Caught In Hail Storm

[RickD]

BavarianWheels wrote:
I know Christians are not under law...unto salvation. No person has ever been that they were saved by the law.

But the law has not been removed as a measure of righteousness. It remains a measure of righteousness. If you can show where it is removed as such, then you've removed the reason Christ came to die FOR US since we can NOT measure up. He didn't come to remove the law, but remove and removed the CURSE of the law...the law remains.

The law was never given to Gentiles. Period. Much less to gentile believers. So again, saying the law hasn't been removed, is irrelevant.

Now...I'd gladly continue this if you stop with the condescending tone calling me a "judaizer" as my Savior and yours was/is a Jew. In the short amount of time that I've been back, I've seen nothing but sarcasm flowing from your posts and as a moderator, THAT MUCH sarcasm makes it difficult to see through the real sarcasm and playful fun

Stick to the issue please. There's no sarcasm intended here. There's no condescending tone either.
A judaizer is someone who tries to make non-Jews, follow Jewish customs, or laws. You are trying to get believers to follow Jewish laws. That makes you a judaizer, by definition.

If you don't want to continue, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to make you discuss something you don't want to discuss. But I'm not going to sugar coat the issue either. I'm not questioning your salvation, I'm questioning your beliefs as far as SDA doctrine, and the SDA doctrine itself.

[BavarianWheels]

The law was never given to Gentiles. Period. Much less to gentile believers. So again, saying the law hasn't been removed, is irrelevant.

I don't recall there existing any Jew NOR Gentile at creation. Do you? And isn't it interesting, then, that THAT is the part of the law you toss aside.

Stick to the issue please. There's no sarcasm intended here. There's no condescending tone either.
A judaizer is someone who tries to make non-Jews, follow Jewish customs, or laws. You are trying to get believers to follow Jewish laws. That makes you a judaizer, by definition.

I'm not TRYING to do anything other than present my position. If that's against the policy here, then simply say so. Don't say so, then double-down on the exact position and ad hominem attack of "Judaizer" as you see "Judaizer"...then claim to follow a Jew.

That's called a double-standard.

If you don't want to continue, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to make you discuss something you don't want to discuss. But I'm not going to sugar coat the issue either. I'm not questioning your salvation, I'm questioning your beliefs as far as SDA doctrine, and the SDA doctrine itself.

..."but I'm not going to sugar coat..." You just said there's no sarcasm or condescending tone, yet you end the post in the exact manner you say it isn't.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

It does not matter what day one keeps a Sabbath. Colossians 2: "16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or ja new moon or a Sabbath."

That would almost be an end-all text if it were not for the context.

Is there a law against a certain food(s) in the Decalogue?

Is there a law against a certain drink(s) in the Decalogue?

Is there a law about a festival(s) in the Decalogue?

Is there a law about celebrating a new moon(s) in the Decalogue?

Is there a law about sabbaths in the Decalogue? ( notice the context of A Sabbath and not THE Sabbath. )

Clearly, the context is not the Decalogue.

All these things were in the law APART from the Decalogue and it is with regard TO THOSE that we should let no one pass judgment on us.

And we know this from Romans 3:31, but Romans 3:20 clarifies what the Law does. Unless anyone is of the position that the Law no longer brings awareness of sin...?? That position would also make a liar of Paul...teaching that the Law brings awareness of sin.
.
.

[RickD]

For anyone who is following along, here's a great article about the Galatian heresy. It deals with living by the spirit.
https://cmmorrison.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... -gal-31-6/

[RickD]

The law was never given to Gentiles. Period. Much less to gentile believers. So again, saying the law hasn't been removed, is irrelevant.

I don't recall there existing any Jew NOR Gentile at creation. Do you? And isn't it interesting, then, that THAT is the part of the law you toss aside.
You mentioned the Decalogue, didn't you? I'm referring to that.

Stick to the issue please. There's no sarcasm intended here. There's no condescending tone either.
A judaizer is someone who tries to make non-Jews, follow Jewish customs, or laws. You are trying to get believers to follow Jewish laws. That makes you a judaizer, by definition.

I'm not TRYING to do anything other than present my position. If that's against the policy here, then simply say so. Don't say so, then double-down on the exact position and ad hominem attack of "Judaizer" as you see "Judaizer"...then claim to follow a Jew.

That's called a double-standard.
Bav, calling you a judaizer isn't a personal attack against you. It's not an ad-hom. You are doing precisely what Paul railed against in Galatians. See the link I posted in my last post.

If you don't want to continue, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to make you discuss something you don't want to discuss. But I'm not going to sugar coat the issue either. I'm not questioning your salvation, I'm questioning your beliefs as far as SDA doctrine, and the SDA doctrine itself.

