Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

rstrats

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by rstrats

  1. Sure you can. Sell the car and pay the taxes from the proceeds. Now, then - would you stay or switch?
  2. So I assume your disagree with Salyan.
  3. Anyone agree with Salyan?
  4. Any thoughts on where the Northern 10 tribes ended up?
  5. With that system of scriptural interpolation just about any theological position could be determined.
  6. That's not what I mean. Again, Robycop3 said that he believed that the Messiah rose shortly before sunset on Saturday. For the purpose of my post I was simply pursuing an answer to how he reconciled that with Mark 16:9 which says that He rose on the 1st of the week?
  7. Correct. You asked what I was pursuing. And I gave you the answer.
  8. Robycop3 said that he believed that the Messiah rose shortly before sunset on Saturday. I merely asked him how he reconciled that with Mark 16:9 which says that He rose on the 1st of the week?
  9. Deleted. Ukulelemike, re: "12 times in scripture it is revealed that Jesus rose, or was to rise, on the third day." And 4 scriptures say or indicate that it would be after the 3rd day. So apparently the scriptures which say on the third day must be referring to the third day after the crucifixion. re: "...He rose ...at a time later than His death..." As opposed to a time earlier than His death.
  10. If by Saturday you are referring to the seventh day of the week how do you work around Mark 16:9?
  11. So the discrepancy actually had started at least by the time of Ezekiel
  12. So Matthew is placing the crucifixion no earlier than the 15th? I don't see how Mark 2:27 shows that it is a discrepancy.
  13. What has that got to do with my question to robycop3 that you quoted?
  14. So Matthew is placing the crucifixion no earlier than the 15th?
  15. Ok, thanks. We all misread things from time to time. If by Saturday you mean the 7th day of the week, how do you deal with Mark 16:9?
  16. SureWord, re: "The holidays were made for man not man for the holidays so God allowed some leeway. Mark 2:27" Actually, that verse is only referring to the Sabbath. And I don't see how it allows any leeway with regard to when the Sabbath is to be observed.
  17. What is your point with regard to the topic - "Good Friday"?
  18. But I'm still curious what your reasoning was for your need to quote me when your addition to the discussion dealt with John Young's comment?
  19. The topic doesn't need to be locked. It just needs the powers-that-be to delete all of the off topic comments.
  20. 1 Timothy115, re: "No, it also has to do with what day you worship the Lord." Again, the context of the whole chapter from start to finish has to do with regard to food practices. "Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people 'weak in the faith' (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith." Nothing is said with regard to the Sabbath or the first day of the week. But even if Paul were to mean for the Sabbath and the first day of the week to be included in his chapter, it doesn't show that he was arguing for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week because of the resurrection and was using Mark 16:9 to support a first day of the week resurrection. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. "We assume, because we have been raised with an anti- Torah bias, that the text must be talking about Sabbath, but that is a pure assumption not required by the text. To say that the verse must mean, that if we are honoring the Sabbath as God commands numerous times and places throughout Scripture (not a gray area), that those who do so are weak in the faith, is an interpretation coming from an anti- Torah bias that has been imposed on the text, but which the text does not require." A footnote in Calvin'sCommentaries regarding verses 5-6: " It has been suggested as a question by some, whether the Christian Sabbath is included here? The very subject in hand proves that it is not." Expositor's Greek Testament with reagard to verse 5:"It is not probable that there is any reference...to the Jewish Sabbath..."
  21. To what "folly" are you referring? Please be specific. To whom are you referring?
  22. Hugh_Flower, re: "Why are you looking for a published author..." See the OP. re: "It seems like you would like to argue with them when you find them." No, not for the purpose of this topic. re: " Sunday seems like a good day of any to worship the Lord in fellowship as that was the day the Lord rose again." And that was the reason for starting this topic. See the OP. re: "Whose to say we should keep sabath?...Whose to say the day we are required to worship?...If sabath was still required, you would think it would be a very big deal to all the doctrine of the early Christians gentiles and jews alike. Yet there is no mention of keeping sabath. This is odd if it was important." Those are issues for a different topic.
  23. 1Timothy115, re: "Ironside lived it..." I don't know what that means. re: "Now if you're looking for an answer to the person you originally encountered..." I am. re: "...you have plenty to present from previous person's comments." If there is, I haven't seen it. re: "If they don't care to agree after this why bother with it anyway." So far I haven't seen anything to take back to them. re: "[see Romans 14:5-6]" I don't understand what that has to do with it. The whole chapter is talking about food practices with regard to eating and not eating.
  24. re: "Mark is, first of all a VERY published author." I don't see where Mark argues for a change of observance from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week due to the idea of a first day of the week resurrection. That is also the case with Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1. Also, I don't see where Ironside argues for the change either.
×
×
  • Create New...