Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
shall i count the number of times you have replied to it?Put a stake in its heart and call it a day. One thing I can say… this thread has taught me a lot as far as what peaks poster’s interests and it not particularly good.
In Colossians 2:16-23, they were keeping God's feasts in obedience to God's commands, they were being judged for doing that by pagans who were promoting humans precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them and precent them from obeying God. Those promoting asceticism and serenity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from doing that.Col 2:16: “Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.' The Sabbath is gone.
There are many examples of God's laws being followed without it being recorded when God first gave them such as with Genesis 39:9 where Joseph knew that it was a sin to commit adultery, so the fact that the first recorded instance of a command against adultery wasn't until Sinai does not give justification for assuming that there was no law against adultery prior to that, and the same is true for the Sabbath.The Sabbath was the seventh day of the week. It was instituted under the Mosaic law, between the fall of man and Moses. There were no Sabbath laws. There was no Sabbath observance. That came in the Mosaic law. Centuries went by; none of the patriarchs had any kind of Sabbath laws. On the seventh day, after creation, you remember, God rested and God blessed that day.
Keeping the Sabbath holy testifies that there is a Creator who created the world in six days, who rested on the 7th, who sanctified it, and who sanctifies us, so those who believe in the truth of these things live in a way that testifies about them by keeping the Sabbath holy rather than a way that bears false witness against them. The Sabbath is holy to God regardless of whether or not we keep it holy, and what is holy to God should not be profaned by man, so we wold still be obligated to keep the Sabbath holy even if God had never commanded anyone to do that.Why? As a day that would always be a memorial to the fact that God had created the universe in six days, so the seventh day was always going to be a reminder of God as our Creator. Every Saturday that comes along - which is the seventh day of the week, Sunday being the first day of the week - every Saturday that comes along is a good day for us to remember, first of all, God is Creator. And we have that in our heritage.
Nowhere does the Bible state that God gave the Sabbath in order to remind us of how sinful we really are.When the Mosaic law came along, God ordained a Sabbath day for the people to observe and to obey God, and God put some restraints on them to remind them of their sinfulness. So, every Saturday that comes along kind of has a two-fold role; it causes us to remember God as Creator, and to remember how sinful we really are - and truly we are sinful. But the Sabbath is gone.
Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so Jesus graciously teaching us to be a doer of it is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of it.It is part of Judaism that has been replaced by the new covenant, and the new covenant has a completely different day. Saturday, reminds us of God as Creator and God as law-giver, and it reminds us of the beauty of God’s creation, the magnificence of His creation, and the sinfulness of our own hearts. But when you come to the new covenant, you have a new kind of observation, not observing God as Creator, not observing God as law-giver, but in the new covenant God is defining Himself as what? Saviour.
Nowhere does the Bible state this.So, the new covenant has its own day, a day in which we focus on God as our Saviour, and that's Sunday.
In Acts 2:46, they broke bread together on every day, so there is nothing about an instance of that happening on the 1st day of the week that means that the New Covenant has its own day or that they were no longer keeping the 7h day holy. It is important to keep in mind that ind that for Jews the day starts in the evening in accordance with Genesis 1 says that there was evening and then there was morning, so the 1st day of the week starts on Saturday night at sundown. Jews have a longstanding tradition of meeting at this times for Havdalah in order to mark the end of the Sabbath and the transition to the work week. Jews also traditionally don't handle money on the Sabbath, so this was also a time that would work well to take an offering. If they had been taking an offering on the Sabbath, then that is what would have indicated that they were transitioning away from keeping it holy, but 1 Corinthians 16:2 is in accordance with it. So Paul did not speak from morning until midnight, but rather he spoke from sundown until midnight and left on Sunday morning to travel. This does not support that they met on Sunday morning, and even if they had, this does not establish that it was the start of a new tradition, and even if it was, it does not establish that they were hypocritically setting aside God's command to keep the 7th day holy in order to establish their own tradition, and even if they were, then this would not establish that we should follow their example of sin.In NT, the Church worshipped on Sunday. For instance, Acts 20:7 states that “on the first day of the week we came together to break bread.” Paul also urges the Corinthian believers, “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income” 1 Cor 16:2 . Since Paul designates this offering as “service” in 2 Cor 9:12, this collection may have been linked with the Sunday worship service of the Christian assembly. Historically, Sunday, not Saturday, was the normal meeting day for Christians in the church, and its practice dates back to the first century.
Yes, let it end,,,,,pleasePut a stake in its heart and call it a day. One thing I can say… this thread has taught me a lot as far as what peaks poster’s interests and it not particularly good.
Thank you for your opinionIf you have to tell people you're educated...it kind of calls into question the quality of that education.
Thank you for your observation.Appears the Vatican is simply giving guidance about a term they never officially endorsed, by stating it is inappropriate. What doesn't seem to be happening is any change in what the Catholic church teaches...because they never sanctioned the title.
Christian nationalism has nothing to do with my original question.Contrary to all the Christian Nationalists today, no the NT never mentions about being actively involved in politics.
Uh huh. And blathering on with platitudes when none of your boogeymen are present is supposed to do what?We all need to deal with individuals--but when a group of individuals collectively are destroying your community, your state, your nation, with repercussions around the whole world--repairing the damage is what must take priority.
Did you read what I wrote??? Allegory doesn't mean that they weren't real people.Does that mean that they were not real people to you?
Your biases are shining through more than anything else with this post. Perhaps if you got off your soapbox and took the time to deal with individuals you'd learn something.It breaks my heart to realize that many Hindus and Buddhists--and even secular humanists--"get" Jesus' message so much better than some Christians (primarily evangelical Christians.)
