Bible Study Tree of Life = Immortality

[Jay T]

To withhold information in regards to other men's salvation would be, at the loss of mine own self, for all eternity

Then I repeat…
[quote:c60bb]
Do you also feel that all males should be physically circumsized, as required by OT law?

No, the Bible explains that.

Or people should pray facing Jerusalem?

Never thought about it before, really.

What is your belief on all the purity laws?

In reference to....?

What about wearing clothing made of two different kinds of materials?

Never really studied into that as yet.
Jsut heard people refering to such things, that's all.

Once I have the answers to these questions, I would like to pursue how you interpret verses that seem to oppose your viewpoints.

For example, the bible tells us that the first century church met on the first day of the week. Yes, the Bible does mention that they did it one time (Acts 20:7).
But, that one time sets no standard, by which we are to follow, otherwise it would have been mentioned as a commandment to do so, from that time forward.
[quote:c60bb]
Do you believe they were in sin?

No, because they had a meeting outside of the 7th day Sabbath ?
No one broke the Sabbath, by that meeting, besides....if one were to look closesly, Acts 20:7 was a Saturday night meeting, did you know that ?
Read it very carefully.....

Or what do you make of it?

[/quote:c60bb][/quote:c60bb]
People have Wedesday night prayer meetings, in the middle of the week, does that make it sacred ?

 

[yesha]

Never thought about it before, really.
Never really studied into that as yet.

hmm.. What should I make of this after you've just told me:

It is the duty of the born-again person, to make sure there is no known sin in their lives, and that comes with Bible study only !

Sins can only be forgiven, when the offender asks for that forgiveness [implying that they are first aware of their sin though bible study alone (according to you)]....which Christ grants, without hesitation.

And "No" when asked if people can be saved with unrepented sin in their life.
Which adds up to; if you don't know about some sin, you can't repent of it, and with unrepented sin you can't be saved.
You say you can't answer if people can be saved if they have unintentional sins, but with your other viewpoints it seems you do have an answer to this question already. What makes you uncertain to answer this question?
Do you have any confidence in your salvation?

For example, the bible tells us that the first century church met on the first day of the week. Yes, the Bible does mention that they did it one time (Acts 20:7).

No, it wasn't just one time, unless I'm reading the scripture wrong.
Consider the following verses.

John 20:19
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
(NIV)

John 20:26
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
(NIV)

Acts 20:7
7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
(NIV)

1 Cor 16:2
2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.
(NIV)

2 Cor 9:12
12 This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of God's people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.
(NIV)

Note that this verse uses the word leitourgia translated service. This word probably suggests that this day [the day of the collection, which continued on for some time, was religiously signifigant.

Taken together most understand that the Christians met together each Sunday.
Now how do you interpret these versus?
And what verses can you offer to show that the Christians met together on the Sabbath?

Do you believe they were in sin?
No, because they had a meeting outside of the 7th day Sabbath ?
No one broke the Sabbath, by that meeting, besides....

That's the same reaction I had when you said that Christians sin by worshiping God on Sunday.
You responded by saying that by breaking one Law they break all Laws and somehow they were sinning by Worshiping God.
What's different about this meeting, and todays Christian meetings, that todays Christians are in Sin, and the Early Christians weren't?

if one were to look closesly, Acts 20:7 was a Saturday night meeting, did you know that ?

No, I didn't realize that. Even if true, however, it's a meeting that's not on the Sabbath.

Also I don't know if it's worth going into testamony from early church fathers.
As as example of something said, according the the ISBE:
Ignatius refers to those who have "obtained new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath but living according to the Lord's Day" (Magn 9:1)

Does such testamony from the Church fathers hold any merit in your opinion, or are we to talk sola scriptura.

People have Wedesday night prayer meetings, in the middle of the week, does that make it sacred ?

I would say no. But I would also say that Sunday services doesn't make Sunday sacred either.
Are you suggesting then that Wednesday services are ok, but not Sunday services?

 

[Jay T]

[.
What's different about this meeting, and todays Christian meetings, that todays Christians are in Sin, and the Early Christians weren't?

Any time Sunday worship services replace God's 4th commandment....it is sin (1 John 3:4)

Also I don't know if it's worth going into testamony from early church fathers.

That is a dangerous practice !

It was some of the 'church fathers that started replace Bible truths, with falsehoods.

Does such testamony from the Church fathers hold any merit in your opinion, or are we to talk sola scriptura.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

[guibox]

How did this topic end up another 'Sunday vs Sabbath' debate?

