you write, or have no problem being dishonest.

OMGollies...

You accused me of somehow saying that you had no scripture to support the fact that Yahweh created everything, created man on the sixth day and rested on the seventh day. I said I said no such thing. The only point I was making was how irrelevant that is to the theme you are trying to portray. I can read, sir. You still can't get your arguments straight and continue to to take what I say out of context.

Both of which, BTW, have "bearing" on a discussion.

They don't help your point, however. That's where we disagree, I think you've strayed far from the point and focused on trying to find ways to make me look "hypocritical" and "dishonest". Grow up, sir.

A Jewish day began at sunset and ended at the following sunset. This is a day according to Jewish OT ways.

I know this, sir. And it is still the same today.

Genesis tells us that God created man on the sixth day. Whether it took a moment, an hour, five hours, or the whole day is not important, what is important is that by the very fact that man was created in the sixth day this tells us that the first day (full 24 hours, sunset to sunset, which make one day) could only have been experienced by man on the day that followed the sixth day.

This is not speculation or conjecture, this is a perfectly obvious fact delivered to us in scripture.

You still don't get it do you? So what his first full 24 hour evening to evening day was the seventh (and we don't even know that; we don't know the moment he breathed into man the breath of life). My point is that it does not support the point you are trying to make. You still argue irrelevant points. Thick-headed...

Therefore, since this is declared by scripture it must be relevant.

The question now becomes,.... "How is it relevant?"

And to this question you have no answer as you have never before been confront with this truth.

And don't be offended by this, God reveals as He sees fit.

Sure, man. Whatever you say. If you want to fancy it as "truth", so be it. It's weak, it's flawed, and you feel offended because I didn't accept it all neatly put together in your little theological box.

2..... Nothing in the Bible is insignificant, everything is just God's speaking and He is not frivilous. Therefore the fact that God created man on the 6th day thus making the 7th day, God's eternal day of rest, man's first day must be important in the truth/reality it contains.

Fact is, again there is nothing unscriptural about what I said.

Has nothing to do with your point though. It does not prove it or help put it together. The reason for saying it ties in with your point is a weak argument and that is the speculation. You still don't get it probably...

See above.

Not only did I see it, but I also exposed it as the silliness it is.

Alright. I'll let you tickle you own fancy. I'm not going to play these little games, especially when you use my word.

Absolutely I believe in keeping it, and do keep it, just not according to the ways of religious men.

And what way would that be? When Yahweh gave the appointed time of the sabbath, he made "religion" out of it? You're really not supposed to do it?

Today, God's Sabbath is not an ordained day in time, for the Lord and reality of the Sabbath has come, and by believing into Him we have believed into both His lordship of the Sabbath and the Reality of the Sabbath.

No scripture. That's my point. You THINK the scriptures you posted support it. But they are taken out of context (which you never said anything about after I exposed that, btw) and are lumped together to fit your opinions. But if you feel they don't, then that's fine. I'm just telling you why I don't see it. You tried to use scripture to back this point above up, BUT IT DIDN'T WORK.

As I remain in Christ, on any day of the week, I am abiding in God's eternal rest, His true Sabbath.

Lack of scriptural evidence. We are not entered into the rest yet. Flawed interpretation of scripture. Please go and read Hebrews 4 again.

I also said some of the points were irrelevant, i.e. the ones above.

Which we now know was not correct on your part.

...

The truth is, you deleted what you wanted because you could not come up with a good response to it, and instead of being honest about it you attempted to (and are still attempting to) hide your inability in a cloud of foolish speaking.

Let the words speak for themselves. I'm in awe of you expect me to accept that atrociously unscriptural nonsense you posted. You didn't even touch on the big points I made. You're just trying to, I guess, make yourself look like you know what you are talking about by calling me foolish. Anyway, but I'll let you do that if it makes you feel better about all that mess you said.

 

[wavy]

What I saw you do in your response was dismiss the entire context in which I was speaking right at the beginning of your response.

I understood it. It was just crazy claims. I was flabbergasted that you'd think any of that scripturet would support what you said. You need to do a bit more studying.

This can only lead you to misunderstand what I was saying (which you did) for you will apply your own context to my speaking (which you did).

Fine. If you feel that way, ok. My only point is that your argument was weak and you had posted scripture that had nothing to do with what you were saying. It was all lumped and forced to support what you're saying by your own words.

