@luisfemart123 Did the title of HEBREWS escape your attention?
Hebrews in the tribulation can lose their "salvation" if they don't endure until the end and take the mark of the beast. l am not a Hebrew. I'm a NT Christian. I will not be here during the tribulation, but I will be here with the Lord when He reigns on Earth during the millenium, but not as His Jewish brothers.
Let no man(or the ignorant eg white) therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the SABBATH days.
Paul sure made a mess out of 7th Day Adventist teaching--how careless of the Holy Spirit!
@Helpingheretics yet paul says in Hebrews 4:9 "So you see that a sabbath rest is left open for God’s people" How careless of the Holy Spirit to contradict itself like that! Or maybe you are interpreting your verse wrong. Collosians 2:17
"These religious practices are only a shadow of what was coming—the body that cast the shadow is Christ."
so the relligious practices that are mentioned here where made unnecessary when Christ died because they were a shadow of Christ's sacrifice.
@dconklin58 When I said "God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Lev. 23", I was not uniting that u said that chag was there, but rather pointing out the distinction that God made between sabbaths and moweds, where the term "chag" doesn't exist. That was my point. U misunderstood me and therefore falsely accused me.
Since the Hebrew term "shabbathown" only appears 3 times in scriptures, namely in Leviticus 23, I was referring to how the term was used. It means "a rest". Its rather a generic term. My point was that "shabbath" is used only for the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement.
There are many sources siting from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedias, to archeological findings, all in harmony about the origins of the trinity. Take your pick and i'll point you in the direction. Even the Catholics had to admit that the Trinity is ultimately a mystery. And that it was something that was NOT practiced by the first century Christians. The Trinity according to Catholics was inspired by God through the church.
Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 2nd American ed. - Origin of the Trinity - "Unlike early Christianity, which worshipped the Jewish God, YHVH – The Roman Catholic Church adopted the Trinity god of Ancient Babylon.
“The trinity got its start in Ancient Babylon with Nimrod – Tammuz – and Semiramis. Semiramis demanded worship for both her husband and her son as well as herself. She claimed that her son, was both the father and the son. Yes, he was “god the father” and “god the son” -
@NBAGOATS: "Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 2nd American ed. - Origin of the Trinity - "Unlike early Christianity, which worshipped the Jewish God, YHVH – The Roman Catholic Church adopted the Trinity god of Ancient Babylon."
I'd like to know how he arrived at that conclusion, because Babylon had been destroyed at least 600 years before .
The reason being is because only the Day of Atonement used the term "shabbath" as far as the yearly feast days is concerned. Lev. 23:11-16 were indeed speaking of 7th day sabbaths. The others use the term :shabbathone which is the same as sabbatismos in the greek. There is nothing to go with the Day of Atonement to make it plural in Col.2:16. The Day of Atonement only occurred once a year, and the other days were sabbatismos'. So there is just nothing else that could possibly go with it.
@dconklin58, The term ceremonial sabbaths is not used anywhere in the Bible. Also, answer the other question. The Day of Atonement and the blowing of Trumpets are listed among all that are called the feasts of the LORD in Lev. 23. The sabbaths of the LORD were separate and were not a part of that list. The inclusio in the beginning implies that the feasts were to be regarded like the sabbaths, but this doesn't make them sabbaths. God called them feasts, and that is the proper term for them.
>The term ceremonial sabbaths is not used anywhere in the Bible.
Neither are the words "trinity" or "monogamy." In Gen. 2:22-24 we have the first marriage ceremony--but you don't find the words used there. But, you know how to use reason and logic and see it there, right?
>The sabbaths of the LORD were separate and were not a part of that list.
@dconklin58, We're going in circles now. Trinity and monogamy aren't in the bible because they didn't exist as words at the time the bible was written. However, the words "ceremonial" and "sabbaths" did indeed exist at that time. So, this point of yours doesn't hold up for u to use that as an example to prove anything. In saying this I am exercising my ability to reason with logic. What God called feasts u called ceremonial sabbaths. That my friend is what Peter calls twisting the scriptures.
@dconklin58, I said , "Trinity and monogamy aren't in the bible because they didn't exist as words at the time the bible was written." U replied, "You are arguing the unprovable."
How is this the unprovable? The origin of the term monogamy dates back to 1605-1615 A.D. . The origin of the term trinity dates back a little further to 1175-1225 A.D. . (Source: Random House Dictionary) There are no direct translations for those 2 terms in the original herbrew and greek languages.
@dconklin58 Actually Trinity did exist. Babylon often used the word "Trinity" (In another language of course) to describe their God. So yes, trinity was used in babylonish writings many times. Catholicism took the teaching and applied it to Christianity.
@dconklin58 "Was inspired through the church." - The CATHOLIC CHURCH. Meaning that the trinity got its life in Christian form through Catholicism. SDA is still apart of its worst enemy. They owe their beliefs to Catholicism. Their own worst enemy.
>The inclusio in the beginning implies that the feasts were to be regarded like the sabbaths, but this doesn't make them sabbaths.
Try using reason and logic.
>God called them feasts, and that is the proper term for them.
Some are called feasts (chag), the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets are not called feasts (you fast on the Day of Atonement). So, those two are called "mow'ed".
