Ukulelemike

SureWord,
I presume when you mentioned "yet another thread which has been going on since 2009 ... heretical Seventh Day Adventist nonsense" is a reference to the, "Mark 16:9" thread started by rstrats.
One. To  quote a proverb, " A good general picks his battles." I came to the conclusion a long time ago that rstrats is not looking for truth but is just on Online Baptist to arouse dissension among us. The battle of teaching the truth to rstrats is a lost cause and only causes ill will. So, I will continue to not comment on his thread. You mentioned one time in your comments that the Mark 16:9 thread should be "locked." I agree with you.
Two. A search of Seventh Day Adventist material here on Online Baptist will probably bring up several threads that I have commented on the errors (there are many errors), of the Seventh Day Adventist. I will give you one link:
Also, I think that the John Young topic on Angels is a excellent thread for the reasons that I suggested.
Also, I want to publicly thank JimAlaska for his "like." I appreciate it very much. I guess because Jim and I agree on just  about everything we "like" each other a lot.
Again, I pick my verbal 'battles' and discussions very carefully. So, I do not comment on a lot of threads if you check my posts.

I have always disagreed with the way the whole 'sons of God with the daughters of men' thing has been popularly interpreted, particularly because God created everything after its kind, including humans and angels, meaning there is an implied impossibility to crossbreed, even if fallen angels, ie, devils, could take physical form, (which there is no biblical precedent for to be found), there is nothing to say they even have the capability to breed at all, since they were not created to breed in the first place. 
No matter what we do to ourselves, we will always just be human-no matter the number of implants, microchips, or false limbs, no matter what we cut off, or sew on, we are what we are: humans, male and female, as created-all we can manage to do is mutilate and graffiti that which God has created, and one day, we will all stand before God and be judged for what we are: His creation, subject to His justice, like it or not.

"There's only one God, Ma'am, and I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress that way." -Captain America, speaking about Thor and Loki in Marvel's Avengers.   (A rare enlightened comment from an atheist director)

Back on topic.
1: The veracity of these verses is absolutely important, despite what the aforementioned poster said, because the only manuscripts that remove them are of the revised critical text based primarily on two very shaky manuscripts, one of which (Sinaiticus) is probably a forgery, and the other (Vaticanus) is either a medieval manuscript, or at east, heavily altered during that time period, (Neither Oldest Nor Best by David Sorenson). All other ancient manuscripts and writings include that portion of scripture.\
2: As for that being the only place in scripture that teaches that Jesus rose ON the first day, it is the only one that specifically says it, but there are other places where, with simple math, we see it to be the case, despite arguments to the contrary, that shows that Jesus said He would be three days and three nights in the earth, so it clearly had to be the first day He rose. However, for the sake of argument, that one verse does make it crystal clear and it should be beyond disagreement for those who believe the scriptures. 
3: There was never any "change" from 7th day to first day. The Sabbath remains the sabbath for Israel, those for whom it was given-it was never given to the church to follow, as they were not a part of the Sinaitic covenant-it was between national Israel and God (Ex 24:3-8). In fact, the Sabbath was not originally a day to assemble to worship God, it was a day prescribed for Israel to remain in their homes and rest from their labors-this changed during the exile in Babylon, where the Synagogue was created for the people to worship, and done on the Sabbath, as they could not be allowed to have a day of worship AND a day of rest. 
4: that the early church began to meet on the first day, specifically, was written by very early writers:
     
The above are some "published" writers on the subject, very early believers who wrote, in letters, (epistles) that the regular habit was to meet on the first day. Now, the fellows you spoke of will surely complain that they must have modern authors of modern writing, but I will trust what early believers say they actually did, believers, by the way, well before there was a Catholic church to "change the Sabbath". 

