Is observation of the Sabbath day a requirement for Christians?

[Phoneman777]

"precept"

Definition from Oxford Languages
noun.
a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought.

these can be reduced to two: Deuteronomy 6:4 & Leviticus 19:18
neither of which don't happen to be part of Exodus 20, and both of which you claim are "nailed to the cross" and no longer relevant; "mere writings of Moses, not from God" - completely dismissed in your view next to the glory of uselessly & endlessly repeated legal ceremonial physical inaction according to the flesh.


as it stands you have nothing to stand on, per Christ, who says the whole law stands on these, because you reject The Foundation in favor of a rite
but you weirdly glory in your willpower nevertheless

and slander, endless slander, pours out of your mouth.
this never occurs to you as unclean????

you a mess dude.
a real mess

Like I said: etymological moleholes that appear to you as mountains

Which of the Ten Commandments are we free to disregard since you wrongly claim they don't "stand fast forever and ever"?

Please, put aside the name calling and name just one. Pretty simple challenge, right?

 

[Jim B]

Like I said: etymological moleholes that appear to you as mountains

Which of the Ten Commandments are we free to disregard since you wrongly claim they don't "stand fast forever and ever"?

Please, put aside the name calling and name just one. Pretty simple challenge, right?

As Christians we are free to disregard, not only the ten commandments, but the entire OT law.

Christians are not under law; we are under grace. Romans 7:4, "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God."

 

[post]

Like I said: etymological

no.

etymology is origin of words

we are not talking about 'derivation of words' in Psalm 111 -- we are talking about completely different words, "precept" vs. "commandment"

this is not, a is derived from A
this is, A vs. B


you are a huge mess, phone-person.
a mess.

you have zero legitimate arguments, all your private interpretations have been openly refuted time after time after time after time,
but you are still just a mess.

a big, vain, slanderous mess.

transparently. a mess.
everyone sees it.
you aren't hidden; you're tolerated.

 

[Jim B]

The thread topic is about the sabbath, not derivation of words or name calling.

As I have previously written, the Sabbath is simply a day off. However, it is not inflexible law, as Jesus clearly showed.

 

[post]

you wrongly claim they don't "stand fast forever and ever"?

never said that.
you're slandering again.

informed you with infallible proof that your private interpretation of Psalm 111 is completely unfounded and false.

it's "precepts" not commandments, and it decidedly is not declaring the decalogue isn't part of "the law"

for the 300th time, see Romans 7:7


it really is no surprise that other Christian forums, which unlike this one, don't abide heresy and constant unChristlike behaviour, ban you.

but keep telling yourself how cool you are.
as the proverbs say, give strong drink to the one who is perishing:
may you temporarily forget your depravity, and have a worthlessly momentary carnal similitude of peace, once a week

 

[Cassandra]

((prepares self for telephone-person to respond with nothing but spurious personal attacks and old arguments previously thoroughly disproven multiple times yet again...))

because there's nothing new under the sun.
God knows the thoughts of men, that they are vanity

hence JESUS OF NAZARETH

my Lord, my Husband
amen

It doesn't look to me like he is the one attacking.

 

[Phoneman777]

Ah, there is that buzzword again: "liberal". It's de rigueur to use it in a pejorative sense, but that just shows the work of Satan to poison people's minds and divide the body of Christ. I've got news for you: it ain't liberals who are blinded by Satan, it's you, whom he has convinced to turn against other Christians.

Nah, I'll go with the liberals as the ones who are blinded by Satan - case in point:

Only a devil would trick people into believing it's OK to do the exact same thing that got him kicked out of heaven, and only liberals who argue how grievous it is to be faithful to God would fall for such a demonic doctrine.

 

[Phoneman777]

View attachment 24602


done.

you have zero legitimate argument.

this was settled years ago.



you are such a mess; it's ridiculous.
you are a very sad man, and i don't blame her

she had good reasons.
get over it.
look at yourself.

I know how to spell "agape" and I strive to practice it by giving those who might otherwise be decieved by your doctrine see the light.

What's your point?

 

[Phoneman777]

Your post makes no sense. What is it that you can't understand about being under grace, not under the law? Even your quote from Romans 6:15 clearly says that we're not under the law but under grace.

Sure it does. Liberals like you always cherry pick Romans 6:14 KJV in order to "prove" we don't have to keep the Ten Commandments, so I posted the other cherries you left on the tree - verses 15 and 16 - which say grace is not a license to sin, and those who continue to sin will go to hell.

What happens to Christians who break the OT commandments? Nothing!!! The penalty for all sin has been paid for by the atoning death of Jesus Christ!

Ahhh, the old OSAS License to Sin. Someone should have informed Solomon we don't have to confess and forsake our sin to obtain mercy (Proverbs 28:13 KJV), right?

Do you not understand what "not under the law" means? Really? It means that those who have accepted Christ are not under the law!!!
Contextually/pretextually is rhetorical BS.

Then declare right now we are free to violate commandment #1 and worship Satan and still go to heaven since the penalty for doing so is, as you stated: "Nothing!!! The penalty for all sin has been paid for by the atoning death of Jesus Christ!"

 

[post]

It doesn't look to me like he is the one attacking.

Then perhaps you have not paid close enough attention.
Go back to the first posts I made in this thread and see his replies. Have a look at the denigrating posts he put on my profile page.

He is carrying arguments from years ago on another forum here, when I proved that his attacks on the salvation of the believers were unfounded.

