- Topic
“From this same Catholic Church you have accepted your Sunday, and that Sunday, as the Lord’s day, she has handed down as a tradition; and the entire Protestant world has accepted it as tradition, for you have not an iota of Scripture to establish it. Therefore that which you have accepted as your rule of faith, inadequate as it of course is, as well as your Sunday, you have accepted on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church” (D.B. Ray;">The Papal Controversy, p. 179, 1892).
Ok. I give you that one. You got this one. Lol!
Regarding my post
Matthew 24 proves Sabbath still applies because if there is no Sabbath praying not to have to make your flight on Sabbath is a non sequitur.
Regarding acts 13 I didn’t say it was proof the apostles kept Sabbath I said it showed that gentiles did
Regarding Wikipedia it’s as reliable as Britannica
fromtheotherside wrote:
I understand, I'm not saying this to offend you, but I don't believe that each commentor will be the same, it depends on the religious views of the commentor. That you can agree with right? I'm not dissmissing your find but here is wiki's article on the book of collosions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Colossians
Colossae is in the region of the seven churches of Revelation 1-3. In Colossians 4:13 there is mention of local brethren in Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis. Colosse was approximately 12 miles from Laodicea and 14 miles from Hierapolis. Members of the congregation at Colosse had incorporated pagan elements into their practice, including worship of elemental spirits. The Epistle to the Colossians declares Christ's supremacy over the entire created universe and exhorts Christians to lead godly lives. The letter consists of two parts: first a doctrinal section, then a second regarding conduct. In both sections, false teachers who have been spreading error in the congregation are opposed.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Harris_Colossians_3-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-family: sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[3]
I do not take offence easily. I am well-known to have a very thick skin.
So OK you prefer to accept wikipedia as more credible than well-known commentaries. Have it your way. So no point in my telling you that the same wiki page also has
Colossians denounces ascetic practices or avoiding certain foods because Christ's death put an end to such distinctions. Believers are one in Christ, not divided between circumcised and uncircumcised, slave and free, and so on.
You will say it does not include the sabbath anyway.
Simon wrote:
Regarding my post
Matthew 24 proves Sabbath still applies because if there is no Sabbath praying not to have to make your flight on Sabbath is a non sequitur.
Regarding acts 13 I didn't say it was proof the apostles kept Sabbath I said it showed that gentiles did
Regarding Wikipedia it's as reliable as Britannica
No. It proves that Jesus was telling the difficulty the people who kept the sabbath would face to try to run. He is speaking of the reality of the time, not giving an endorsement of what people should continue to do.
Wiki isn’t liked much by professors.
I was guilelessly responding in this thread. I don't know where my brain was. I just went to the start of this thread and guess what I realized.
FTOS started this thread. FTOS posted most of the first few posts in this thread. Just read his posts and the agenda will be revealed. I now understand that he was just using this handle to drive a wedge between Catholics and Protestants. Just go back and you will realize.
I will check it now.
See according to my dear FTOS’s post, he stated the Catholics changed and admitted ( evidence book, as they call it, I guess), but here lies the problem. How does this prove Ahang and Zhang? Even Ahang himself never claimed to be Christ and called the idea of a mother God delusional. This is why I don’t debate irrelevances after the fact, such as passovers, Sabbath, feast and the like. Once I see a stain in god. I consider nothing else that god supposedly says. Fool me once but not twice.
OK. Here is something else. This is real, not a hypothetical situation.
My friend in the wmscog does not have a holiday on Saturday. When she first joined this church, she asked permission from her employer every week to attend the service. Later, she started preaching to others at work. At this point the employer objected and now does not permit her to take a holiday on Saturdays. What is she to do? Leave her job? Does she violate sabbath law by going to work? I want FTOS to answer.
Your answer remains a non sequitur
As for professors not liking Wikipedia that’s not universal and you rally aren’t supposed to use any enyclapaedia to write papers anyways
As for Emil’s question that’s illegal anyways
Simon wrote:
Your answer remains a non sequitur
Try plain English instead of Latin. I don't know what you are refering to. My point is that the verse you quote is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of sabbath keeping.