@dconklin58, >Some are called feasts (chag), the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets are not called feasts (you fast on the Day of Atonement). So, those two are called "mow'ed".>
That word mow'ed is translated feast in english. The word feast here means appointed times whether they were to eat or not. This mow'ed was the umbrella under which God listed all the days that were not the sabbaths of the LORD. They are the mow'ed of the LORD, not the ceremonial shabbaths of the LORD.
@dconklin58 >Should be "appointed times."> It is in other english translations. These are still they which are distinct from the sabbaths of the LORD. So u cannot justify calling everything that is besides the sabbaths of the LORD shabbaths when the only day in that list that can biblically use the term is the Day of Atonement. Moses went and declared unto the children of Israel the mow'ed of the LORD in vs. 44 0f Lev. 23.
@dconklin58 This included everything which was besides the sabbaths of the LORD. The Day of Atonement & the Blowing of Trumpets was also declared being besides the sabbaths of the LORD... This is the only distinction God made in the chapter. It was between the sabbaths of the LORD which they were already given, and the feasts of the LORD which Moses was to declare unto them in verse 44...
Though they are to be regarded in the same manner as the sabbaths of the LORD, they were still distinguished as the mow'ed of the LORD. They were not to be confused with the sabbaths. God called the shabbaths the shabbaths, and the mow'eds He called the mow'eds. Never at any time did anyone in the bible ever call any of those days other than the Day of Atonement a shabbath. They were only regarded as holy days.
They were only regarded as holy days like the sabbaths, but this never made them sabbaths. Just holy days to be honored, just like how the sabbath was holy to them and honored.
@dconklin58, Bingo? The holydays were to be treated as holy even as the sabbath was holy. Like how the sabbath was given, so likewise God gave the holydays. The distinction between the shabbaths and the mow'eds were still aparent, though they were similar. They are all likewise "a" shadow in Col. 2:17, being mentioned in Col. 2:16. Feasts or "an holyday" in Col. 2:16 is talking about all that is called the mow'ed of the LORD in Lev. 23. And the sabbaths are the 7th day sabbaths. The distinction.
@dconklin58 That's not true. Your confusion comes from not understanding the distinction used by God in the contexts of Leviticus 23:2-4, and verses 37-38. Verses 2-4 shows an inclusio indicating that God was also giving them the Moweds as He gave them the 7th day sabbath. The sabbath was already given, so it stood out as an example as something they were already familiar with at that point. The moweds of the Lord were in addition to the sabbath, and were also to be respected and observed.
@epw0003: "That's not true. Your confusion comes from not understanding the distinction used by God in the contexts of Lev. 23:2-4, & vss 37-38. Verses 2-4 shows an inclusio indicating that God was also giving them the Moweds as He gave them the 7th day sabbath. The sabbath was already given, so it stood out as an example as something they were already familiar with at that point. ...."
Your first sentence is false--all the rest are true.
@dconklin58 Also, the consistency of how the Old Testament never uses the hebrew term for the 7th day sabbath for anything other than the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement also confirms my point. Ur use of the english word "feast" is a problem with ur understanding of the reality of how God used the specific hebrew terms "mowed" and "shabbath" and made a clear distinction between them. This had set the tone.
@epw0003: "... the Old Testament never uses the hebrew term for the 7th day sabbath for anything other than the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement also confirms my point. "
That's not true, the Day of Atonement is called "sabbata sabbaton" in Lev. 23:32.
@dconklin58 The inspired writers of the Old Testament wrote it in Hebrew, not in Greek; what I said is true in regards to the original text of the OT. And the same consistency is followed by the Greek text of the New Testament. I find it interesting that both the inspired Hebrew Old Testament and the inspired Greek New Testament both hold to the same consistency in how specific terms are used, while ur non Original Text Greek rendition of the OT does not share this consistency.
@dconklin58 I did mention that the Day of Atonement also uses the term used for the 7th day sabbath. That is the only exception in the whole of the Old Testament, as far as holydays. It's also used for land sabbaths, but for nothing else in the whole Old Testament. Similarly, sabbaton in the New Testament consistently only means 7th day sabbath and week. SDA's see and believe this. It's only when we get to Col. 2:16 that they insist that the term all of a sudden has a new and different meaning.
@dconklin58 Why did u ignore the point that I made? The original text of the Old Testament is in Hebrew, not in Greek. I told you this, making a valid point and u came right back with the same irrelevant argument. The greek text of the Old Testament is not inspired, that is why it is not consistent with the way words are used in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the original Greek text of the New Testament. Your argument is an epic fail. Please don't come back with it.
@dconklin58 U marginalize valid points that are made that expose weakness in your arguments. If my argument is a "red herring" argument, then why do u not use the original Hebrew text of the OT to articulate ur points? U might as well articulate ur arguments of the Old Testament from one of the English versions if u are going to try to use a Greek translation. I'd say u are the one with the "red herring". U ignore points and then try to ridicule ur opposition to divert attention away from ur err
@epw0003: "Ur use of the english word "feast" is a problem with ur understanding of the reality of how God used the specific hebrew terms "mowed" and "shabbath" and made a clear distinction between them."
I used the word "feast" because that is what the Hebrew (chag) and Greek (heorte) mean. Dr. Ron du Preez is in the process of writing an article based on my research that shows that the Hebrew were very careful in their use of terms.
