It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Sabbath

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TizaBut someone said, and I can't remember who -- Somehwereinbetween, was it you? -- who mentioned that how could Adam know when sundown was? Well, Somewhere..., it may not have been you, I simply can't remember.

However, to whoever it was, it wasn't necessary for Adam to simply guess when a day ended.
You realize don't you that you are at odds with another who appears to be of your faith Rebekka? What does that say for understanding the scriptures?


At that time and because of the canopy that was in the upper atmosphere, there was no rain. No rain at all. The earth was watered with a fine mist before the great flood of Noah.
Your contention then is that it only rained after Noah? Okay, since the good book does not say otherwise, let me agree at this point. However, we have a problem, and it is this:


Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.


With this we have a layer of water, heaven underneath that and water underneath that. Continuing on:

and God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear


So now we have, water and underneath that, heaven and underneath that water that supposedly had land within it, which is now our planet, so that the layers are: water; heaven; earth. In other words, there is nothing at the underside of earth. Now what do you see when you look above? The heavens. And below? The earth. Transfer yourself to the opposite side of the globe and you see exactly the same thing. Therefore you and I know, that the water at the bottom of his tier was not in fact the bottom of his tier, the heavens are still there. Now place yourself in the days of the ancestors who had no clue about the earth and it's spherical shape. To them, the layers were water, heaven, and earth with the water moved out of the way, and that was it, for no matter how they looked down, they saw earth, not heaven.

So then, in order for me to believe that it did not rain, I must also believe that the opposite side of the globe to me cannot see the heavens.



These people had beautiful skin, BTW, because of their atmosphere.
Really, and the proof of this is, the Greek olive skin? That to me is beautiful skin.




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I believe the gentiles are free from most of the OT law and the blood ordinances have been fufilled in Christ, but they are still required to keep themselves from Idols, from fornification (adultery and pre marital), from blood (not sure if this includes all health laws but probably does), and the rest of the Law that isnt a ordinance. (which was a sign of jewish seperation, such as hair).

Im not sure if that includes Sabbath day but It Probably does.
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Somewhereinbetween writes>>For that we shall look to Mark's rendering of this event: "Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungered...How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread..."



Hi, Somewhere:

Read it again, there is no discrepancy here. "in the days of Abiathar..."

It doesn't say that he was talking to Abiathar at all. It says "in the days of" which is also another way of saying "in the lifetime of...." Also, Abiathar was a high priest.

For a rundown on the priests, which there were more than one, look at 1 Chr. 24:1ff. There were 24 priestly courses. Abiathar also had a son called Ahimelek (akh-ee-melek=brother of the king).

By the way, in Scriptures they don't say someone's grandson in the Hebrew, even if it was great-great-grandson and so on. They would still say "son."

Tiza



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Somewhere writes> You realize don't you that you are at odds with another who appears to be of your faith Rebekka? What does that say for understanding the scriptures



Hi, Somewhere:

I don't understand how you can say that. Rebekka follows Judaism, I do believe. I am a Yahwehist, also trust in Yahushua the messiah and know how he preexisted as in the OT. I would say we're a lot different.

In Genesis in the creation week, there was a mist that came up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (Gen. 2:4-6.) Notice that when you read this, it came up from the earth. BTW, there was a canopy above the earth surrounding it. It created a hot-house effect.

Gen. 1:6-8, And eloahim said, Let there be a raqiya (open expanse) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters. And eloahim made the open expanse and divided the waters, which were under the open expanse, from the waters which were above the open expanse. And it was so. And eloahim called the open expanse shamayim (heavens).

I.e., the open expanse was created when he forced the waters into the upper atmosphere. This is the canopy and offered protection from direct sunlight--the harmful rays of the sun.

I probably shouldn't have said that there was no rain. It is possible, but it is not documented until the flood. A lot would have depended on how long the mist lasted. And the atmospheric conditions for the rainbow did not exist until after the flood and the canopy burst.

About Adam, I have to go by the word meaning. You have to do a study on what he was made from, the adamah, which means from soil (from its general redness). Then the name Adam also means to show blood in the face, i.e., flush or turn rosy. We see no record of another other color of skin until after the flood when the bombardment of sun rays hit. But skin color doesn't matter anyway. And yes, their skin would have been beautiful from their environment, meaning it was healthy and would not have appeared aged.

Tiza



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yxboom

Jesus was and is perfect and, when He ran His earthly ministry, He did not forget anything.


I agree, he was perfect and did not forget anything. He led his life as an example for us and that included keeping the Sabbath.