I am not "OSAS" - that is a strawman category predicated on a false, powerless and Christless definition of salvation. Neither am I "liberal" in the slightest. But this man has been slandering me on multiple forums for years because he does not have answers to my rebuttals of his false doctrines.

Who cares. It's his own pettiness.
And seeing that this place welcomes false doctrine, let him have his day.

He was recently banned from a popular Christian forum that actually doesn't allow prolific false teaching, for a pattern of unrepentant personal attacks and refusal to respect the TOS he agreed to. I am chastising him for his refusal to repent of his sin, as a brother ought, that's all.

I have conversed with him for a couple of years. When I say he is a mess that is a statement of observational fact, not an attack. It has been demonstrated. If you require it I'll lay out the details for you publicly with full citations.

 

[Phoneman777]

As Christians we are free to disregard, not only the ten commandments, but the entire OT law.

Christians are not under law; we are under grace. Romans 7:4, "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God."

Revelation 22:14 KJV is there for nothin?

What you're saying is that a Christian who decides to sell his soul to Satan may still gain entrance to heaven - which means you have a warped, immature understanding of what it means to be "dead to the law" and "not under the law" and "under grace".

Again, grace is not a License to Sin, it's both PARDON for sin but also POWER to obey.

 

[post]

I know how to spell "agape" and I strive to practice it by giving those who might otherwise be decieved by your doctrine see the light.

What's your point?

My doctrine:

John 11:25-26
Jesus said to her, "I Am The Resurrection and The Life. The one who believes in Me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Which part of this are you calling 'deceptive' and why?

 

[post]

View attachment 24602


done.

you have zero legitimate argument.

this was settled years ago.

Agape is simply the noun form of the verb agapao.

Fact.

 

[Cassandra]

He was recently banned from a popular Christian forum that actually doesn't allow prolific false teaching, for a pattern of unrepentant personal attacks and refusal to respect the TOS he agreed to. I am chastising him for his refusal to repent of his sin, as a brother ought, that's all.

Why do you bring that over here?

'I am chastising him for his refusal to repent of his sin, as a brother ought, that's all"

So that's what you call it? I'd hate to see it if you were angry with him.
If you have a problem with him, put him on ignore. It's not right to gossip about. That is not "as a brother ought".

 

[post]

The thread topic is about the sabbath, not derivation of words or name calling.

As I have previously written, the Sabbath is simply a day off. However, it is not inflexible law, as Jesus clearly showed.

Mr cellphone claims Psalm 111 says the decalogue isn't part of the law

I demonstrated he is wrong. That's all.
His particular error in that matter isn't about derivation of words but completely different words.

 

[post]

Why do you bring that over here?

'I am chastising him for his refusal to repent of his sin, as a brother ought, that's all"
So that's what you call it? I'd hate to see it if you were angry with him.
If you have a problem with him, put him on ignore. It's not right to gossip about. That is not "as a brother ought".

It is the duty of an elder to refute false doctrine.

Going forward I will stick to that.
in this case we are not dealing with a man who has not been previously rebuked, but one who demonstrably despises correction.

That's a relevant fact.

 

[Cassandra]

No. That is an excuse for you to deride him. You attack his character. There is no agape or any sort of Christian bond there. He just hacks you off, so you feel it is perfectly ok to diss him. You are so upset with him you cannot see what you do.

 

[post]

Why do you bring that over here?

because i believe Romans 16:17

 

[post]

No. That is an excuse for you to deride him. You attack his character. There is no agape or any sort of Christian bond there. He just hacks you off, so you feel it is perfectly ok to diss him. You are so upset with him you cannot see what you do.

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

my first posts in this thread:

whenever i am serving others, my soul is at rest - having ceased from my own works

those aren't the 10 commandments..............?

those two are the Spirit of the whole law -- that's what Jesus said. the whole law hangs on those two. love fulfills the whole law -- not the other way around. the 10 commandments don't fulfill love. dark hearts can still honor light with their lips and hands, but hearts full of light can't remain in darkness: they break free
the 10 don't summarize those; those summarize the 10 - not only the first 10, but all the other 304.

we're under none of those 316 - we're under none of the old covenant with Israel whatsoever.
we're grafted into Abraham - which is a promise by faith - and we're under the new covenant in His blood, which has one commandment: love one another as He loved us. it is new, but it is not new: it is the same from the beginning. righteous doesn't change with a change of covenant, but with the change of priesthood comes a change of law. Christ is Melchizedek; the same from everlasting to everlasting. bread & wine; His body and blood

you don't have to ceremonially observe days.
you only have to believe Christ, trust Him, and seek Him -- repenting of all that in you that is not of Him, loving mercy, walking humbly.
in Him is true rest; a reality, rather than a forced ritual remembrance.

mr. telephones first post in this thread:

We can't deny the Biblical distinction between the Ten Commandments which "stand fast forever and ever" and the Mosaic Law which was nailed to the Cross.

Why do you willfully blind yourself to this distinction? Why are you not prepared to answer the question: If the Ten Commandments are no different than the Mosaic Law, why will it be forever wrong to break the Ten Commandments but never again wrong to disregard Passover or circumcision?

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?

 

[post]

for the record i keep sabbath, yet obey the commandment not to judge anyone over it. as is becoming to the sons of God, i will, without respect of persons, adamantly & scripturally oppose anyone who disobeys that commandment and seeks to judge the saints over such things.

have at ye