@dconklin58 God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Leviticus 23:2-4. The word "mowed" was used in a general sense to summarize all that was in addition to the 7th day sabbath. The term "chag" is of no importance in this discussion because it is irrelevant. If it was relevant, then Lev. 23:44 would read, "And Moses went and declared to the children of Israel the "chag" of the LORD." Verse 44 is consistent with the inclusio of verses 2-4. Thus establishing my point.
@dconklin58 You brought up the word "chag" in ur argument. I pointed out how your consideration of the term "chag" was irrelevant to the argument. How is that Red Herring? The fact that God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4 makes ur use of the term "chag" smoke in mirrors.
@dconklin58 I was not implying that u said that the term "chag" was in the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4. I was rather pointing out the crux of Lev. 23, in that God has clearly made a distinction between the shabbath(s) of the LORD and the mowed(s) of the LORD. He detailed everything He called the mowed of the LORD in the verses following verse 4. You've ignored this and is calling me a liar; but u won't so much as address my valid point. U rather make vain accusations in an attempt to discredit me.
@epw0003: "I was not implying that u said that the term "chag" was in the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4."
When you said "God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Leviticus 23:2-4." the implication was that I said it was there. Since I did not, it is a red herring argument.
@dconklin58 Even as how the term mowed was used in a general sense to summarize all that was commanded as being besides the sabbaths of the LORD, so also is the term heorte used in Colossians 2:16.
@dconklin58 The Greek use of the word "heorte" in Col. 2:16 is used as a general term to describe the holydays that are said to be "besides the sabbaths of the LORD" (Leviticus 23:38). Even in the King James Version the English term holydays is used in col. 2:16, in the same manner as it is being explained by me. A great term for that text. Heorte means "feast", and it also means "festival". Cont...
@dconklin58 Festival- a day or time of religious or other celebration, marked by feasting, ceremonies, or other observances: the festival of Christmas; a Roman festival. The English term "festival" is just as general as the Hebrew term "mowed". Considering how the Hebrew term "shabbath" is only used to describe the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement, all the other holydays are distinguished by the use of the Hebrew term "shabbathown"; a very clear distinction.
@dconklin58 A very clear distinction. Understanding that the "moweds of the LORD" and the "sabbaths of the LORD" are 2 completely different and distinguishable categories. The sabbaths of the LORD are simply the 7th day sabbaths plurally, speaking as to more than one occurrence of this same day. There is no exception to this distinction in the whole Bible. Therefore since no holydays can use the term shabbath other than the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement, this cannot be ignored...
@dconklin58 The term "festival" is more appropriate, therefore. It has the same meaning as the Hebrew term "mowed", and is appropriate in that it generally summarizes all the days of observance that is "besides the sabbaths of the LORD". Since the holydays cannot use the term for the 7th day sabbath, it's only place is within the Greek term "heorte" in the Col. 2:16 text. There would have been less confusion if the English translators would have used the term "festivals" instead of "feasts".
@dconklin58 festival- "a day or time of religious or other celebration, marked by feasting, ceremonies, ((or)) other observances: the festival of Christmas; a Roman festival." Not true? Sounds like "appointed times" to me. Like I said, term "festival" is more appropriate for the text than the term "feast".
@dconklin58 Now do that with the Greek term Sabbaton. In every verse in the New Testament it is used to signify the 7th day sabbath and the common word week. Like I said, it's only when u go to Col. 2:16 (where it is last used) that u can't accept the meaning of the word and the context of how it is translated everywhere else in the New Testament.
@epw0003: "Now do that with the Greek term Sabbaton. In every verse in the New Testament it is used to signify the 7th day sabbath and the common word week."
Not relevant. You have to look at what is being talked about in the NT. Does it mention the Day of Atonement or the blowing of trumpets? Secondly you need to recognize the sentence structure as being the same as in Hos 2:11, etc..
@dconklin58 Very relevant. Not only have I looked at what was being said in each instance, I also studied to show myself approved by looking up the definition of the greek term "sabbaton". So what the term actually means and how it was used is what was considered. Not once was it used in the entire original text of the New Testament to mean anything other than the 7th day sabbath and the common word week. Very similar to how the OT Hebrew is with how the term shabbath was used.
@dconklin58 Ur expounding on the word "chag" is red herring (as u say of everyone who exposes weakness in ur arguments). The reason being is, u are ignoring the distinction God made in the text. Where you find the use of the word chag ((after verse 4)), is among the days that are explained by God in detail that summarizes what the mowed(s) of the LORD are. These are they which are said to be "besides" the sabbaths of the LORD. Ur argument is invalid in that "chag" does not appear in verse 44.
@dconklin58 Notice that in verse 44 it does not say that Moses declared unto the children of Israel the "sabbaths" of the Lord, nor the "chags" of LORD; but the "mowed" of the LORD. Where was the term "chag"? It was generalized within the term "mowed". So contextually, u are not to separate and make a distinction between mowed and chag in Lev. 23 because God made no such distinction in the text. The is very obvious. Chag is tucked in where it applied under the category of mowed...
@dconklin58 I have not lied. The inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4 is the crux of Lev. 23. This distinction was proof that ur argument was contrary to the context of what God said to Moses and how Moses responded in verse 44. Ur argument draws a distinction between the terms "mowed" and "chag"; when God only makes the distinction between The "shabbath of the LORD" and the "mowed of the LORD". Everything that was besides the shabbaths of the LORD was what Moses declared as the mowed of the LORD.