Nay, nothing. That's why He only mentioned 9 out of the 10 commandments -- and that's why He did not tell us that we have to obey the Old Testament Sabbath.


Actually, in conjunction with keeping the Sabbath, he did mention it as well.

"But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
" Matthew 24:20-22

He expected his flock to be keeping all of the commandments.


Remember: the Old Testament requires that non-Sabbath keepers must be killed!!! I'm telling you --> this requirement is abolished!!!


You're right he has paid the penalty for all sin, however that by no means gives anyone an excuse to sin.




Jesus said:
    John 11:26
    And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Do you believe this?


Yes, I do. All scripture harmonizes and is infallible.




Indeed, Jesus went on to fulfill the law and He did so perfectly, as no other mortal human being was able to do. We thank Him dearly for coming to this earth to do so.


I agree and addition to giving thanks I strive to overcome sin which is only possible by submitting to the will of the father and with the help of his holy spirit.


We keep the moral law, as is described in the 9 commandments. We teach against murdering, stealing, bearing false witness, adultery, etc.


"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
" James 1:22-25

The law was perfect when it was established and remains unchanged.

Steve



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiza
Read it again, there is no discrepancy here. "in the days of Abiathar..."
It doesn't say that he was talking to Abiathar at all. It says "in the days of" which is also another way of saying "in the lifetime of...." Also, Abiathar was a high priest.

Apologizing are you? There is definitely a discrepancy within the text. Abiathar was not the high priest of the temple with whom David had his misunderstanding. This is supposed to be God, this Jesus, he has no margin of error. Jesus supposedly named the successor as being the high priest confronting David and that is incorrect. What you witness is the interpretation of a non-Jew as he wrote the gospel. Why? because it specifically says:

how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar

Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was fraid at the meeting of David…
There is no apology for this since Abiathar was not the one David confronted.

And it matters not what the names of the son, Jesus got the name of the high priest confronting David wrong. This is the man that is supposed to be God, ineffable, remember?


[edit on 2/5/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

[edit on 2/5/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiza
Hi, Somewhere:

I don't understand how you can say that. Rebekka follows Judaism, I do believe. I am a Yahwehist, also trust in Yahushua the messiah and know how he preexisted as in the OT. I would say we're a lot different.
You two can battle it out between you. As long as you do and other Christians battle amongst themselves, it proves my theory that your faith is lacking the water with which to make it into cement.


In Genesis in the creation week, there was a mist that came up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (Gen. 2:4-6.) Notice that when you read this, it came up from the earth. BTW, there was a canopy above the earth surrounding it. It created a hot-house effect.
Really now? And you ignore that water lies underneath the earth according to scripture as I have shown, why? Please do not attempt diversion with me. I want to know how you explain water-heaven-earth, where earth was the water beneath the heaven.


About Adam, I have to go by the word meaning. You have to do a study on what he was made from, the adamah, which means from soil (from its general redness).


And ha-adam means?

[edit on 2/5/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

You realize don't you that you are at odds with another who appears to be of your faith Rebekka?



No. I started to write in this topic just to explain why Jews keep Shabbat on Day 7; wich starts in the evening of the day others call 'Friday'.

I am a Jew.

Jews do have a faith which is full and complete, and it is in no need of any outside savior. We do have the written and the oral Tora; any Christian New Testament plays no role, no role whatsoever in the religious thinking of the Jew. Jews have no need for Jesus.

Judaism is very very different to the religion Tizia follows.

Let us live side by side in mutual respect and peace. Mutual respect precludes belittling the integrity of our religion as it is.



Rebekka






[edit on 6-2-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Riwka, Why don't Jews believe in the new testiment?



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
According to Jewish sources, the Massiach will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. The Massiach must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).

According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father - and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David

By the time Jesus lived and died, Jewish messianic expectations were really quite clear. The Massiach our people expected would do four things, also on your sheet:

1. End the Roman oppression of the Jews

2. Restore a descendant of King David over a reunited Land of Israel

3. Bring about the miraculous return of the scattered exiles to the Land of Israel

4. Inaugurate an endless era of peace and harmony in the world

Put quite simply, Jesus did none of these things.
Therefore, he cannot be the Jewish Massiach.


Rebekka



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Hi Rebekka,

So are you still waiting for this Jewish Massiach? I guess now it is too late to end the Roman oppression.

Do you still believe the Jews will still return to their homeland, and a person will come that will bring peace to the world?

