Is observation of the Sabbath day a requirement for Christians?

[Phoneman777]

Leviticus 19:18 is agapao, not agape
a verb not a noun

deal with it

So what? Did I reference verse 18? And how does that undo the truth that "agape" is demonstrated by happily keeping the commandments of God (1 John 5:3 KJV) which the wicked can't keep even if they wanted to (Romans 8:7 KJV) which disproves your blasphemous, asinine claim that the wicked can partake of agape?

I've been telling you this for months and you STILL won't publicly retract your disproven claim. Have you any idea how such stubborn defiance against truth erodes what little credibility you have left?

 

[Phoneman777]

just more slander, refusal to repent, ((paying attention @Cassandra?)) & disrespect for authority.

CC is renown for being decidedly anti-catholic.

It ain't slander if it's the truth. Post, are you so disturbed emotionally as to not see that your own words prove my point? You just said yourself that CC is decidedly anti-catholic which proves they are no less intolerant of dissention than the papal system whose views they censor.

So, not slandering, not disrespecting...what exactly is it from which I'm supposed to repent?

 

[Phoneman777]

This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out His commands.
(1 John 5:2)​

love = agapao, not agape
loving = agapao, not agape

verbs not nouns.

who is it blurring the lines of words and creating for themselves personal definitions to suit their private doctrines, hmm?
in order to accuse the children of God?
whose will is accusing the children of God, hmm?

does your bible only have verse 3, not verse 2 or 4? hmm?




huh?

what happened to your professed "George Lamsa Only-ism??"
different day, different doctrine, hmm?


so very interesting!

Verse 2 and verse 3 are two different verses, so just stop with the straw man, OK?

Post, how can the wicked demonstrate "agape" when 1 John 5:3 KJV plainly says "agape" is demonstrated by happily keeping the commandments of God, while the wicked can't keep them even if they wanted to, according to Romans 8:7 KJV?

Checkmate. Grab your shovel, start burying OSAS.

 

[post]

Verse 2 and verse 3 are two different verses, so just stop with the straw man, OK?

ahahahaha wow
it is not a "strawman" it's the truth.

1 John 5:2 & 1 John 5:4 are absolutely not wholly removed from 1 John 5:3
it's literally the immediate context.
verse numbers are not inspired; they are added in the 13th or 14th century. by as you call them, "Jesuit papast jerks"
they're pretty useful to be sure.
but it certainly doesn't mean you can have v.3 while you ignore v.2 and v.4

1 John 5:2-4 are all one thought. within it, agapao is equivocated with agape.
rightly so, because the verb and the noun are one precept.
the command is agapao one another as Christ has agapao'ed us.
not agape. agapao.
not that there is any difference.
you are textbook case of "twisting scripture" -- as the orange man says, sad.

you are literally arguing to ignore v.2 and ignore v.4 so i can believe a doctrinally unsound false teaching of v. 3, your completely private & heretical skewing of v.3
how does this not occur to you how ridiculous your arguments are??


get over it.
deal with it.
stop pretending it isn't so.

your private interpretations are utterly untenable, as demonstrated over literal years of sound doctrinal refutation by dozens of learned Christians spanning several websites.

you are wrong.
your vendetta against believers is of no affect; Christ saves us & no amount of personal twisting of the Word of God on your part can undo it.
i'm secure. time to stop trying to make me doubt; you can never do that, because my salvation depends on God, not your opinion.


why don't you come clean with this forum and plainly let everyone know the only reason you're bringing this up is because you want anyone who believes to stop believing and start doubting?
because you want to use Matthew 24 to accuse the brethren?
ya know, life-goals?

i will plainly state my purpose here:

to praise the LORD Jesus Christ, who saves me, in Whom are all my streams, in Whom i am hidden, from Whom no one can separate me, Who is faithful to the end and Whose lovingkindness is everlasting

i went. now you go.
tell us all about why you say what you say

 

[post]

OSAS

OSAS is a strawman false definition of salvation in which there is no supernatural work of God.

it's 100% dismissable and only brought up by people who hate actual salvation, used as a supposed weapon to cause all who trust in Christ to doubt Him & place their faith in their own works and willpower.
see Matthew 20:1-16

of course i don't believe in it. it doesn't even exist. it's predicated on lying about what salvation actually is, supposing salvation is a Christless, powerless, useless, temporary & utterly untrustworthy product of the fickle will of mere mortal man entirely devoid of any work of God.

100% strawman, and just more slander ((par for the course)) from cellular-dude.
he knows it.
we've had this conversation 300 times.

i believe whom God saves, God saves.
simple.

 

[Phoneman777]

ahahahaha wow
it is not a "strawman" it's the truth.

1 John 5:2 & 1 John 5:4 are absolutely not wholly removed from 1 John 5:3
it's literally the immediate context.
verse numbers are not inspired; they are added in the 13th or 14th century. by as you call them, "Jesuit papast jerks"
they're pretty useful to be sure.
but it certainly doesn't mean you can have v.3 while you ignore v.2 and v.4

1 John 5:2-4 are all one thought. within it, agapao is equivocated with agape.
rightly so, because the verb and the noun are one precept.
the command is agapao one another as Christ has agapao'ed us.
not agape. agapao.
not that there is any difference.
you are textbook case of "twisting scripture" -- as the orange man says, sad.

you are literally arguing to ignore v.2 and ignore v.4 so i can believe a doctrinally unsound false teaching of v. 3, your completely private & heretical skewing of v.3
how does this not occur to you how ridiculous your arguments are??


get over it.
deal with it.
stop pretending it isn't so.

your private interpretations are utterly untenable, as demonstrated over literal years of sound doctrinal refutation by dozens of learned Christians spanning several websites.

you are wrong.
your vendetta against believers is of no affect; Christ saves us & no amount of personal twisting of the Word of God on your part can undo it.
i'm secure. time to stop trying to make me doubt; you can never do that, because my salvation depends on God, not your opinion.


why don't you come clean with this forum and plainly let everyone know the only reason you're bringing this up is because you want anyone who believes to stop believing and start doubting?
because you want to use Matthew 24 to accuse the brethren?
ya know, life-goals?

i will plainly state my purpose here:

to praise the LORD Jesus Christ, who saves me, in Whom are all my streams, in Whom i am hidden, from Whom no one can separate me, Who is faithful to the end and Whose lovingkindness is everlasting

i went. now you go.
tell us all about why you say what you say

Does not 1 John 5:3 KJV plainly tell us "agape" is demonstrated by happily keeping God's commandments"? Yes, it does.

