7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The core points of the Sinaitic covenant are who were parties to the Sinaitic covenant. You can’t get any more basic than that. You have not shown where you meet even the most fundamental requirements of being party to the covenant.

Esaias, are you an Israelite?

Yes?

No?

Answering this question will go a long way towards dealing with the main core issue.

Actually, in a sense, you are right, on this point. Those who do not obey God's commandments are not God's Israel, even if they are ethnically descended from Jacob:

Romans 2:
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Gal 6:
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

1 Cor 7:
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

There you go again, saying I said things I didn’t say. You must really like apologizing.

Please show where I said that the people before Sinai and after Sinai were under no moral obligation. Post a copy of my words, not what you think I meant.

If you can’t find such, well man up and apologize (yet again).

See? This is like me arguing about algebra with a third grader.

Not once did I say "you SAID". I pointed out the LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS TO YOUR ARGUMENTATION. But, as you cannot grasp that concept, there really isn't much point to any of this, is there?

Man up? Please.

Just stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Esaias]

And now, for the last time, I'm done with this silliness.

[mfblume]

Esaias, when you claim our logic leads to a certain conclusion, you might as well be saying that we are making that conclusion. That's what you're trying to say. It's The only way we can take it. I know you make disclaimers that you didn't actually make the statement saying we believe these things, but it's effectively the same thing since it's effectively your whole argument. You do that a lot. Since the entire basis of your argument is battling that conclusion, then effectively you might as well be accusing us of making those conclusions.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. Paul quoted Luke's Gospel as Scripture, indicating he (Paul) considered it on par with the Pentateuch, Prophets, etc.

This is the interpretation that matches with Paul referring to scripture. There is no difficulty in the Berean's considering Luke's gospel account as scripture, just like there similarly was no difficulty in Peter, at about the same time, referring to writings of Paul as scripture.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.

These references are for our benefit, as well as the immediate audiences.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This is the interpretation that matches with Paul referring to scripture. There is no difficulty in the Berean's considering Luke's gospel account as scripture, just like there similarly was no difficulty in Peter, at about the same time, referring to writings of Paul as scripture.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.

These references are for our benefit, as well as the immediate audiences.

Considering the Bereans were testing Paul's doctrine I think it more likely the Scriptures they referenced would be the law, psalms, and the prophets.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Esaias, when you claim our logic leads to a certain conclusion, you might as well be saying that we are making that conclusion. That's what you're trying to say. It's The only way we can take it. I know you make disclaimers that you didn't actually make the statement saying we believe these things, but it's effectively the same thing since it's effectively your whole argument. You do that a lot. Since the entire basis of your argument is battling that conclusion, then effectively you might as well be accusing us of making those conclusions.

I don't think you understand basic concepts of debate. Pointing out necessary conclusions to a person's argumentation is most definitely not saying that person is, them self, making that conclusion. In fact, it is the exact opposite. It is meant to demonstrate a person hasn't followed their own argumentation to its logical conclusion.

[Steven Avery]

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Considering the Bereans were testing Paul's doctrine I think it more likely the Scriptures they referenced would be the law, psalms, and the prophets.

You missed the point. Whatever were the "other", the claim is simple, Paul's epistles are scripture.

Since that could be understood c. 60 AD, so could Luke's Gospel be understood as scripture from 1 Timothy 5:18.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't think you understand basic concepts of debate. Pointing out necessary conclusions to a person's argumentation is most definitely not saying that person is, them self, making that conclusion. In fact, it is the exact opposite. It is meant to demonstrate a person hasn't followed their own argumentation to its logical conclusion.

I understand debating.

When it's in your mind that thete are certain conclusions that you are basing your whole argument against in order to think our line of reasoning is false, and think it can only take one to that direction, then you might as well be accusing us of the same thing, because what else can we respond to other than what you're saying? So, we're left trying to reason with you, in referring to your conclusion, and showing how neither we see that conclusion nor is such a conclusion even necessary, and then proceed to explain why it's not necessary and why our conclusions are vastly different. It's just a royal waste of time. And it gets into rabbit Trails when we're not even discussing what each other is actually believing. I've seen circles like this go for days when it's all the while a waste of time when it could have gotten to the point.

There's nothing wrong with saying that a person's natural conclusion would lead in a certain direction, but you're not even reasoning with us about what we look at as a conclusion and arguing from that basis. You're just close-minded to any conclusion we have, because in your mind it leads to a different conclusion, so it's just not fair.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.

I'm putting together some of this NT reference to NT scripture material in one spot.

New Testament references to the New Testament as scripture
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...t-as-scripture

With a separate page on "my gospel" (from a year or two back.)

"my gospel" - Paul writing of Luke's gospel
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...-Luke-s-gospel