[edit on 6-2-2005 by shmick25]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Here's something a lot of Jews seem to totally overlook:

According to the book of Daniel (9.24-27), God put the Jewish people on probation, declaring that after a certain decree to rebuild Jerusalem, the Jews had 490 years to get their act together. Combined with that was a prophecy indicating the exact time the Messiah was to come and do his business: 483 years after the decree, the Messiah was to make a covenant with the many, 3 and a half years after that do something to end the sacrifice, and 3 and a half years after that completes the time period.

Now, obviously if Jesus is not the Messiah this prophecy is still in the future.

However, there was a decree from Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 BCE allowing the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, and if you start the 490 year prophecy there, it matches. In 27 CE Jesus was baptized and began his ministry to the masses, and three and a half years later in 31 CE Jesus was crucified, which according to his followers was the ultimate sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Did anything happen three and a half years after that, in 34 CE? At that point in time one would expect the Jews to have done something that made it clear as to whether they had 'gotten their act together', and God to have passed some sort of judgement, if this time frame is to hold true. Well, in the fall of 34 CE the Jesus cult was already exploding, and the Jewish leaders set their sights on one particular cultist named Stephen, accusing him of blasphemy. Stephen's defense consisted of a strongly condemning sermon (see Acts 7 for the text) and just before being stoned he claimed to have seen God do something: (7.56) "and he said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God,'" something strongly indicative of divine judgment.

Now, even granting the possibility that Stephen was making all this up, the timing of the whole series of events still stands, and the complexity of the Dan 9.24-27 prophecy makes it a particularly strong point that really ought to be addressed by people who continue to insist Jesus was not the Messiah. At the very least, this is a messianic prophecy that Jesus did fulfill in addition to being male and Jewish.
_______

Going back to the issue of the Sabbath, Sunday worship is not a large problem now. In the end, accepting the sacrifice of Jesus is the only thing that really matters. However, it is a fact that the Bible says nothing about changing which day is holy, and Jesus and His disciples continued to observe Sabbath. It was a human act that changed the day of worship, with human authority. It is not much of a serious problem now, but never forget which authority is behind which day. There will come a time when the stakes are higher. There is a group of Christians in the US that thinks their religious freedom is becoming restricted--maybe it is a little bit, but they are in danger of reacting in a manner far more terrible than the persecution they think they're suffering.

This same group of Christians is the group that likes to make dire warnings of divine wrath whenever a natural disaster of any devastating magnitude happens. The rest of us rightly ignore them, but it won't always be that way. If a series of natural disasters were to happen rapidly one after each other, rapidly enough to deny these harbingers of hysteria a chance to cool down between events, they just might become loud enough to sway the general population, especially considering that everyone else will be legitimately scared. What then? Such disasters may mean little in reality, but the Christian Right will make them mean something, and with that kind of hysteria people can do terrifying things.

Consider the following facts: The United States population is 80% Christian. In a democratic system, the majority rules.
What sort of things might the Christian population be convinced to do, if convinced God had it in for America unless they did something?

How would you legislate Christianity? A simple belief is hard to enforce. It would have to be a practice. There are not many practices that are considered universally Christian and are done frequently enough to satisfy those who are hungry for results. Going to church on Sunday, in the minds of many people, would satisfy these criteria. It is under this situation that it would become the mark of the beast, that it would become a true challenge against God's authority.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Somewhere writes>>And it matters not what the names of the son, Jesus got the name of the high priest confronting David wrong. This is the man that is supposed to be God, ineffable, remember?

Somewhereinbetween,

You are superimposing your faulty logic and personal interpretation. This reminds me of the verse about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel, which both are unclean. You're missing the whole importance of the teaching that Yahushua is giving.

Another point, you do not understand the priesthood. Even many times there was more than one high priest. There were coadjutors. And lots of times when a priest died, he still held his title of high priest.

I gave you my answer. I still stand by it.

About ha-adam. Adam is not only the personal name of our first parent, the man, Adam, it's also the generic name of mankind, or people-kind, however you wish to say it. ha-adam means "the adam."

As far as Rebekka, I have no problems with her. She believes what she believes, that's her business. However, when I get a chance, I will refute the stuff on Yahushua the messiah. Not so much for her benefit, but for those interested.

What is hard to understand is that if no messiah, then no one has eternal life because no one will receive the inheritance, Jews included as well as everyone else.