..."but I'm not going to sugar coat..." You just said there's no sarcasm or condescending tone, yet you end the post in the exact manner you say it isn't.
.You're reading a tone that simply isn't there. There's no condescending tone coming from my end.
.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav, calling you a judaizer isn't a personal attack against you. It's not an ad-hom. You are doing precisely what Paul railed against in Galatians. See the link I posted in my last post.

You're reading a tone that simply isn't there. There's no condescending tone coming from my end.

It would seem to me that any sort of label placed on me in a manner such as you have done is basic name-calling. It is a means by which to belittle me and my beliefs...as you put it...by which you conclude that your position, that of "arguments against YOUR JUDAIZING BELIEFS" is THE correct and proven correct position.

I figured that since you are an SDA, you would've heard the arguments against your judaizing beliefs by now.

How is that NOT condescending and malicious? It's simply an assertion with a "small" ad hom attack tagged on to it...at best.

But...you're the mod.

You mentioned the Decalogue, didn't you? I'm referring to that.

Yes...and the Decalogue states that we should remember something...and how can one remember something that hasn't already taken place or already known?

The Sabbath is first mentioned at creation ( is there any question on that point? ) and made holy as a rest to God's work of creation and as a remembrance that God is Creator. That is the basis of the command itself...and the wording of the Command written by God's own finger later at Sinai attests to that fact.

So let's stick with the issue.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

The law was never given to Gentiles. Period. Much less to gentile believers. So again, saying the law hasn't been removed, is irrelevant.

I don't recall there existing any Jew NOR Gentile at creation. Do you? And isn't it interesting, then, that THAT is the part of the law you toss aside.

Were there any Jews or Gentiles present at the time that God mentions resting on the 7th day at creation??

You avoided answering the question.
.
.

[RickD]

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 3:04 pm
Bav, calling you a judaizer isn't a personal attack against you. It's not an ad-hom. You are doing precisely what Paul railed against in Galatians. See the link I posted in my last post.
RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 3:04 pm
You're reading a tone that simply isn't there. There's no condescending tone coming from my end.

BavarianWheels wrote:
It would seem to me that any sort of label placed on me in a manner such as you have done is basic name-calling. It is a means by which to belittle me and my beliefs...as you put it...by which you conclude that your position, that of "arguments against YOUR JUDAIZING BELIEFS" is THE correct and proven correct position.

RickD wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 10:28 am
I figured that since you are an SDA, you would've heard the arguments against your judaizing beliefs by now.

BavarianWheels wrote:
How is that NOT condescending and malicious? It's simply an assertion with a "small" ad hom attack tagged on to it...at best.

But...you're the mod.

Ok. If you were me, how could I possibly have pointed out that your beliefs, and what you're saying are essentially the same thing that Paul was railing against in Galatians, without you finding it offensive?

And this has nothing to do with me being a mod.

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 3:04 pm
You mentioned the Decalogue, didn't you? I'm referring to that.

BavarianWheels wrote:
Yes...and the Decalogue states that we should remember something...and how can one remember something that hasn't already taken place or already known?

And there's your fundamental mistake. Your premise is wrong, so your argument is faulty.

The Decalogue doesn't state that "we" should anything!

Let's look at the text where the nation of Israel is given the 10 commandments. The context is crystal clear, to whom the 10 commandments were given:

Exodus 20:1-2
20 Then God spoke all these words, saying,

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

"We" weren't brought out of Egypt. "We" weren't brought out of the house of slavery. The nation of Israel was.

Were there any Jews or Gentiles present at the time that God mentions resting on the 7th day at creation??

You avoided answering the question.

The text doesn't say who was present on the 7th day. How is this relevant?

[mrtzur2015]

Agreed.
What I don’t agree is the worship. We are to worship everyday it’s not just a Saturday thing.

You don't worship everyday. You can't. The 4th commandment is clear on why, and how we should worship...and if you work 5 or 6 days a week, you're not worshipping in the manner GOD clearly laid out with His own finger.

Both the Genesis establishment of the Sabbath and the Exodus act at Sinai are two FULL ON God acts that, if He were to remove, would require the same, IF NOT a larger and more clear removal of these.

But the acts of Jesus, in that "as was His custom" and the non-existence of any such clear word from either God the Father or Jesus, the Son incarnate to the contrary.

...and just as a side note, at creation...when God established the first law, when God rested, when God subjugated Himself to His own law, there did not exist any Jews that this specific command would only be "Jewish".
.
.

Actually you are wrong again. I’m surprised how much people who are called bilivers are missing . God has made us to be humans and serve. Therefore it is worship to go to work and do it for the lord (with all ones heart and strength)
It’s even worship when you do the dishes when you do it the right way. We are called to praise and worship everyday and actually ecery moment. Hence “ pray without ceasing “.
Worship is a lifestyle..