Well, as for the difference between the third day, and after the third day, that is a difference that I suppose ew may not understand this side of heaven. It may be that He rose, or came alive, ON the third day, but did not rise, or leave the tomb, until AFTER the third day. 
A Wednesday crucifixion would not have Him in the tomb 3-1/2 days and nights, because the time of His death isn't the same as the time in the tomb, which is what the timing is set to. 3 days, three nights in the heart of the earth, or the tomb. That being the case. then He was only in the tomb for 3 days, and maybe an hour, depending on when He actually left the tomb.
Early Sunday morning would coincide with about 5am, which is why it was still dark when they went to the tomb, and it was already empty, so Jesus rose before that. But really, early Sunday would be after 6pm the evening before.
I don't think the time of day is important, He could have risen at 6:01pm, right at the start, or at 5am, while still dark, and before the women arrived, but the timing, three literal days and nights, 3 complete 24-hour periods, I believe are the best to go with, because it is the plainest reading, with no need to interpretation. It may even be that, if He went to the tomb at 5pm, then He could have risen at 5:55pm Saturday night, but left the tomb until after Sunday began, and He still would have met all the prophesied requirements.
And I apologize, I didn't mean to specifically say YOU were complicating things, though in retrospect I can see how that looked. It was just a general lament. Sorry it came across that way. Same with the catholic thing. I should not have attached it to your comment.   

This might be a composite of quotations, but:
  "When we preach, we stand, not at a pulpit, but on a throne. We cannot play at preaching: Life, Death, Heaven and Hell all hang on the preaching and hearing of a sermon." CH Spurgeon
This used to hang on my office when I was first a pastor, (and wen I had an office).

It is kind of moot, if I understand properly what you're asking, 'Did Christ, being resurrected the first day, change the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first'? Is that correct?
The sabbath never changed, it Is, and always was, the seventh day. However, it was not always a 'day of worship', as we see them coming together in the synagogues to do. Originally it was set as a day of rest, to stay home and not go ANYWHERE. Apparently that changed, out of necessity, during their time in bondage in Babylon, when the synagogue was invented.
As for why we assemble in the first day of the week, rather than the seventh, it is because that is the day Christ was resurrected. While they may not record that as the reason, (of course, their first church met every day), yet within the next century, Christina writers declared that to be the reason, as a perpetual memorial to His resurrection. 

This might be a composite of quotations, but:
  "When we preach, we stand, not at a pulpit, but on a throne. We cannot play at preaching: Life, Death, Heaven and Hell all hang on the preaching and hearing of a sermon." CH Spurgeon
This used to hang on my office when I was first a pastor, (and wen I had an office).

A couple people I know, including a young man in our church, have asked me about this magazine they keep getting, "Tomorrow's World." Having perused it once, a light reading showed it is full of false doctrine, so I told the young man in my church, and he is no longer reading them.
Today, a co-worker brought me one and asked me about it, so I went a little further into it, and found it is produced by "the Living Church of God," which is apparently an even worse offshoot of Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, (WCoG). It is a weird mix of Armstrongism, law-keeping, (thus also Sabbath-keeping), and Jehovah's Witness false doctrines, such as the Holy Spirit being merely an impersonal spirit of God, not the third person in the godhead, annihilism, (sp?) and other such things.
Amusingly, many of their doctrines are ridiculously easy to refute from scripture, but sadly, as with the two young men who came to me about it, neother was able to discern the plain falsehoods in the magazine, though I suspect an unwillingness to actually read it may have been part of the problem.
anyways, if you should receive this magazine, feel free to peruse it, but know, it is complete garbage.

My primary response was part 2, context. The context is clearly the giving of God's word. Yes, #1 was shaky, at best, and I considered erasing it, but there it is. Ignore it, look at #2
Yes, as I said above, I agree it was a bit, or a lot, shaky. Stick with #2.

We know this has to do with God's completed word, and not the coming of Christ, because, 
1: Jesus had already come, and if it referred to Jesus, surely it would say, "He that is perfect is come again"
and
2: Because the scripture, in context, has to do with the supernatural receiving/giving of God's words, through prophecy, tongues and (supernatural) knowledge, or revelation. This is how the Lord gave His word, from Genesis to Revelation-so, in that context, the things we know only in part, (at that time, the word not yet being complete, and only incomplete parts given at any one time), so when that which is perfect, in context, God's completed revelation of his word, was come, there is no longer any need for those partial revelations and prophecies, therefore they would cease.
Context, context, context!

We know this has to do with God's completed word, and not the coming of Christ, because, 
1: Jesus had already come, and if it referred to Jesus, surely it would say, "He that is perfect is come again"
and
2: Because the scripture, in context, has to do with the supernatural receiving/giving of God's words, through prophecy, tongues and (supernatural) knowledge, or revelation. This is how the Lord gave His word, from Genesis to Revelation-so, in that context, the things we know only in part, (at that time, the word not yet being complete, and only incomplete parts given at any one time), so when that which is perfect, in context, God's completed revelation of his word, was come, there is no longer any need for those partial revelations and prophecies, therefore they would cease.
Context, context, context!