@dconklin58 The fact that there is no distinction between the "mowed of the LORD" and the "chag of the LORD" in verse 44 is proof that they are one in the same in the context of Lev. 23. What this means is your argument is hereby proven inaccurate. Ur making a big difference between "chag" and "mowed" is a useless wrangling of scripture. They are one in the context, but u are trying to divide them to advance ur theology. Have u any respect for the word of God?
@epw0003 : "The fact that there is no distinction between the "mowed of the LORD" and the "chag of the LORD" in verse 44 is proof that they are one in the same in the context of Lev. 23."
1) It is foolish to base doctrine on one verse.
2) Read through the entire chapter. Mow'ed means "appointed sacred time"; "chag" means feast--this term doesn't even show up in verse 44 so it is illegitimate to draw any conclusion about it based on that one verse.
@dconklin58 It is foolish for u to marginalize the fact that after God finished speaking to Moses in Lev. 23, Moses fulfilled the whole purpose of Lev. 23 by declaring to the children of Israel the mowed of the LORD. That is not basing doctrine on one verse. It's just that when a verse makes a complete point, u should honor it. I know that mowed means appointed times. It doesn't add credibility to ur argument just because u go to define it. We covered that a year or more so ago.
@dconklin58 Your "one verse" argument is a strawman argument. I covered the whole outline of Lev. 23. U just ignored all of my points. I told u before, show me one place in the Hebrew Old Testament where any of the mowed days are called shabbaths and I will concede. You can't. The fact is that the sentence structure of Hosea 2:11 etc. supports my argument and I have mentioned all this in the past and u ignored it.
@@dconklin58 Oh, before u hurry and say "the Day of Atonement" is a mowed day that the term "shabbath" covers, let me reiterate that I've already acknowledged this. It is already established that the Day of Atonement is the only exception. So don't even try it. Show me one place in the Hebrew Old Testament where any of the mow'ed days other than the Day of Atonement is signified by the term "shabbath" and I will concede...
@dconklin58 That's ur problem. U don't care about things that matter. I notice that ur standard for judging whether something is important or not is not based on any in-depth investigation, but simply by ur stance in an argument. Very biased on ur part. Ur attitude towards looking into anything that opposes ur point of view is cynical.
@dconklin58 So u are outright denying that God made a distinction between the shabbaths of the LORD and the mowed(s) of the LORD. The mowed days are not even detailed until after verse 4. Verses 2-4 clearly distinguishes the terms "shabbath" and "mowed". The inclusio only declares that they are related, but are not one in the same. Vss. 37-38 reiterates the fact that these terms are not to be confused. Vs. 37 speaks of the mowed(s), & Vs. 38 the shabbaths. U are therefore greatly mistaken.
@dconklin58 U are in error because ur theology is based on a false premise. Ur misunderstanding of the inclusio in Lev. 23 has led u to liberally apply the Hebrew term "shabbath" to all that was called the mowed of the LORD. Though the moweds were "also" days to be observed, this never made them shabbaths. They were what they were, the mowed(s) of the LORD; never to be confused with the shabbaths of the LORD. God demonstrated this twice in the text when He made a distinction between them.
@dconklin58 Proof that u are in error is the fact that after the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4, God never uses the terms "mow'ed" and "shabbath" interchangeably. He again distinguishes the 2 terms later in the chapter, namely in verses 37 and 38. The inclusio simply points out that just like how the shabbaths were given to the children of Israel to be observed, likewise they were being given the mow'ed of the LORD to also observe. This never meant that they were interchangeable terms.
@dconklin58 This is why the use of sabbaton in the New Testament is limited to only the "7th day sabbath" and the the common word "week". Col. 2:16 is the last place in the New Testament that uses the term "sabbaton". To try to make it mean the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets would undermine how the word is defined and how it is used everywhere else in the scriptures. The SDA will agree that it means "week" and "7th day sabbath" everywhere except Col. 2:16. Isn't that something?
@dconklin58, There is no such thing as ceremonial yearly shabbaths. Only the Day of Atonement is shown to use the term shabbath as a yearly feast day in the entire bible. Land sabbaths were also shown to use the term shabbath, but this is not relevant to our discussion. I just mentioned it so u wouldn't throw it in my face later. The sabbaths in Col. 2:16 can only mean the 7th day sabbaths. Nothing else is possible.
Moses fulfills the purpose of this chapter, he delivers to Israel all the things that were besides the sabbaths of the Lord (the feasts of the Lord) in verse 44. The word for feasts is the term "mo'ed" equivalent to the greek term "heorte". Thus all the feasts days are in the term heorte in Col. 2:16. There is nothing left for sabbaton to mean except for 7th day sabbaths.
The hebrew term "shabbath" (Strong's # H7676) is synonomous to the greek term "sabbaton" (Strong's # G4521). Likewise, the hebrew term "shabbathone" (Strong's # H7677) is equal to the greek term "sabbatismos" (Strong's # G4520). This is significant because of the distinction God makes between the Sabbaths of the Lord in Lev. 23:3, and the Feasts of the Lord in verse 4. Then He shows consistency with this distinction when He says in vs. 38 "besides the sabbaths of the Lord".