As far as the Sunday verses go:

1) The disciples were gathered together 'for fear of the Jews' not to have a worship service

2) The followers of Christ met whenever they could to 'break bread' or in other words to 'fellowship'. These events were not to have a Eucharisitic celebration.

3) Paul's meeting at Troas occured on the Saturday night and he was leaving in the morning. This means Paul would have been travelling on the supposed new 'holy day'. Plus this meeting was most likely a special event related to Paul's departure on his journey and not a weekly event

4) Paul's council on putting money away makes it a personal, home thing according to what a person can give, and not a weekly ecclesiastical 'offering' like we do. Most likely, Paul said for this to occur because by the end of the week, there is no money to collect. Paul also said to do this so there would be money 'when I come'. He wanted to have some money for when he passed through again.

None of these events point to a special weekly worship service or affirmation of any new holy day. Instead these are desperate attempts to twist the bible to fit what is an post-apostolic, ecclesiastical ordinance.

Anway, back to the topic at hand...

 

[yesha]

How did this topic end up another 'Sunday vs Sabbath' debate?

I'm just starting with this. I've never immagined that people could read the bible and come up with such different beliefs about it's meaning. It is beyond me, for example, how someone can read all the stuff about gentiles not having to keep the OT dietary laws, and then conclude that they must be kept. It seems I have much learning to do here, so I appologise if I side track a few threads in search of answers.

None of these events point to a special weekly worship service or affirmation of any new holy day. Instead these are desperate attempts to twist the bible to fit what is an post-apostolic, ecclesiastical ordinance.

I think that they do point to a weekly gathering together, though I don't see it as an affirmation of a new holy day.
If you think these are desperate attempts to twist the bible to fit a post-apostolic, that is the view held by the earliest Christian writting outsides of the bible, ordenance then I challenge you to fit any other day as an example of how this is done.

It occured to me that perhaps the reason why they met on Sunday is because Jeses kept appearing to people on Sunday. Perhaps they started meeting together in hopes that Jesus would appear, and it just caught on.

 

[Jay T]

It is beyond me, for example, how someone can read all the stuff about gentiles not having to keep the OT dietary laws, and then conclude that they must be kept.

Could it be because they've read Isaiah 66:15-17 ?
66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one [tree] in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

It occured to me that perhaps the reason why they met on Sunday is because Jeses kept appearing to people on Sunday. Perhaps they started meeting together in hopes that Jesus would appear, and it just caught on.

If that were the case, more people kept the sabbath in the book of Acts alone, than any ever met on Sunday.

 

[yesha]

Could it be because they've read Isaiah 66:15-17 ?

That doesn't explain how you interpret the NT verses.
For example:

Acts 15:28-29
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
(NIV)

Most people when they read this, I think, realize that OT Law is not on this list. This would include Dietary Laws, Sabbaths, and the rest. How, after reading this do you conclude that OT Law need to be followed? By reading the OT?

 

[Jay T]

Could it be because they've read Isaiah 66:15-17 ?

That doesn't explain how you interpret the NT verses.
For example:

Acts 15:28-29
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
(NIV)

OK then,
Put Acts 15:28,29 ...plus Isaiah 66:15-17 together.

Since they are both Bible verses....one must find the answer, that make both of them true....as there is no such thing as contradictions in scripture.

 

[yesha]

OK then,
Put Acts 15:28,29 ...plus Isaiah 66:15-17 together.

Since they are both Bible verses....one must find the answer, that make both of them true....as there is no such thing as contradictions in scripture.

By your statement here, it appears that you see Is 66:15-17 as indicating that anyone who eats pork will "meet their end"

And also I take it that when you read Acts 15:28-29 you understand that the gentiles are not under OT Dietary Laws.

Thus you see a contradiction here, that those gentiles who eat pork will meet their end even though they are not forbidden to because they are not under OT Law, and you resolve it by interpreting what's written in Acts 15 as saying that gentiles are infact under OT Dietary Laws, and find this synthesis as the answer that makes both scriptures true.

Is that correct?

 

[Jay T]

Thus you see a contradiction here, that those gentiles who eat pork will meet their end even though they are not forbidden to because they are not under OT Law, and you resolve it by interpreting what's written in Acts 15 as saying that gentiles are infact under OT Dietary Laws, and find this synthesis as the answer that makes both scriptures true.

Is that correct?

God Laws are not, restricted to any one class of people, as scripture says....."God is respecter or persons".