Tiza



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TizaSomewhereinbetween,

You are superimposing your faulty logic and personal interpretation. This reminds me of the verse about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel, which both are unclean. You're missing the whole importance of the teaching that Yahushua is giving.
From where I sit it is more like you invoking selective reasoning to discard the falsehoods from the philosophy just so you can embrace the philosophy as fact. Either believe it all or believe none. Jesus is supposed to be God, perfect in every way, including his recall of the scriptures. He got it wrong! He incorrectly referenced the wrong high priest and the logic then dictates that those he spoke to were Jews who would have known this. They would not have allowed that to go unchallenged, and had they said, Look Jesus you don't know what you are talking about because the priest was not Abiathar. His only recourse would have been to dismiss them as heathen or accept his error and therefore severely diminish his point.

Your argument is not based on logic or reason, it is all apology, for the fact of it is whomever wrote those words was ignorant of the OT. Go to a Jewish website and tell them David had an issue over the shewbread with Abiathar and find out how they will respond. In essence you would be trying to shove that camel down the gnat's throat.


Another point, you do not understand the priesthood. Even many times there was more than one high priest. There were coadjutors. And lots of times when a priest died, he still held his title of high priest.
Do not jump to conclusions, I understand quite well, and Abiathar was not the priest in the synagogue: 1 Sam 21:2 "And David said unto Ahimelech the priest...."

Christians find themselves apologizing far too many times to explain away the deficiencies within the NT. So much so it is suc a compendium of excuses and diverse contradictory explanations even among themselves that no wonder Christianity's glue has been reduced to believeing and divine inspiration.

With all those Pharisee scribes following the man around and asking him questions, you should expect these conversations be recorded somewhere within the Jewish texts. Why else would scribes be on him like flies? It is obvious that if indeed there were any scribes they were his followers and his followers alone. So you want to tell me I don't understand about the high priests? Find me the numerous records as recorded by the councils where Jesus, Peter or Paul did in fact stand before them as accused. Find for me even one.


About ha-adam. Adam is not only the personal name of our first parent, the man, Adam, it's also the generic name of mankind, or people-kind, however you wish to say it. ha-adam means "the adam."
That is correct; "The Adam." This has been taken to mean that it was a singular person, a man and Adam was his name. Where in fact Gen1:27 specifically states God created male and female, and where just out of the blue in Gen. 2:19, "the man" is suddenly called Adam.

The creation account may seem to many as being a one of a kind, but it is not. The Egyptian Hermopolis creation myth started with 4 androgynous deities; Elephantine creation myth has the God Khnum mold man from a potters wheel; i.e clay! Atum breathed life into the nostrils of the Goddess Shu and called her "the life force;" Heliopolitan myth tells of Nut being pulled from Geb's body, and another of Atum punishing Nut with difficulties in childbirth because she and Geb disobeyed him. And later it tells of Isis as having decieved Ra by creating a serpent to bite him in the ankle so as to learn his name and gain godly powers; followed by Ra ostracizing the only adversary he cannot defeat, the serpent.

Does any of that sound familiar to you? All of it recorded in stone, not fragments of papyrus no older than 800BCE, or extant texts from the 1st century ACE, but stone! This from a race of people with proof of existence long before any historical evidence of Jews. What does that tell you?


What is hard to understand is that if no messiah, then no one has eternal life because no one will receive the inheritance, Jews included as well as everyone else.
When one can move past the mythology behind a book written by priests surreptitiously invoking the name of their God to explain every good, bad or indifferent thing that happened to them, and then claiming their God to be the one, the only, and instead understand the nuances of the history come to us steadily from underneath the dirt, then you will stop believing in a messiah, stop feeling that you were born guilty and discard all of the my god is better than your god garbage; do away with the need to be told what you must believe, and find the instilled belief placed within your very soul.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
According to Jewish sources, the Massiach will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. The Massiach must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).

According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father - and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David

By the time Jesus lived and died, Jewish messianic expectations were really quite clear. The Massiach our people expected would do four things, also on your sheet:

1. End the Roman oppression of the Jews

2. Restore a descendant of King David over a reunited Land of Israel

3. Bring about the miraculous return of the scattered exiles to the Land of Israel

4. Inaugurate an endless era of peace and harmony in the world

Put quite simply, Jesus did none of these things.
Therefore, he cannot be the Jewish Massiach.