Everything in my post flowed from the reality of the Sabbath Day, and how this reality relates to man.

Sure it did...

If you dismiss these two things as unscriptural (which you did) then the rest of my speaking is seen as being unscriptural (which it isn't).

...

I know from much experience that continuing a discussion in this way will bear no fruit and only waste our time, so I was attempting to bring your attention to the fact that it was silly to so quickly dismiss what you dismissed.

And forgive me,.... but it is silly.

Can I get a witness, please? Really, I mean this guy...

What use is there in having a conversation where the person you are speaking with ignores the context in which you're saying what you're saying?

Well, you keep telling yourself that...

You still don't get the point that it was a weak, lumped together argument. And because you seriously think it was good, you refer to my comments as "silly" (stealing that word from me by the way). And then you don't address the major points, but instead try to take the conversation into trying to "expose" the "facts" that I can't read or don't understand what you are saying or am a hypocrite and dishonest. Sir...

My IQ just went down 50 points reading what you said. It's just funny.

And further,.... you then go on to declare how "wrong" I am, and do so based on a total disregard for the context of my speaking.

...

From your action there can only be one result,..... you will misunderstand everything else that follows. Therefore, what honest ground do you have to stand on and declare that I am wrong in my speaking?

...

God called this (scripture - Job)..... darkening counsel by (speaking) words without knowledge.

I suppose you think you have the knowledge, don't you?

I giggled.

You have dismissed the context of my speaking (thus by your own actions have no knowledge of my speaking) yet seek to tell me that I am "wrong" (the same as giving counsel).

God called this...... speaking (or opening your mouth) in vanity.

I laffed.


So, that said, I tell ou what, lets start anew and to begin with focus only on the first points I made.

Alright. I'll post them now.

 

[wavy]

The seventh day on which God rested from His work is also the first day of man.

Matthew 11:28-30, "Come to Me all who toil and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find crest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

(Here we have Jesus/God giving fallen man, fallen from God's rest, a way to come back into that which was created for man.)

Let's stop here. And let's establish the fact that I do understand your "reality sabbath" point. You're saying that man was created on the sixth day and because that his full first 24 hour day was a sabbath (as if that mattered or even if that is true) then he was created into this "reality sabbath" rest of fellowship with "God". You are trying to superimpose context into something that's lacking in the text and from the rest of the scriptures. You are trying to paint the picture that there is some divine reason as to why man's first full day was a sabbath. Then you jumped into claiming "Jesus" was trying to call man back to this "rest" foreshadowed by man's first day (which was significantly the sabbath, supposedly according to you).

Now on to my point. My point is that we don't know if the sabbath was man's first day or not. We know he made man the sixth day. Could have been at the beginning of the sixth day. At the end. In the middle. Whatever. That's not the point. The point is we don't even know if man's first full day was the sabbath. We don't know when Yahweh breathed into him the breath of life and made him a living being/soul.

But that's where everything falls apart. This is all speculation and you are taking it as scriptural fact and significance that man's first day was the sabbath. A weak argument. It can have significance if you want it to be in order to fit your doctrine, but there isn't enough scriptural evidence here to support that. You have to superimpose that into the context. And as far as tying that in with what Messiah said, you are comparing apples and oranges, like I said. Why? Because his reference to "rest" has nothing to do with the sabbath. And hardly has anything to do with this reality you are trying to portray. Weak argument. You ASSUME it has to do with your point (reality sabbath) because you want it to fit. But it doesn't. Even if man's first day was the sabbath, this does not mean that this "reality sabbath" means we don't have to keep the sabbath day.

Mark 2:27-28, "And He said to them, The Sabbath came into being for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So then the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

(The verse above shows the Slave-Savior's deity in His humanity. He, the Son of Man, was the very God who had ordained the Sabbath, and He had the right to change what He had ordained concerning the Sabbath.)

Let's stop here. Now you have jumped from the context of Matthew 11, into the context of Mark 2. You're whole theme is finding passages that you hope fit in with your "reality sabbath" point. But you are taking them out of context. Above for instance, you said he had the right to change what he ordained concerning the sabbath because of the above scriptural passage.

My point is that the above scriptural passage has NOTHING to do with changing sabbath law. In context, I believe he said he was the Master/Lord of the sabbath because he knew what was and what isn't a violation of it (because he and his disciples had just been accused of breaking it). As such, these scriptures are, as I said, taken out of context and therefore IRRELEVANT to your point.