In light of that statement of God's......
Eccles. 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

The word is, 'man'....as in every man, on earth.

 

[yesha]

Unfortunately you didn't answer my question of was my understating of how you understand Acts 15 correct. I'm still not clear on how exactly you interpret acts to conclude that dietary laws are in effect for gentiles.

God Laws are not, restricted to any one class of people, as scripture says....."God is respecter or persons".

In light of that statement of God's......
Eccles. 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

The word is, 'man'....as in every man, on earth.

It seems from this, then, that you believe that God's covenant with Israel (OT), wasn't actually just with Israel, but was infact was with all humanity, at least Law wise? Thus all humanity was/is and for all time is to obey all the commandments in the Torah.
Is that correct? And if so, how, again, do you interpret acts 15, where the counsel is deciding what commands need to be adhered to?

Also I must point out, and you're probably already aware, that what the council came up with is essentially the covenant God made with Noah and his descendants. Thus the decision seems to be based on the conscience of the Jews, who I suppose, would believe that the descendants of Noah (everybody?) are bound to the covenant made with Noah. So I suppose in their minds, gentiles who fulfill those commands are fulfilling all the commands that God gave the gentiles, and that the gentiles shouldn't be burdened with the commands God gave to Israel. But even this restriction on diet, seems to be based more on not causing your brother to struggle, then the food it's self being forbidden. See 1Cor 8 where Paul says that eating food sacrificed to idols, which the council said that "they would do well to avoid such things" is ok as long as you understand what's really going on, unless it causes those who don't know better to struggle, like the Jews who might not know that the gentile Christians are no longer bound to the noadic covenant. This is kind of my view of how I would interpret this passage, but what I'm really interested in is your views, so please, if you will, focus more on answering my questions, for now, about your views, then if you are interested in mine, I would be happy to try and explain it to you.

Do you then believe that the OT Laws where in effect in Noah's days and to Noah's descendants?

 

[Jay T]

how, again, do you interpret acts 15, where the counsel is deciding what commands need to be adhered to?

This question was warmly discussed in the assembly. Intimately connected with the question of circumcision were several others demanding careful study.
One was the problem as to what attitude should be taken toward the use of meats offered to idols.
Many of the Gentile converts were living among ignorant and superstitious people who made frequent sacrifices and offerings to idols.
The priests of this heathen worship carried on an extensive merchandise with the offerings brought to them, and the Jews feared that the Gentile converts would bring Christianity into disrepute by purchasing that which had been offered to idols, thereby sanctioning, in some measure, idolatrous customs.

Again, the Gentiles were accustomed to eat the flesh of animals that has been strangled, while the Jews had been divinely instructed that when beasts were killed for food, particular care was to be taken that the blood should flow from the body; otherwise the meat would not be regarded as wholesome.
God had given these injunctions to the Jews for the purpose of preserving their health.
The Jews regarded it as sinful to use blood as an article of diet. They held that the blood was the life, and that the shedding of blood was in consequence of sin.

The Gentiles, on the contrary, practiced catching the blood that flowed from the sacrificial victim and using it in the preparation of food. The Jews could not believe that they ought to change the customs they had adopted under the special direction of God.
Therefore, as things then stood, if Jew and Gentile should attempt to eat at the same table, the former would be shocked and outraged by the latter.

The Gentiles, and especially the Greeks, were extremely licentious, and there was danger that some, unconverted in heart, would make a profession of faith without renouncing their evil practices. The Jewish Christians could not tolerate the immorality that was not even regarded as criminal by the heathen.
The Jews therefore held it as highly proper that circumcision and the observance of the ceremonial law should be enjoined on the Gentile converts as a test of their sincerity and devotion.
This, they believed, would prevent the addition to the church of those who, adopting the faith without true conversion of heart, might afterward bring reproach upon the cause by immorality and excess.

The various points involved in the settlement of the main question at issue seemed to present before the council insurmountable difficulties. But the Holy Spirit had, in reality, already settled this question, upon the decision of which seemed to depend the prosperity, if not the very existence, of the Christian church.

"When there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." He reasoned that the Holy Spirit had decided the matter under dispute by descending with equal power upon the uncircumcised Gentiles and the circumcised Jews.

He recounted his vision, in which God had presented before him a sheet filled with all manner of four-footed beasts and had bidden him kill and eat. When he refused, affirming that he had never eaten that which was common or unclean, the answer had been, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." Acts 10:15.