Same things for stars.. God made stars to be... stars.. therefore stars give God glory by carrying a stars job.. or being stars. Which is what they were made for.
Same for dogs. Animals. You name it.
I’m so sad for you that you are missing this.
May the lord open your eyes so you can see. Amen.

[BavarianWheels]

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 3:04 pm
Bav, calling you a judaizer isn't a personal attack against you. It's not an ad-hom. You are doing precisely what Paul railed against in Galatians. See the link I posted in my last post.
RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 3:04 pm
You're reading a tone that simply isn't there. There's no condescending tone coming from my end.

BavarianWheels wrote:
It would seem to me that any sort of label placed on me in a manner such as you have done is basic name-calling. It is a means by which to belittle me and my beliefs...as you put it...by which you conclude that your position, that of "arguments against YOUR JUDAIZING BELIEFS" is THE correct and proven correct position.

RickD wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 10:28 am
I figured that since you are an SDA, you would've heard the arguments against your judaizing beliefs by now.

BavarianWheels wrote:
How is that NOT condescending and malicious? It's simply an assertion with a "small" ad hom attack tagged on to it...at best.

But...you're the mod.

Ok. If you were me, how could I possibly have pointed out that your beliefs, and what you're saying are essentially the same thing that Paul was railing against in Galatians, without you finding it offensive?

And this has nothing to do with me being a mod.

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 3:04 pm
You mentioned the Decalogue, didn't you? I'm referring to that.

BavarianWheels wrote:
Yes...and the Decalogue states that we should remember something...and how can one remember something that hasn't already taken place or already known?

And there's your fundamental mistake. Your premise is wrong, so your argument is faulty.

The Decalogue doesn't state that "we" should anything!

Let's look at the text where the nation of Israel is given the 10 commandments. The context is crystal clear, to whom the 10 commandments were given:

Exodus 20:1-2
20 Then God spoke all these words, saying,

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

"We" weren't brought out of Egypt. "We" weren't brought out of the house of slavery. The nation of Israel was.

Were there any Jews or Gentiles present at the time that God mentions resting on the 7th day at creation??

You avoided answering the question.

The text doesn't say who was present on the 7th day. How is this relevant?

So you can surmise from no explicit word from God that the Sabbath of the 10 is abolished...in fact all is abolished, but you only actually abolish one of the 10...but you can't surmise who was or wasn't present on the 7th day of creation?

Of course you can't...that would make your current position on the Sabbath illogical/irreconcilable.

Convenient.

Until you show that the day God made the 7th day holy, it was directed at Jews, you have no stance whatsoever.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

Ok. If you were me, how could I possibly have pointed out that your beliefs, and what you're saying are essentially the same thing that Paul was railing against in Galatians, without you finding it offensive?

And this has nothing to do with me being a mod.

You could do exactly as you did above. SAY, "I think your beliefs are essentially the same thing that Paul was railing against the Galatians." That's not offensive, it's thought provoking. Instead you decided to attack my beliefs and my chosen denomination which doesn't mean I hold to every single point any Adventist claims. Then you did the typical ad-hom thing and threw out "Judaizer"...name-calling...as if being Jew is a bad thing. You serve, I presume, a JEWISH SAVIOR. If we are grafted into the Vine, who is Jew, aren't we all then declared Jew? Now we both know there is no salvation for the Jew and a separate salvation for the Gentile. All are saved THROUGH Jesus so Gentiles become spiritual Jews when we are grafted into Jesus.

So...to use a term such as "Judaizer" can be condescending and demeaning depending how it is used...and you definitely used it as a means to condescend and demean my position/beliefs...which as of yet, you've not proven unscriptural.

And yes, it has everything to do with you being a mod...aren't you a mod? If you participate in normal day-to-day discussions and especially if you promote a sarcastic demeanor, it means everything.
.
.

[Byblos]

... if you promote a sarcastic demeanor, it means everything.

Rick? Sarcastic demeanor? Never.

Just look at his tag line: St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony.

[BavarianWheels]

The text doesn't say who was present on the 7th day. How is this relevant?

Likewise there exists no text that says, "I God...remove the 4th commandment"... ( or the whole of the 10 for that matter )

If it does exist, then provide it, pls.
.
.

[mrtzur2015]

The text doesn't say who was present on the 7th day. How is this relevant?

Likewise there exists no text that says, "I God...remove the 4th commandment"... ( or the whole of the 10 for that matter )

If it does exist, then provide it, pls.
.
.

Likewise there is no text about the rapture does not making it absolute.

[BavarianWheels]

The text doesn't say who was present on the 7th day. How is this relevant?

Likewise there exists no text that says, "I God...remove the 4th commandment"... ( or the whole of the 10 for that matter )

If it does exist, then provide it, pls.
.
.

Likewise there is no text about the rapture does not making it absolute.

Whatever it is you tried to convey here, is incoherent to me. Maybe you can restructure for me?
.
.