Rebekka


Jesus is more than a messiah. He is the great OBSOG.
The messiah will fulfill your 4 requirements. He is under Jesus. He is a man.
Jesus will dictate the messiah's decisions.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by CyrusTheShepherd]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenSo now we have, water and underneath that, heaven and underneath that water that supposedly had land within it, which is now our planet, so that the layers are: water; heaven; earth. In other words, there is nothing at the underside of earth. Now what do you see when you look above? The heavens. And below? The earth. Transfer yourself to the opposite side of the globe and you see exactly the same thing. Therefore you and I know, that the water at the bottom of his tier was not in fact the bottom of his tier, the heavens are still there. Now place yourself in the days of the ancestors who had no clue about the earth and it's spherical shape. To them, the layers were water, heaven, and earth with the water moved out of the way, and that was it, for no matter how they looked down, they saw earth, not heaven.


Are you sure, Somewhere, that earth is a planet?
Why is firmament in the text? How can the sky stretch out like beaten metal? Can you define gravity for me? (Beside the obligatory answer that it is the force that holds us to the ground.) Does the earth spin, for that matter? Are you certain? What causes tides? If it is gravity, then please explain it to me. I cannot figure it out. Why does the text say God stretched out the heavens? and spread abroad the earth? Why does it say that the sky will unravel like a scroll rolling up? Why is the "universe" expanding? Why are the nebulae only clearly visible by Hubble? How much closer can it be than us?, relatively speaking. What's a light year? Why does it say that the stars will fall to the earth? How can this be? Why does it say that the windows of heaven were opened? What causes rainbows? Raindrops? Are you sure? What's it to you if the layers are water, heaven(space), water/dry land, what's the problem with that? Can't you accept it? In other words, yes, there's nothing beneath the underside of earth. Can't you believe that? Why not? Isn't hell a bottomless pit? Isn't it's mouth opened wide without measure? Are not hell and destruction never full? How far has anyone really drilled down to find out? Do you even believe there is a hell? Is it all just a myth? Really? Why don't we see the moon rotate? They say it does. How can it be that it magically stays in sync with the earth's rotation? Wow, that's a camel swallower. Why are there only 4 geostationary satellites? Why not more or less? Why does the space shuttle need glass tiles called frit to enter the atmosphere? Why is there burn-up anyway? Why does a heavy jet airliner ascend as high as it can? Why is their a sun and moon illusion at the horizons. Why is the sky blue? Why, at night is it never really completely dark? Has anyone ever seen the back side of the sun? Are you sure it rotates? Why is there a coriolis effect? Why, if the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, is there such an extreme temperature difference at the poles compared to the equator? Why didn't earth feeze up, if it is traveling through frigid space? Is the earth's core a perpetual heat giving energy machine? How hot is it down there anyway? Are you sure? Why do plumbobs diverge at the bottom of mine shafts instead of converge? Why does the text say the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof? Why does the text say that all eyes shall see him at his coming? Where do you think Jesus is hiding out at? You believe he is still living, don't you?

Are you answers your own, or did somebody else tell you?

Plumbo



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I was just thinking about this topic and was talking about it to one of my friends. He said (like others in this tread) that no one really knows the exact day of Saturday. I.e. we could be one or two days out (which is fair enough to assume for the sake of the argument).

So for the purpose of this debate, lets state that the day of worship DOES hold religious significance and is a sign of faith for the followers of Christ. If now in the year 2005 we don't know exactly if the 7th day that we have now is the same as that of creation, does it change it's significance?

I would argue that it doesnt. The week is divided up into 7 days. Sunday day 1 Sat as day 7. (Mind you, there has been substantial work by some people to change the calendar so that Sunday is day 7 and Monday is day 1).

I think we can argue that the day Saturday has not changed since the time of Christ. The days have been recorded quite accurately. The fact that Christ worshipped on this day gives credability to its 1) Accuracy 2) Importance 3) Validity.

If the day of worship is NOT that important (as a lot of people on here belive), why does the RCC not change the day to a Saturday? How hard could it be? I think you will find that the day is VERY important and both have two very different meanings associated with them.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Plumbo,

Let us cut to the chase relative to your questions. What exactly are you trying to get across?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Plumbo,

Let us cut to the chase relative to your questions. What exactly are you trying to get across?


The universe.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25

If the day of worship is NOT that important (as a lot of people on here belive), why does the RCC not change the day to a Saturday? How hard could it be? I think you will find that the day is VERY important and both have two very different meanings associated with them.



I think you have hit on a significant point here. Our Father set apart the seventh day for a reason. Scripture predicted that the day would be attempted to be changed (Daniel 7:25). I have seen people referring to the seventh day Sabbath as a burden. Anyone who keeps it can testify that just the opposite is true. Keeping the Sabbath is a joy and anticipated as it approaches and longed for after it ends.

"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev 22:14



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join