Peter related the plain interpretation of these words, which was given him almost immediately in his summons to go to the centurion and instruct him in the faith of Christ. This message showed that God was no respecter of persons, but accepted and acknowledged all who feared Him. Peter told of his astonishment when, in speaking the words of truth to those assembled at the home of Cornelius, he witnessed the Holy Spirit taking possession of his hearers, Gentiles as well as Jews. The same light and glory that was reflected upon the circumcised Jews shone also upon the faces of the uncircumcised Gentiles.
This was God's warning that Peter was not to regard one as inferior to the other, for the blood of Christ could cleanse from all uncleanness.

Once before, Peter had reasoned with his brethren concerning the conversion of Cornelius and his friends, and his fellowship with them. As he on that occasion related how the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles he declared, "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" Acts 11:17. Now, with equal fervor and force, he said: "God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
This yoke was not the law of Ten Commandments, as some who oppose the binding claims of the law assert; Peter here referred to the law of ceremonies, which was made null and void by the crucifixion of Christ.

Peter's address brought the assembly to a point where they could listen with patience to Paul and Barnabas, who related their experience in working for the Gentiles. "All the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them."

James also bore his testimony with decision, declaring that it was God's purpose to bestow upon the Gentiles the same privileges and blessings that had been granted to the Jews.

The Holy Spirit saw good not to impose the ceremonial law on the Gentile converts, and the mind of the apostles regarding this matter was as the mind of the Spirit of God. James presided at the council, and his final decision was, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God."

This ended the discussion. In this instance we have a refutation of the doctrine held by the Roman Catholic Church that Peter was the head of the church. Those who, as popes, have claimed to be his successors, have no Scriptural foundation for their pretensions. Nothing in the life of Peter gives sanction to the claim that he was elevated above his brethren as the vicegerent of the Most High. If those who are declared to be the successors of Peter had followed his example, they would always have been content to remain on an equality with their brethren.

In this instance James seems to have been chosen as the one to announce the decision arrived at by the council. It was his sentence that the ceremonial law, and especially the ordinance of circumcision, should not be urged upon the Gentiles, or even recommended to them.

James sought to impress the minds of his brethren with the fact that, in turning to God, the Gentiles had made a great change in their lives and that much caution should be used not to trouble them with perplexing and doubtful questions of minor importance, lest they be discouraged in following Christ.
(quoted from the book, 'Acts of the Apostles', by E. G. White)

Do you then believe that the OT Laws where in effect in Noah's days and to Noah's descendants?

Yes, from the simple fact that there were 7 pairs of clean animals on the ark, as opposed to only 2 pair of unclean animals on the ark.
God was going to allow man, to eat of the clean animals only, after the flood, that is why he had the greater number of them, onboard the ark, as well as for sacrificial purposes, of course.

 

[yesha]

The Jews therefore held it as highly proper that circumcision and the observance of the ceremonial law should be enjoined on the Gentile converts as a test of their sincerity and devotion.

Acts 15:5-6
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
(NIV)

As I read it, the question in consideration is whether a gentile must be circumcised, which then implies that they are required to obey the whole law of Moses (Ga 5:3).

Referring back to Acts 15:5-6, the context is the law of Moses, not the Law of ceremonies, unless the Law of ceremonies = the law of Moses. When you read law of moses in the NT, do you always think law of ceremonies in it's place?

Where did this idea of ceremonial law come from? Because what I'm hearing from you is that a gentile must obey the law of Moses minus ceremonial law, but need not be circumcised.

At what point were the Jews unable to bear it? I got the impression that the Jews never had problems bringing in the sacrifices(assuming, of course that this is part of it), but it was something else that they stumbled at. (Is 1:11 for example)

However, thank you, that does answer my first question of how can you interpret this to say what you believe. The answer is the law of Moses is taken as "ceremonial law". So I assume then, that dietary laws are not considered ceremonial laws (contrary to what one might expect, see heb 13:9), yet circumcision, the command given actually to Abraham, and his descendants must be, again contrary to what one might expect.

Where does one read about which laws are ceremonial and which are not?

God was going to allow man, to eat of the clean animals only, after the flood, that is why he had the greater number of them, onboard the ark, as well as for sacrificial purposes, of course.

That's an interesting interpretation of:

Gen 9:3
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
(NIV)

 

[Bick]

Tree of life

Yeshua, I'm sure your know these verses: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Rom,3:10-12 from Psalms 14:1-3.

and "Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; the are now justified by his grace AS A GIFT, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Rom. 3:23,24. Capitals mine.