If ppl understood basic hebrew and greek, there would be no 7th day adventists. Col. 2:16 includes the Saturday sabbaths; where verse 17 calls it among the other days " 'a' shadow of things to come." I know this because there are no such things as yearly sabbatons (plural), in that only the Day of Atonement uses the hebrew term "shabbath" (Strong's # H7676) as used for the 7th day sabbaths in Lev. 23. The rest use "shabbathone" (Strong's # 7677).
Just stating something like that doens't make it so. When people see the debates they will decided on their own with rational thought and not the nonsense that people keep pushing out there, about Hell, death, and what no. David is not in Heaven Acts 2 and Job 14 states that people sleep and will not be roused out of it untill Heaven is No more...
this is typical deception tactics that bingolly1/newstormraisins uses in his videos. how unfortunate a "christian" will lie and twist truth in order to hurt others.
i am aware of that my brother, he has and has had many aliases... rookam3, youhaveatwistedreality,justicewillwin, popelicker, erauds are all accounts he closed when they were discovered to be controlled by him. As you well know he has many existing accounts that he will not admit to controlling
do you know of any bingolly1 accounts past and present not listed above, maybe we should make a video appeal asking users to list his aliases, maybe we can create a list in this forum
i am doing fine. am at work at the moment but i will be leaving soon to go to a Bible study at 4 p.m. my friend John and i have been studying with a young pentacostal lady, please pray for us and especially for her
Well Mark, I must say, you are very "easy-going" I was expecting a hard nut. If you found me a bit harsh, just look at all the comments I get. Every day, someone repeats the same thing over and over...
I am very disappointed that you are a SDA... I read something about catholics having similar doctrine or something (from jesus-is-savior).
elen g. white and the false prophecies are the biggest holes in SDA you know.
my friend i have learnt that arguing is pointless, i too receive many repetative comments attacking me and my faith, there are also a couple of youtube users who question my integrity in various videos, the sad thing is that they never make me aware of the existence of the slanderous videos.
i am not aware of any similarities between the SDA church and the RC church, maybe you could share with me what you have read.
i am fully aware of the accusations made against E G White and her writings, often the accusations are based upon a misunderstanding of her mission. I have all of her writings and have spent hours readings them and learning how to correctly apply the principals contained therein, i have yet to find anything that is contradictory or misleading.
I think that being a member of the SDA church is NOT going to save you from the coming judgment but having a private and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ in prayer daily WILL save you. These are my thoughts.
being a member of any church will not save anyone. but that does not make attending church a bad thing, the Bible encourages believers to congregate together.
That's not the point. Going to a particular building and congregating to worship Him is not the issue. The issue is CHURCH DOCTRINE that you "AHDERE" to so that you follow their "principles" and their "rehearsed" way of worship which is the same as taking part in an "Opera play".
Most people go to church once a week and sit on a bench shoulder to shoulder and sing a few songs and listen to the pastor "dictating" and reading out of the Bible like it's a bed time story thus the focus is on the pastor instead of the focus being on Christ Jesus.
If you wanna congregate DO IT AT HOME AND NOT IN CHURCH WHERE YOU ARE BEING SPIRITUALLY KILLED WITH CHURCH DOCTRINE.
You might as well face it and take it like a man Mark, TAKE IT LIKE A MAN and admit that as long as you're in church, you will not know Christ as you follow instructions of your pastor, preacher etc. Following church instructions and singing songs of praise and reading the Bible like a manual is NEVER gonna get you to heaven.
A time is fast approaching when all who follow Christ will have to run to the secluded places of the world leaving the towns and cities (and churches) until then there IS a work to do in the churches
As soon as there is a leader in the congregation you get "set rules and manual principles" of "dead church worship" with man made religion and tradition.
"HOWBEIT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN"
I am sorry to ask it like this but do you read your bible at all? The church is Christs body, and that "body" has "members" that all work TOGETHER. A big part of the reason for going to church is learning to get along with each other. If you can't get along, you can't go to heaven, just ask the devil, he knows.
It is the Spirit of Yah that will shake the ppl attending all kinds of church buildings, were all kinds of ppl being part of the body of Christ regularly come to attend service. This is done by the command of the Father. No one is to know when and maybe (even) how this is going to happen. In the mean time, the only duty for us to do is. Proclaim the Everlasing Gospel (Rev. 14:65,,7) end testify in LOve, of His character through the chances in our live. ah Bless
why would he want to leave church? to be a little "spiritual Rambo"? The bible cleary puts church attendance in a POSITIVE light, not a negative one as you have here.
Acts 2:47 ...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved....
Let us not give up meeting together, AS SOME (Rambo's) are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Our Pastor's do not dictate my brother, and more often than not it is laymen and women who preach from our pulpits. I have preached many times in many different churches and i am not a pastor and i never dictate to a congregation what they ought to be doing. i present the Word and it is their choice what they do with the information given
Before I make my videos, I would like to say "ellen g. white" will be my victory over the false SDA. Satan always leaves empty holes, the truth is only of Christ.
"Before I make my videos, I would like to say "ellen g. white" will be my victory over the false SDA. Satan always leaves empty holes, the truth is only of Christ"
i will, the Most High willing, watch your videos.
I am afraid I disagree with seventh day adventists. The holy spirit, bible, and faulty human quotes from adventists is more than enough evidence.
If you TRULY watched my whole video on calvinism, you would have seen I called seventh day adventism a false doctrine. But I see you did not.