Well, as for the difference between the third day, and after the third day, that is a difference that I suppose ew may not understand this side of heaven. It may be that He rose, or came alive, ON the third day, but did not rise, or leave the tomb, until AFTER the third day. 
A Wednesday crucifixion would not have Him in the tomb 3-1/2 days and nights, because the time of His death isn't the same as the time in the tomb, which is what the timing is set to. 3 days, three nights in the heart of the earth, or the tomb. That being the case. then He was only in the tomb for 3 days, and maybe an hour, depending on when He actually left the tomb.
Early Sunday morning would coincide with about 5am, which is why it was still dark when they went to the tomb, and it was already empty, so Jesus rose before that. But really, early Sunday would be after 6pm the evening before.
I don't think the time of day is important, He could have risen at 6:01pm, right at the start, or at 5am, while still dark, and before the women arrived, but the timing, three literal days and nights, 3 complete 24-hour periods, I believe are the best to go with, because it is the plainest reading, with no need to interpretation. It may even be that, if He went to the tomb at 5pm, then He could have risen at 5:55pm Saturday night, but left the tomb until after Sunday began, and He still would have met all the prophesied requirements.
And I apologize, I didn't mean to specifically say YOU were complicating things, though in retrospect I can see how that looked. It was just a general lament. Sorry it came across that way. Same with the catholic thing. I should not have attached it to your comment.   

Sadly, I am afraid that the covid restrictions are helping along with the falling away from churches. Just gives people an excuse. If the lost pretending to be saved leave, so be it; it is the saved who are carnal leaving that concerns me.

The problem here is, the language actually isn't 400 years old. The fact is, the language of the King James Bible really never existed in time, it is a mish-mash of styles, many much older than the KJV, used because it was more precise in its interpretation of some of the Greek and Hebrew; it is literally a language style specifically created for the KJV-if you read the introduction written by the translators, you'll notice it is very different from the text of the Bible-this is why I would really not be in favor of it.

TO THE MOST
HIGH AND MIGHTY
PRINCE, JAMES
by the Grace of God,
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland
Defender of the Faith, &c.
The Translators of the Bible
wish Grace, Mercy, and Peace through Jesus
CHRIST our LORD
[What follows is the Dedicatory Epistle of the King James translators to King James I who commissioned the translation of the Kimg James Bible.  It is included here that the reader might have a basis of comparison between the language and style of the 1611 Authorized King James Version and the language and style this Dedicatory Epistle.  Note the sharp contrast between this epistle and the KJV. This dedicatory epistle is not included in most King James Bibles published today]

Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well upon our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquility at home and abroad.
But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God’s sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time pent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven.
Then not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it: nay, to go forward with the confidence and resolution of a Man in maintaining the truth about Christ, and propagating it far and near, is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty’s loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort,and they bless You in their hearts,as that sanctified Person who, under God, is the immediate author of their true happiness. And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed), and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the Teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing Father.
There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in Your Majesty but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labors, both in our own, and other foreign Languages of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.
And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labors, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly craving of Your most Sacred Majesty, that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labors shall more honor and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without, by the powerful protection of Your Majesty’s grace and favor, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.
    The Lord of Heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many singular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honor that Great God, and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour.
The above, you might recognize. One main thing I would mention is the complete lack of 'Ye', 'thee', 'thy' or various other forms of how today we just say 'you' or 'your', which is how it is written herein. Those forms, however, were put into the KJV because they are more precise in meaning, in that Ye and You and your are all plural, (directed to many), which Thy, and Thine are singular.  The general entire style of writing is very different too, overall. 