The rest spoken of in Genesis 2:3 is a seed that develops through the Bible and is harvested in Revelation. The development of the seed includes the rest of the Sabbath day (Exo. 20:8-11) and the rest of the good land (Deut. 12:9; Heb. 4:8) in the OT, the rest of the Lord's Day in the NT (Rev. 1:10; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). and the rest of the mellennial kingdom (Heb. 4:1, 3, 9, 11). The consumation of the rest is the rest of the new heaven and new earth with the New Jerusalem, in which all the redeemed saints will express God's glory (Rev. 21:11, 23) and reign with God's authority (Rev. 22:2) for eternity.

Let's stop here. I pointed out a mistake here: you assuming that the "Lord's Day" was part of some "reality sabbath rest" theme (we can get into the fact that there is no "first day of the week" in scripture later and that it is not talking about Sun Day).

Also, here you try to make the theme appear throughout the bible by comparing scriptures that are taken out of context and having little or nothing to do with eachother. You lumped these scriptures together in the manner you started out with in the beginning. The scripture must declare the theme. You are not the one who should try to find scriptures that support what YOU want to say, which is obviously what you have done, imo.

We need to see that the rest of God, which was to be the total experience of man with God, was and is far more than the Jewish Sabbath.

The rest of God is an eternal rest in which His creation simply abides, with man receiving, being satisfied, and enjoying all that God has done.

Let's stop here. Now you are inserting your opinion into things based off the flawed biblical interpretation above. The sabbath, at least I believe, is a type and shadow of the rest to come (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 4 and it will still be kept in times to come according to Isaiah 66:23), but we are not there yet. Hebrews 4:6 and Hebrews 4:11 reveal that we have yet to get to that rest.

You are attempting to contrast what is to come with what YOU call the "Jewish" sabbath (as if it was only for "Jews"). This is where you mess up. It seems to me like you are trying to disprove sabbath DAY keeping because of this "reality sabbath" theme. That is error, and it is all based on your bad example of the sum of Yahweh's word (Pslam 119:160) above.

This is the economy of God, He worked six days to create all that He desires, and then rested from all His work forever.

Let's stop here. This is just out an of whack, pulled straight from the air claim. Nothing in the bible says this. Yahweh has been working since the beginning (check John 5:17 for example), but you say this based off your misinterpretation of Hebrews. This is an unsubstantiated, false claim.

Now, in the speaking of the Bible we find the full manifestation of His work being realized in His creation,.... in time, according to His economy for it. Remembering of course that besides just creating, God also had an adversary that He needed to take care of.

Here you think you have backed your point, but I pointed out all above the reason why you did not. Now you are jumping into something else that hardly has anything to do with the point.

Man is in God's rest for the seventh day was created in the beginning, but in another sense, due to confrontation of God's with His adversary this rest has suffered disruption for a time.

However, this is based off of your lumped, out of context presentation of scripture above.

Now to the Jewish Sabbath Day,...

And here you go with your reality theme contrasting it with this "Jewish" sabbath day. Let's see what you have to say:

Here we have the fourth commandment being given by Moses,........ but,...... it should be noted and clearly understood that this commandment actually originated in something that took place in Exodus 16.

Here you assume that the fourth commandment originated in Exodus 16. Here you are assuming that the sabbath day since creation wasn't a literal day before, but became a literal day to be kept here. I don't believe that. The text doesn't indicate such. Exodus 16 actually seems to support the fact that it had been a literal day of rest long before Sinai, as it was established on the seventh day of creation. Here you again superimpose context in scripture based off of the opinions you have formed, which in turn are established by your already flawed "reality sabbath" scripture "evidence". Who taught you this stuff?

The "first" day of the week was counted as starting on the morning when God first rained down "bread" from heaven. The "rest" day, the Sabbath Day, was the day that came after the sixth day, on which God rained down twice as much "bread".

Here you make some wild claim about the day he first rained bread down was the "first day of the week". That is absolutely nowhere in the text. I then explained to you that he gave them bread on Aviv 16th, continued that till the 21st, and commanded them to rest the 22nd. This is irrelevant to your point.

The significance of the Sabbath Day in its relationship to God supplying the Jews with His heavenly bread is something that is missed by many believers, especially those who hold to the Sabbath Day in the manner of the Jewish law.