It seems I have to make videos on seventh day adventists. I'm sure you will enjoy them as much as my calvinist videos... since I follow the quote you placed on your youtube page (reproving false doctrine).
did you not know that i was Adventist when i commented on your video.
A number of those i interact with on Youtube have told me that they think i am part of a false church yet they have posted positive comments on some of my videos. And i have left positive comments on some of their videos.
@luisfemart123 Did the title of HEBREWS escape your attention?
Hebrews in the tribulation can lose their "salvation" if they don't endure until the end and take the mark of the beast. l am not a Hebrew. I'm a NT Christian. I will not be here during the tribulation, but I will be here with the Lord when He reigns on Earth during the millenium, but not as His Jewish brothers.
caravandrums2 4 months ago
Colossians 2:16:
Let no man(or the ignorant eg white) therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the SABBATH days.
Paul sure made a mess out of 7th Day Adventist teaching--how careless of the Holy Spirit!
Helpingheretics 5 months ago
@Helpingheretics yet paul says in Hebrews 4:9 "So you see that a sabbath rest is left open for God’s people" How careless of the Holy Spirit to contradict itself like that! Or maybe you are interpreting your verse wrong. Collosians 2:17
"These religious practices are only a shadow of what was coming—the body that cast the shadow is Christ."
so the relligious practices that are mentioned here where made unnecessary when Christ died because they were a shadow of Christ's sacrifice.
num 29 read
luisfemart123 4 months ago
Saying, not uniting. That's what I get for posting messages with my android.
epw0003 1 year ago
@dconklin58 When I said "God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Lev. 23", I was not uniting that u said that chag was there, but rather pointing out the distinction that God made between sabbaths and moweds, where the term "chag" doesn't exist. That was my point. U misunderstood me and therefore falsely accused me.
epw0003 1 year ago
Since the Hebrew term "shabbathown" only appears 3 times in scriptures, namely in Leviticus 23, I was referring to how the term was used. It means "a rest". Its rather a generic term. My point was that "shabbath" is used only for the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement.
epw0003 1 year ago
There are many sources siting from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedias, to archeological findings, all in harmony about the origins of the trinity. Take your pick and i'll point you in the direction. Even the Catholics had to admit that the Trinity is ultimately a mystery. And that it was something that was NOT practiced by the first century Christians. The Trinity according to Catholics was inspired by God through the church.
NBAGOATS 1 year ago
Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 2nd American ed. - Origin of the Trinity - "Unlike early Christianity, which worshipped the Jewish God, YHVH – The Roman Catholic Church adopted the Trinity god of Ancient Babylon.
“The trinity got its start in Ancient Babylon with Nimrod – Tammuz – and Semiramis. Semiramis demanded worship for both her husband and her son as well as herself. She claimed that her son, was both the father and the son. Yes, he was “god the father” and “god the son” -
NBAGOATS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NBAGOATS: "Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 2nd American ed. - Origin of the Trinity - "Unlike early Christianity, which worshipped the Jewish God, YHVH – The Roman Catholic Church adopted the Trinity god of Ancient Babylon."
I'd like to know how he arrived at that conclusion, because Babylon had been destroyed at least 600 years before .
dconklin58 1 year ago
The reason being is because only the Day of Atonement used the term "shabbath" as far as the yearly feast days is concerned. Lev. 23:11-16 were indeed speaking of 7th day sabbaths. The others use the term :shabbathone which is the same as sabbatismos in the greek. There is nothing to go with the Day of Atonement to make it plural in Col.2:16. The Day of Atonement only occurred once a year, and the other days were sabbatismos'. So there is just nothing else that could possibly go with it.
epw0003 2 years ago
The Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets were ceremonial sabbaths that were not feasts--that explains Col. 2:16.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Then why is the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets listed among all that is considered the feasts of the LORD in Leviticus 23?
epw0003 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>Then why is the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets listed among all that is considered the feasts of the LORD in Leviticus 23?
Look at the Hebrew words that are used. They are not called "chag" ("heorte" in the Greek, meaning feast). They are called "mow'ed" (appointed time).
dconklin58 2 years ago
@dconklin58 Show me a scripture that calls anything a ceremonial sabbath. I'm asking for a scripture and nothing else.
epw0003 2 years ago
Lev 23.
dconklin58 2 years ago
@dconklin58, The term ceremonial sabbaths is not used anywhere in the Bible. Also, answer the other question. The Day of Atonement and the blowing of Trumpets are listed among all that are called the feasts of the LORD in Lev. 23. The sabbaths of the LORD were separate and were not a part of that list. The inclusio in the beginning implies that the feasts were to be regarded like the sabbaths, but this doesn't make them sabbaths. God called them feasts, and that is the proper term for them.
epw0003 2 years ago
>The term ceremonial sabbaths is not used anywhere in the Bible.
Neither are the words "trinity" or "monogamy." In Gen. 2:22-24 we have the first marriage ceremony--but you don't find the words used there. But, you know how to use reason and logic and see it there, right?
>The sabbaths of the LORD were separate and were not a part of that list.
I didn't say that it was.
dconklin58 2 years ago
@dconklin58, We're going in circles now. Trinity and monogamy aren't in the bible because they didn't exist as words at the time the bible was written. However, the words "ceremonial" and "sabbaths" did indeed exist at that time. So, this point of yours doesn't hold up for u to use that as an example to prove anything. In saying this I am exercising my ability to reason with logic. What God called feasts u called ceremonial sabbaths. That my friend is what Peter calls twisting the scriptures.
epw0003 2 years ago
>Trinity and monogamy aren't in the bible because they didn't exist as words at the time the bible was written.