There's a book circulating around my circle of friends (it's available in online public library sites like Libby--that's how I read it.) It's called "Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation." It gives me hope because separating the unholy alliance between fundamentalist Christianity and conservative politics will give all Christians the real Jesus back--the infant with teen parents fleeing murder and seeking asylum in Egypt, the eloquent author of the Beatitudes--blessed are the poor, the meek, the merciful. the pure of heart." Jesus the itinerant preacher and healer, homeless, possessing one coat and giving the second coat away. John Fugelsang takes it one step further in his new book, "Separation of Church and Hate." I know you won't approve of these books, but it will help us to understand you all, and understanding is the first step towards healing--and perhaps even forgiveness (another sterling virtue practiced by Jesus.)
Ok. So, that's sufficiently long that you may very well have some of the adaptations wired into your nervous system. For me, as an example, even under a heavy dose of psychedelics (I got psychedelic therapy) I would start to laugh, and immediately stop. My nervous system had been trained to not feel joy, because joy always got taken away from me. Another example was being given a compliment, or praise, by someone I didn't deeply trust. I would feel a physical reaction to it, because I had been lied to and manipulated for so many years my nervous system would react to praise before my conscious mind had finished understanding the words.Trauma was in 1998 to 2013 there were 4 significant trauma events plus the drugs.
Seems to me you're trying to explain away the inconsistency. If it is just a subjective preference, then how can it be "wrong"? It's just distasteful to you, but maybe someone else's preference is to abuse kids physically. Who are you to judge?Yes, to me it is wrong to hit a kid because it invoke a feeling in me (subjectively). The feeling is what makes me determine that it is wrong. But I don't make any claims that everybody do feel the same.
How many of the 20 vases should they give up. A rare opportunity to measure precision vases and you want to force the testers to lose precisous opportunity in measuring precise vases and replace them with crooked ones they already know are crooked and won't learn anything.It's too bad that you think that doing science properly is "unfair", but that's the way it is. No one who wants rigorous science is going to accept the slop generated by the vase phrenologists.
Thats because your hyper skeptical on stuff like this which is more about a belief than actual objective data.I am not convinced that the "precise" class is real, nor has the best available data (consistent evaluation of larger numbers, like the document from "Dr. Max") from the vasists suggested that it is a truly separate category.
And those pointing out the non rigorous work. Where is their tests and analysis and publication of their findings. Are you asking me to believe sources that have no formal work to back their claims. That would be bad epistemically.As has been noted dozens of times already, your go-to sources have severe problems with non-rigorous work (even when they try to project rigor). We seriously need to talk about your sources, so would you reply to post #1004?
If you have an edge on my understanding, it would be this. You do know for a fact, this ''support'' does not web-initiate Adobe's typefaces the moment the numeric code is entered, but instead, comes installed on those 1989-2K releases? Because as I recall, my release describes the many fonts included with the CD upon installation launch.You’re not using an old enough release. Also, which AI?
if you are consitent, then your feelings are nothing but a subjective preference with no relationship to the facts that elicit them. In order for there to be a relationship, there must be something objective about the fact that makes the moral feelings appropriate.When I see someone hit a kid (fact) I feel moral outrage (feeling), what do you mean that there is no relationship?
arguments imply that there's a valid reason for one to be preferable over another.Why? Arguments and appeals can be put forth to influence others feelings.
If the feelings are just feelings, then there can be no relationship to facts. This is where your inconsistency beccomes apparent.If feelings at least in part are influenced of facts, one can put forth an argument that highlights the facts that one feel is relevant in hope that the disagreement is because an misunderstanding of facts.
I'm not sure how you get from one to the other. Care to unpack this a bit more?This point:
“Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)
For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ.
You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men.” -- 1 Corinthians 7:21–23
If we have anything to say about a form of government, this is the important point: That we chose as much liberty as possible to operate as ambassadors of Christ within that nation
Certainly, but that's not what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting is that as wielders of civic power we have a responsibility to embrace policies that make the government reflect Christian values, not put a yoke on pagans to be well-behaved pagans. Which means exploring what God values in governance and where the emphases should rest.It is not the function of Christians to use the emperor's sword to force pagans to act like Christians.
Despite the verbiage, an exhortation to endure hardship gracefully isn't really relevant to making use of the liberties afforded us to ensure that our values are in line with God's values on political questions and our government reflects those values in some sense.No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather works to please his commanding officer. -- 2 Timothy 2:4
Yes he did. Sarah is the new Covenant and Hagar is the Old. This message is more important than if they were real or not.Yeah ok, but that’s not the impression it gave by what you posted. Paul did not say Sarah and Hagar were allegories.
In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which included repenting from breaking the Sabbath. Jesus also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by walking in sinless obedience to the Torah, which included keeping the Sabbath holy, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to practice Judaism by word and by example. While the Jerusalem Council ruled that Gentiles do not need to convert to Jews in order to become followers of Christ, they did not rule that Gentiles do not need to covert to Judaism in order to become Christians or that Gentiles can follow Jesus by refusing to follow what he taught. Rather, the Jerusalem Council affirmed that Gentiles heard and believed the Gospel that Jesus taught (Acts 15:6-7).The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) ruled that Gentiles do not have to convert to Judaism to become Christians, and Paul's letters are consistent with this ruling.
That chapter very notably neglects to mention the Sabbath.Romans 14 also applies to this question.