TO THE MOST
HIGH AND MIGHTY
PRINCE, JAMES
by the Grace of God,
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland
Defender of the Faith, &c.
The Translators of the Bible
wish Grace, Mercy, and Peace through Jesus
CHRIST our LORD
[What follows is the Dedicatory Epistle of the King James translators to King James I who commissioned the translation of the Kimg James Bible.  It is included here that the reader might have a basis of comparison between the language and style of the 1611 Authorized King James Version and the language and style this Dedicatory Epistle.  Note the sharp contrast between this epistle and the KJV. This dedicatory epistle is not included in most King James Bibles published today]

Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well upon our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquility at home and abroad.
But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God’s sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time pent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven.
Then not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it: nay, to go forward with the confidence and resolution of a Man in maintaining the truth about Christ, and propagating it far and near, is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty’s loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort,and they bless You in their hearts,as that sanctified Person who, under God, is the immediate author of their true happiness. And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed), and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the Teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing Father.
There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in Your Majesty but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labors, both in our own, and other foreign Languages of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.
And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labors, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly craving of Your most Sacred Majesty, that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labors shall more honor and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without, by the powerful protection of Your Majesty’s grace and favor, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.
    The Lord of Heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many singular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honor that Great God, and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour.
The above, you might recognize. One main thing I would mention is the complete lack of 'Ye', 'thee', 'thy' or various other forms of how today we just say 'you' or 'your', which is how it is written herein. Those forms, however, were put into the KJV because they are more precise in meaning, in that Ye and You and your are all plural, (directed to many), which Thy, and Thine are singular.  The general entire style of writing is very different too, overall. 

The problem here is, the language actually isn't 400 years old. The fact is, the language of the King James Bible really never existed in time, it is a mish-mash of styles, many much older than the KJV, used because it was more precise in its interpretation of some of the Greek and Hebrew; it is literally a language style specifically created for the KJV-if you read the introduction written by the translators, you'll notice it is very different from the text of the Bible-this is why I would really not be in favor of it.

The problem comes, I think, with confusing repentance with the result of repentance, or if you will, repentance of heart with repentance in action. True repentance will come with a change in behavior, the heart action resulting in the change of behavior: heart to works.  Now, some things repented of can take time to turn into an action, (ie, addictions, etc). in the case of Nineveh, their repentance, initially, was a changed heart, followed by prayer and fasting with a true intent of heart to change and obey God. Yes, there was a work, but that was a work borne out of repentance of the heart. I do not believe that God would accept any work that wasn't based on at least a repentant heart-even if he knows they may not get it right in action, if the heart is right, truly wanting to please God. If they were just doing a work with no repentant heart behind it, God probably wouldn't have spared them.

The problem comes, I think, with confusing repentance with the result of repentance, or if you will, repentance of heart with repentance in action. True repentance will come with a change in behavior, the heart action resulting in the change of behavior: heart to works.  Now, some things repented of can take time to turn into an action, (ie, addictions, etc). in the case of Nineveh, their repentance, initially, was a changed heart, followed by prayer and fasting with a true intent of heart to change and obey God. Yes, there was a work, but that was a work borne out of repentance of the heart. I do not believe that God would accept any work that wasn't based on at least a repentant heart-even if he knows they may not get it right in action, if the heart is right, truly wanting to please God. If they were just doing a work with no repentant heart behind it, God probably wouldn't have spared them.

The problem comes, I think, with confusing repentance with the result of repentance, or if you will, repentance of heart with repentance in action. True repentance will come with a change in behavior, the heart action resulting in the change of behavior: heart to works.  Now, some things repented of can take time to turn into an action, (ie, addictions, etc). in the case of Nineveh, their repentance, initially, was a changed heart, followed by prayer and fasting with a true intent of heart to change and obey God. Yes, there was a work, but that was a work borne out of repentance of the heart. I do not believe that God would accept any work that wasn't based on at least a repentant heart-even if he knows they may not get it right in action, if the heart is right, truly wanting to please God. If they were just doing a work with no repentant heart behind it, God probably wouldn't have spared them.

The night sky from my farm in Herlong, CA. You can see my 69 VW bus there in the lower left.
 

Biblicist. Calvinism and Arminianism have some good points, but are both too filled with man's doctrines that I could accept neither. More philosophy than doctrine.

Studied at Loyola University? The Jesuit college? And he is a Baptist? Well, Southern Baptist, I suspect. But with a Catholic bent? Can't trust anyone to be a true follower of Christ, much less a preacher, that sides with the party of infanticide on demand.

Studied at Loyola University? The Jesuit college? And he is a Baptist? Well, Southern Baptist, I suspect. But with a Catholic bent? Can't trust anyone to be a true follower of Christ, much less a preacher, that sides with the party of infanticide on demand.