And here your motives are clearly revealed. If they weren't seen before, they are seen now. You said all that lumped together stuff because you don't believe in keeping the sabbath day (which you hold to be "Jewish" as part of some "Jewish law", although you have not backed that up). Now you use propganda to spread the idea that those who keep the sabbath, as Yahweh COMMANDED, are in error because they don't see your flawed "reality sabbath" theme. This is weak.

Then, after you say this, you try to give an example of how those who are in "bondage" and keep the "Jewish" sabbath by taking the reader to Matthew 11 & 12. Then you make this statement:

"At that time..." connects what is said in chapter 12 to what was said in chapter 11, where Jesus had just finished speaking about Him giving rest (as opposed to the traditional Sabbath Day of the Jews).

Now, based off of your propoganda above, you assume these chapters are speaking against the sabbath; as if the whole lesson being taught here is "reality sabbath" vs. observance of the sabbath day. That is your first error. I then pointed out that it has nothing to do with that. You tricked the reader into that superimposed context by your propoganda. This is nothing, as you said, "opposed to the traditional Sabbath Day of the Jews" (once again assuming that the sabbath day is "Jewish"). So I said you were comparing apples and oranges. Quite simply, that is exactly what you have done.

These passages give an example of how we find truth in Messiah, away from man's traditions and falsehoods by him taking the yoke of those traditions and falsehoods. That is the context. This is known by reading chapter 12 with the sabbath day. He and his disciples were accused of breaking it by Pharisees because they gathered corn (being hungry). He then gives them examples of how men of old in scripture, like David and the priests, supposedly broke the Torah yet were not accused. Why? Because they were doing good. The priest were performing their duties of atonement. David and his men were about to die and they had to eat something (the bread of the face, or showbread which they lawfully shouldn't have). He explains how execeptions were made for these great men and how he was greater than they are (being Yahweh, greater than how the priests did their temple service on the sabbath and also lord of the sabbath). Therefore he knows what he is doing. He knows what is a violation of the sabbath and what is not.

He brings it all home in Matthew 12:12: It is lawful to DO GOOD on the sabbath, as I said before. You distorted the context into some passage that was "opposed" to the "Jewish" sabbath. Once again showing the weaknesses of your argument. You aren't trying to prove some spiritually fulfilling concept about the rest to come. You are really (at least imo) trying to argue why we should not really keep the literal sabbath day.

You also claimed that he was saying he was "greater than the sabbath", something not found or indicated in the text. It was put there by YOU because you are obviously an anti-sabbatarian who thinks the big, bad legalist who keep the literal sabbath day are wrong.

Therefore, He could do whatever He like on the Sabbath, and whatever He did was justified by Himself.

^Then you said that. However, that is NOT the context.

He was/is above all rituals and regulations, and since He was actually present there was no need to pay attention to any ritual or regulation.

And here again your motive is seen. Complete mutilation of the context in order to push your doctrine (which is really not "reality sabbath", but why we shouldn't keep the sabbath day). This is not in the context. You made this up. He is above rituals and regulations, but that isn't his point. The falsehood you inserted is that we don't have to keep the sabbath because he is greater than it.

This is the reality of these verses,... when Jesus is present it is He that should be heard and followed, and not the rituals and regulations.

NT believers follow a Person and not rituals or regulation.

^My point is proven. Complete butchering of the bible based on your anti-sabbatarian biases.

 

[cj]

OMGollies...

You accused me of somehow saying that you had no scripture to support the fact that Yahweh created everything, created man on the sixth day and rested on the seventh day. I said I said no such thing. The only point I was making was how irrelevant that is to the theme you are trying to portray. I can read, sir. You still can't get your arguments straight and continue to to take what I say out of context.

Again, I quote you as follows...

Your first statement had no scripture to back it up. Nothing to tell me where it came from.

Maybe someone can help me out here,.... how do you get "Your statement had no scripture to back it up"..... to mean "... The only point I was making was how irrelevant that is to the theme you are trying to portray."


Wavy, them's yur words, not mine.


Tell me, if you can't be honest with the very first point why should anyone trust you to be honest with anything else?


In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

Maybe someone can help me out here,.... how do you get "Your statement had no scripture to back it up"..... to mean "... The only point I was making was how irrelevant that is to the theme you are trying to portray."


Wavy, them's yur words, not mine.

I know what I said. You just want to pick grains without addressing the major point.


Tell me, if you can't be honest with the very first point why should anyone trust you to be honest with anything else?