You are arguing the unprovable.
dconklin58 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dconklin58, I said , "Trinity and monogamy aren't in the bible because they didn't exist as words at the time the bible was written." U replied, "You are arguing the unprovable."
How is this the unprovable? The origin of the term monogamy dates back to 1605-1615 A.D. . The origin of the term trinity dates back a little further to 1175-1225 A.D. . (Source: Random House Dictionary) There are no direct translations for those 2 terms in the original herbrew and greek languages.
epw0003 2 years ago
@dconklin58 Actually Trinity did exist. Babylon often used the word "Trinity" (In another language of course) to describe their God. So yes, trinity was used in babylonish writings many times. Catholicism took the teaching and applied it to Christianity.
NBAGOATS 1 year ago
@NBAGOATS: "Babylon often used the word "Trinity" (In another language of course) to describe their God"
Could you show me where you got that info? And where did you hear that the Catholics took it from them?
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 "Was inspired through the church." - The CATHOLIC CHURCH. Meaning that the trinity got its life in Christian form through Catholicism. SDA is still apart of its worst enemy. They owe their beliefs to Catholicism. Their own worst enemy.
NBAGOATS 1 year ago
>The inclusio in the beginning implies that the feasts were to be regarded like the sabbaths, but this doesn't make them sabbaths.
Try using reason and logic.
>God called them feasts, and that is the proper term for them.
Some are called feasts (chag), the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets are not called feasts (you fast on the Day of Atonement). So, those two are called "mow'ed".
dconklin58 2 years ago
@dconklin58, >Some are called feasts (chag), the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets are not called feasts (you fast on the Day of Atonement). So, those two are called "mow'ed".>
That word mow'ed is translated feast in english. The word feast here means appointed times whether they were to eat or not. This mow'ed was the umbrella under which God listed all the days that were not the sabbaths of the LORD. They are the mow'ed of the LORD, not the ceremonial shabbaths of the LORD.
epw0003 2 years ago
>That word mow'ed is translated feast in english.
Should be "appointed times."
dconklin58 2 years ago
@dconklin58 >Should be "appointed times."> It is in other english translations. These are still they which are distinct from the sabbaths of the LORD. So u cannot justify calling everything that is besides the sabbaths of the LORD shabbaths when the only day in that list that can biblically use the term is the Day of Atonement. Moses went and declared unto the children of Israel the mow'ed of the LORD in vs. 44 0f Lev. 23.
epw0003 2 years ago
@dconklin58 This included everything which was besides the sabbaths of the LORD. The Day of Atonement & the Blowing of Trumpets was also declared being besides the sabbaths of the LORD... This is the only distinction God made in the chapter. It was between the sabbaths of the LORD which they were already given, and the feasts of the LORD which Moses was to declare unto them in verse 44...
epw0003 2 years ago
>This included everything which was besides the sabbaths of the LORD.
Correct. Verses 2-4 show that they are to be taken as sabbaths.
dconklin58 2 years ago
@dconklin58,
Though they are to be regarded in the same manner as the sabbaths of the LORD, they were still distinguished as the mow'ed of the LORD. They were not to be confused with the sabbaths. God called the shabbaths the shabbaths, and the mow'eds He called the mow'eds. Never at any time did anyone in the bible ever call any of those days other than the Day of Atonement a shabbath. They were only regarded as holy days.
epw0003 2 years ago
They were only regarded as holy days like the sabbaths, but this never made them sabbaths. Just holy days to be honored, just like how the sabbath was holy to them and honored.
epw0003 2 years ago
>just like how the sabbath was holy to them and honored.
Bingo! They were to be treated as sabbaths as per verses 2-4.
dconklin58 2 years ago
@dconklin58, Bingo? The holydays were to be treated as holy even as the sabbath was holy. Like how the sabbath was given, so likewise God gave the holydays. The distinction between the shabbaths and the mow'eds were still aparent, though they were similar. They are all likewise "a" shadow in Col. 2:17, being mentioned in Col. 2:16. Feasts or "an holyday" in Col. 2:16 is talking about all that is called the mow'ed of the LORD in Lev. 23. And the sabbaths are the 7th day sabbaths. The distinction.
epw0003 2 years ago
@epw0003: "And the sabbaths are the 7th day sabbaths. "
The "sabbaths" of Col. 2:16 are the two ceremonial sabbaths that weren't feasts: the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 That's not true. Your confusion comes from not understanding the distinction used by God in the contexts of Leviticus 23:2-4, and verses 37-38. Verses 2-4 shows an inclusio indicating that God was also giving them the Moweds as He gave them the 7th day sabbath. The sabbath was already given, so it stood out as an example as something they were already familiar with at that point. The moweds of the Lord were in addition to the sabbath, and were also to be respected and observed.
epw0003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@epw0003: "That's not true. Your confusion comes from not understanding the distinction used by God in the contexts of Lev. 23:2-4, & vss 37-38. Verses 2-4 shows an inclusio indicating that God was also giving them the Moweds as He gave them the 7th day sabbath. The sabbath was already given, so it stood out as an example as something they were already familiar with at that point. ...."