Man's salvation is not based on worshipping or "keeping" any certain day, for these are the days of God's abundant grace. Everyday is just as important as the next.

Salvation is not a matter of man's will. It is all from God. Our message, as ambassadors for Christ, to the unsaved is to be reconciled to God, to accept Him as your peace as Paul writes in 2 Cor.5:18-20, "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." NRSV.

God bless you, Bick

 

[Jay T]

Re: Tree of life

Salvation is not a matter of man's will.

No, it is man's choice to be saved from sin or not.

God says don't commit sin, but man's will rejects God's will, and professes to be a Christian, while committing sin....INCREDIBLE !

 

[Servant_2000]

Re: Tree of life

Salvation is not a matter of man's will.

[quote="Jay T":714cf] No, it is man's choice to be saved from sin or not

.

2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) and called us (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) to a holy lifeâ€â€not because of anything we (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) have done but because of His own purpose and grace. This grace was given us (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.

God says don't commit sin, but man's will rejects God's will, and professes to be a Christian, while committing sin....INCREDIBLE !

[/quote:714cf]

1 John 1:8-10

8 If we (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives.

1 John 2:1-2

1 My dear children (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) , I write this to you (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) so that you (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) will not sin. But if anybody (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) does sin, we (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) have one who speaks to the Father in our (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) defenseâ€â€Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) sins, and not only for ours (PROFESSED CHRISTIANS) but also for the sins of the whole (PROFESSED CHRISTIAN) world.


INCREDIBLE INDEED!

Jay T...Have you stopped sinning? Have you arrived? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Jay T]

Re: Tree of life

y T...Have you stopped sinning? Have you arrived? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

Im not the one committing sin...by Sunday worship services. 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[Servant_2000]

Re: Tree of life

[quote="servant_2000":b5ed6]y T...Have you stopped sinning? Have you arrived? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

Im not the one committing sin...by Sunday worship services. 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
[/quote:b5ed6]

There was a time when sin was identified as the transgression of the law. And for those who claim to live under the law today, if they transgress they still consider themselves sinners. But what saith the Scriptures after the Law is abolished by Calvary? Paul said: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). Then in Galatians 3:12 Paul says: "And the law is not of faith". Then he tells us: "we are saved by grace through faith" and makes no mention of the law or sabbath keeping as a means of salvation, righteousness, or sanctification.

No, Sunday does not replace the sabbath. No day replaced the sabbath. It was fulfilled in Jesus and Jesus replaced the sabbath with eternal rest in Him. It is therefore that we seek the righteousness of Jesus Messiah that we are given rest (sabbath) and we are no longer weary or heavy laden with damnable sin, shame, and guilt. Those, who. like yourself attempt to observe the sabbath as a day are in fact denying that the true "rest or sabbath" is in Jesus Messiah and fulfilled by the Divine presence of the Holy Ghost within us.

You yourself made a reference to something to the effect that by observing the Sabbath is the evidence that we are in Christ....

The truth of it is that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the evidence that we are in Jesus Messiah and it is the visible and holy witness that the sabbath day has been replaced by Jesus Messiah. We then have a rest in Jesus Messiah that they who practice the law have not entered:

Hebrews 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest (sabbath) to the people of God.

Hebrews 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest (sabbath), He also hath ceased from His own works, as God did from His.

Hebrews 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest (sabbath), lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

 

[Servant_2000]

Re: Tree of life

[quote="servant_2000":293ae]y T...Have you stopped sinning? Have you arrived? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

Im not the one committing sin...by Sunday worship services[/quote:293ae]

Perhaps not, because going to Sunday worship is not committing sin, but....I didn't ask that about "by sunday worship services" did I?

I asked simply "Have you stopped sinning? Have you arrived" just a simple YES or NO will suffice...right?

On the other hand, one doesn't commit sin....by Sunday worship services, one commits sin by going out on the Sabbath.

Exodus 16:29

29 Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day He gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out."

Do you faithfully obey this command or do you disobey this command and go out on the Sabbath?

Thus commit sin....

Remember..."Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law".

Remember you said "I'm not the one committing sin..." Your words Jay T.

1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives.

 

[Jay T]

Re: Tree of life

[quote="Jay T":082c0]
Im not the one committing sin...by Sunday worship services

Remember..."Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law".

Remember you said "I'm not the one committing sin..." Your words Jay T.

[/quote:082c0] Why you little weasel !!!!
You twist my words to make it say what you want it to say, by leaving out, the rest of the statement !!!

But, then I shouldn't be too surprised at such tactics.....after all....