As for professors not liking Wikipedia that's not universal and you rally aren't supposed to use any enyclapaedia to write papers anyways
As for Emil's question that's illegal anyways
You've lost me again. Is my question illegal? If you make your replies a little more verbose, we can understand where exactly you stand.
Lol.
emil wrote:
Simon wrote:
Your answer remains a non sequitur
Try plain English instead of Latin. I don't know what you are refering to. My point is that the verse you quote is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of sabbath keeping.
Non sequitur is plain English, if there is no sabbath at the time of our flight there is no need to pray that it not happen on the sabbatg…
As for professors not liking Wikipedia that's not universal and you rally aren't supposed to use any enyclapaedia to write papers anyways
As for Emil's question that's illegal anyways
You've lost me again. Is my question illegal? If you make your replies a little more verbose, we can understand where exactly you stand.
no the situation itself is illegal. you cannot refuse someone time off for legitimate religious purpose
Simon wrote:
Non sequitur is plain English, if there is no sabbath at the time of our flight there is no need to pray that it not happen on the sabbatg…
For followers of Jesus there is no need to keep the sabbath in the way the Jews kept it. But woe to those who are still keeping the sabbath when the end happens.
Sorry my bad about the Latin, but I was not that far wrong anyway 🙂
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non+sequitur
non se·qui·tur (n
n s
k
w
-t
r, -t
r
)n.
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
[Latin n
n sequitur</tt>, it does not follow : , third person sing. present tense of sequ
</tt>, to follow.]Simon wrote:
no the situation itself is illegal. you cannot refuse someone time off for legitimate religious purpose
Simon I must inform you that there are other countries besides yours. The laws of your country are not applicable in mine.
But let me get this clear. Do I understand that if my religion requires me to say spend my entire Friday in a mosque, my employers can do precious little about it? I just get a 4 day week? And if I am in the wmscog and I want Tuesday for my religious purposes, will my employer let me take a holiday every Tuesday? Is that what the law in the US is?
I know there are countries beyond mine .
and as far as tuesday and the WMSCOG that isn't the doctrine so it'd not be legitimatw
emil wrote:
Simon wrote:
Non sequitur is plain English, if there is no sabbath at the time of our flight there is no need to pray that it not happen on the sabbatg…
For followers of Jesus there is no need to keep the sabbath in the way the Jews kept it. But woe to those who are still keeping the sabbath when the end happens.
That isn't what Jesus said at all.
But Mother was sacrificed on Tuesdays and cleanses us on Tuesdays.
yes but the doctrine is only for an evening rather than the day. Sabbath is a day third say is a single service
Right. 3rd day is not a feast day.
Simon wrote:
I know there are countries beyond mine .
and as far as tuesday and the WMSCOG that isn't the doctrine so it'd not be legitimatw
That didn't answer my question. By the way that is not supposed to be a trick question. I really want to understand.
Simon wrote:
emil wrote:
For followers of Jesus there is no need to keep the sabbath in the way the Jews kept it. But woe to those who are still keeping the sabbath when the end happens.
That isn't what Jesus said at all.
I am not saying that is what Jesus said. I am discussing its alternate interpretation. You say Jesus' statement endorses sabbath keeping. I say that your interpretation does not follow automatically from what Jesus said. There are other logical interpretations as I have suggested.
Jesus was well aware that many Jews rejected him and would not follow him. He was aware that they were keeping the sabbath in the OT tradition and this verse acknowledges that fact. Jesus is also aware that the difficulties he is talking about in that verse are cause for physical pain and discomfort. Fleeing is not going to change the final spiritual outcome. So the warning is to pray that the end does not come at a time where there would be increase in physical discomfort for people. I'm sure there are plenty other logical alternatives as well.
My point is that the verse you offer is not an explicit endorsement of sabbath keeping but an acknowledgement of its existence. If anything, your interpretation can be termed non sequitur because it does not follow that Jesus endorses the sabbath. What is clear is that he acknowledges it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.