Go back and read again. But if you truly feel this way and are not just trying to avoid the argument, then I'll concede this point to you if feel that way. If you think I contradicted myself then so be it. I don't care. Let's just get to the point.

 

[cj]

I know what I said. You just want to pick grains without addressing the major point.

Not at all,.... dishonesty is not a "grain". At least not in my books.

See Wavy, for what its worth I have an established track record that shows that I have no problem addressing points, and even non-points.

Believe me, given the opportunity I will speak.

But in this case something about your action to dismiss my first points caught my attention and I want to be true to this sense in me.

See, in the Lord's eyes my making this one point about your actions might be the most important point of all my speaking with you. Just because you or I want to go on into what seems to be the meat of the discussion does not mean God sees it that way. And you can try to influence me in a hundred different ways to go further but like the stubborn donkey I simply won't until I sense that the Lord is satisfied.

You might say you know what you said, but what is clear to all who read what you said is that what you're saying now is not what you actually said.

Sorry Wavy, there's no way around it, your words condemn you.

Tell me, if you can't be honest with the very first point why should anyone trust you to be honest with anything else?

Go back and read again.

I have on more than one occasion.

Maybe you should.

"... no scripture to back it up" means "no scripture to back it up."

And the truth is, what I said is absolutely scriptural, meaning, scripture does back it up.

So either you don't know the scriptures or you are being dishonest about them.

But if you truly feel this way and are not just trying to avoid the argument, then I'll concede this point to you if feel that way. If you think I contradicted myself then so be it. I don't care. Let's just get to the point.

No, regarding my first speaking which you declared was not scriptural I said nothing about contradiction, my point concerning you contradiction came at the end of my post. The two points are totally different.

And yet you attempt to make them seem as though they are the same.

Again dishonest.


Wavy, you're straining at the bit to write all sorts of things that you believe you know, to prove what you think you believe.

"LET'S JUST GET TO THE POINT!"

Ohhhh, how frustrated you must be with someone like me,.... you have so much to say and I won't provide you with the valid opportunity to do so.


Wavy, you have shown that you have a hard time being honest in the small things, why do you think I should continue with you in the big things?


For every point you've made in your posts above I can give you many scriptures that will expose the error you speak in.

The presentation of your take on this matter is no higher than kindergarten in the arena of apologetics.

Really, I'm not concerned with being able to utterly reject your speaking with presented scripture, what concerns me is continuing with you in an environment of seemingly dishonesty.


In love,
cj

 

[wavy]

For every point you've made in your posts above I can give you many scriptures that will expose the error you speak in.

The presentation of your take on this matter is no higher than kindergarten in the arena of apologetics.

Really, I'm not concerned with being able to utterly reject your speaking with presented scripture, what concerns me is continuing with you in an environment of seemingly dishonesty.

I won't call you a nut yet. I don't want to offend you so as to turn you off from trying to "expose the error" that I "speak in", ya know, the kindergarten apologetic arena.

So let's just say everything you said about my "dishonesty" was true. Point conceded. Now, what do you have to say?

***EDIT***

And, btw, if you were really concerned about teaching scriptural truth you would have done it already. Or if you had any scriptural truth to present you would have done it already.

What I see from you trying to diverge from the point, is nothing but a way to make you look better to other people who read any of this (which I doubt) by trying to get me to admit "dishonesty". That way, I guess, you'll feel better and more confident about whatever it is you want to say. Trying to put me down as "dishonest" and a "hypocrite" in order to raise yourself up.

I don't think I'm being dishonest. I think you just don't understand what I said or am saying. Of course there's scripture to back up the fact that Yahweh created the earth in six days and rested the seventh, and that man was created the sixth day. How any indication or significance to the supposed fact that man's first day was the seventh is the speculation that you have inserted as truth into this "reality sabbath" teaching. The scripture doesn't operate like that. I don't have a problem with these statements. How it ties in with your point as something not consistent with scripture (and thus, unscriptural) is the problem.

Then after you have been critized in biblcal interpretation you want to sing the ad hominem tune. And your reasoning is because "the lord" is somehow putting it in your heart to address this "dishonesty" of mine. What a cop-out.

And if that is your one true motive, for me to admit error and dishonesty before you attempt to prove me wrong, then maybe it's not that important that I hear what you have to say. I'm really not that interested in these games.

Philippians 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.