The wicked can't keep God's commandments even if they wanted to (Romans 8:7 KJV) so give it up, son. THE WICKED CANNOT PARTAKE OF AGAPE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT "AGAPEO" TO BE "AGAPE".

 

[Phoneman777]

OSAS is a strawman false definition of salvation in which there is no supernatural work of God.

it's 100% dismissable and only brought up by people who hate actual salvation, used as a supposed weapon to cause all who trust in Christ to doubt Him & place their faith in their own works and willpower.
see Matthew 20:1-16

of course i don't believe in it. it doesn't even exist. it's predicated on lying about what salvation actually is, supposing salvation is a Christless, powerless, useless, temporary & utterly untrustworthy product of the fickle will of mere mortal man entirely devoid of any work of God.

100% strawman, and just more slander ((par for the course)) from cellular-dude.
he knows it.
we've had this conversation 300 times.

i believe whom God saves, God saves.
simple.

Post, a license allows the bearer the privilege of legally doing the exact same thing for which the unlicensed can be criminally charged.

The OSAS License to Sin claims to allow the licensed Christian the privilege of doing the exact same thing for which the unlicensed sinner will be punished.

OSAS claims we may by dead faith obtain that which can only be obtained by living faith: eternal life.

 

[post]

Does not 1 John 5:3 KJV plainly tell us "agape" is demonstrated by happily keeping God's commandments"? Yes, it does.

what's this?
another implicit slanderous false accusation against the saints in order to attempt to destroy faith in Christ?
wow what a surprise!

please see 1 John 5:4.

 

[post]

OSAS

previously discussed; a demonstrably slanderous, lying, heretical accusation based on a false view of salvation in which there is no work of God but is wholly dependent on human willpower.

dismissed.

 

[Cassandra]

alright i'll do the legwork for you. it's only 5 pages.

my first posts in this thread:





mr. telephones first post in this thread:



i posted scripture and truth.
in contrast, he immediately, unprovoked, posted a direct attack on me personally, accusing me of denying the Bible, willfully blinding myself & being unprepared to answer questions.

IOW he slanderously attacked my character without cause.
part of defending my character - which is my right - is establishing that he is in no position to be attacking anyone's character: to wit, that his testimony is demonstrably not trustworthy. i can give you abundant evidence that he has a pattern of this exact unrepentant behaviour: repeating exhaustively debunked heretical arguments and slandering everyone who opposes him. Romans 16:17 commands in fact that i do so.

these are the plain facts, that are openly discernable in the public forum.

so now let me ask you, are you really adamant about preventing personal attacks on other members of this forum?
then you should be chastising mr. telephone too -- else you are being hypocritical.
or are you only interested in defending people who share your view on the thread topic? and joining him in personally attacking me because i don't share your view?

I don't consider those attacks.

 

[post]

I don't consider those attacks.

of course you don't.

have a nice day

 

[Phoneman777]

what's this?
another implicit slanderous false accusation against the saints in order to attempt to destroy faith in Christ?
wow what a surprise!

please see 1 John 5:4.

I understand you can't answer the question because it destroys OSAS which you hopelessly cling to instead of simply trusting Jesus. I'm here to tell you that you don't need a License to Sin to keep you out of hell, only real love for Jesus we demonstrate by faithful obedience, by which we take hold of our right to the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:14 KJV).

 

[post]

OSAS

previously discussed ad nauseum; a heretical satanic false accusation against the saints predicted on a false, Christless view of salvation wholly dependent on human-centric works in the flesh.

dismissed.

got anything other than hatred for the grace of God?

 

[Phoneman777]

I understand you can't answer the question because it destroys OSAS which you hopelessly cling to instead of simply trusting Jesus. I'm here to tell you that you don't need a License to Sin to keep you out of hell, only real love for Jesus we demonstrate by faithful obedience, by which we take hold of our right to the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:14 KJV).

previously discussed; a demonstrably slanderous, lying, heretical accusation based on a false view of salvation in which there is no work of God but is wholly dependent on human willpower.

dismissed.

There's no such thing as OSAS nor the License to Sin the OSAS crowd claims it provides.

If a mortal bride and groom can answer "I do" instead of "I'll try" there's no reason why we can't say the same to Almighty God.

 

[post]

a License to Sin

slander.

dismissed.

 

[post]

OSAS

previously discussed. at great length for years.
slanderous, satanic false accusations against the saints of God predicated on heretical, Christless, false soteriology wholly dependent on works of the flesh.

dismissed.

do you have anything to talk about other than this hatred for the grace of God?

 

[post]

we take hold of our right to heaven

see Romans 3, Luke 17:10, Luke 18:10-14 & Ezekiel 16:49

blasphemy; dismissed.

 

[post]

you a mess, @Phoneman777

see Mark 10:18

a real mess.

 

[post]

you can't answer the question

slander. previously discussed.

dismissed.

 

[post]

a mortal bride

previously discussed.
see John 10:28

dismissed.