Your first sentence is false--all the rest are true.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Also, the consistency of how the Old Testament never uses the hebrew term for the 7th day sabbath for anything other than the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement also confirms my point. Ur use of the english word "feast" is a problem with ur understanding of the reality of how God used the specific hebrew terms "mowed" and "shabbath" and made a clear distinction between them. This had set the tone.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "... the Old Testament never uses the hebrew term for the 7th day sabbath for anything other than the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement also confirms my point. "
That's not true, the Day of Atonement is called "sabbata sabbaton" in Lev. 23:32.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 The inspired writers of the Old Testament wrote it in Hebrew, not in Greek; what I said is true in regards to the original text of the OT. And the same consistency is followed by the Greek text of the New Testament. I find it interesting that both the inspired Hebrew Old Testament and the inspired Greek New Testament both hold to the same consistency in how specific terms are used, while ur non Original Text Greek rendition of the OT does not share this consistency.
epw0003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@epw0003: "The inspired writers of the Old Testament wrote it in Hebrew, not in Greek;"
I didn't say that they wrote the OT in Greek--another red herring argument. The NT writers were inspired by God and they wrote in Greek.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 I did mention that the Day of Atonement also uses the term used for the 7th day sabbath. That is the only exception in the whole of the Old Testament, as far as holydays. It's also used for land sabbaths, but for nothing else in the whole Old Testament. Similarly, sabbaton in the New Testament consistently only means 7th day sabbath and week. SDA's see and believe this. It's only when we get to Col. 2:16 that they insist that the term all of a sudden has a new and different meaning.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "It's only when we get to Col. 2:16 that they insist that the term all of a sudden has a new and different meaning."
False. It is also present in 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4, 8:13, 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Ezek. 45:17 and Hos. 2:11.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Why did u ignore the point that I made? The original text of the Old Testament is in Hebrew, not in Greek. I told you this, making a valid point and u came right back with the same irrelevant argument. The greek text of the Old Testament is not inspired, that is why it is not consistent with the way words are used in the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the original Greek text of the New Testament. Your argument is an epic fail. Please don't come back with it.
epw0003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@epw0003: "The original text of the Old Testament is in Hebrew, not in Greek. "
Not relevant.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@epw0003: "The greek text of the Old Testament is not inspired,"
I didn't say that it was. This is red herring argument.
"Your argument is an epic fail. Please don't come back with it."
You make things up that are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 U marginalize valid points that are made that expose weakness in your arguments. If my argument is a "red herring" argument, then why do u not use the original Hebrew text of the OT to articulate ur points? U might as well articulate ur arguments of the Old Testament from one of the English versions if u are going to try to use a Greek translation. I'd say u are the one with the "red herring". U ignore points and then try to ridicule ur opposition to divert attention away from ur err
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "U marginalize valid points that are made that expose weakness in your arguments."
Another lie with no proof.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@epw0003: "Ur use of the english word "feast" is a problem with ur understanding of the reality of how God used the specific hebrew terms "mowed" and "shabbath" and made a clear distinction between them."
I used the word "feast" because that is what the Hebrew (chag) and Greek (heorte) mean. Dr. Ron du Preez is in the process of writing an article based on my research that shows that the Hebrew were very careful in their use of terms.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Leviticus 23:2-4. The word "mowed" was used in a general sense to summarize all that was in addition to the 7th day sabbath. The term "chag" is of no importance in this discussion because it is irrelevant. If it was relevant, then Lev. 23:44 would read, "And Moses went and declared to the children of Israel the "chag" of the LORD." Verse 44 is consistent with the inclusio of verses 2-4. Thus establishing my point.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Leviticus 23:2-4. "
I didn't say that He did--this is a red herring argument.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 You brought up the word "chag" in ur argument. I pointed out how your consideration of the term "chag" was irrelevant to the argument. How is that Red Herring? The fact that God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4 makes ur use of the term "chag" smoke in mirrors.
epw0003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@epw0003: "I pointed out how your consideration of the term "chag" was irrelevant to the argument."
1) You did no such thing.
2) It is relevant because it is used in Lev. 23. Also, it is the Hebrew word that means "feast."
dconklin58 1 year ago
@epw0003: "The fact that God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4 makes ur use of the term "chag" smoke in mirrors. "
I never said that "chag" was used in Lev. 23:2-4--that is a red herring argument.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 I was not implying that u said that the term "chag" was in the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4. I was rather pointing out the crux of Lev. 23, in that God has clearly made a distinction between the shabbath(s) of the LORD and the mowed(s) of the LORD. He detailed everything He called the mowed of the LORD in the verses following verse 4. You've ignored this and is calling me a liar; but u won't so much as address my valid point. U rather make vain accusations in an attempt to discredit me.
epw0003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@epw0003: "I was not implying that u said that the term "chag" was in the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4."
When you said "God did not use the term "chag" in the inclusio of Leviticus 23:2-4." the implication was that I said it was there. Since I did not, it is a red herring argument.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Even as how the term mowed was used in a general sense to summarize all that was commanded as being besides the sabbaths of the LORD, so also is the term heorte used in Colossians 2:16.
epw0003 1 year ago
@dconklin58 The Greek use of the word "heorte" in Col. 2:16 is used as a general term to describe the holydays that are said to be "besides the sabbaths of the LORD" (Leviticus 23:38). Even in the King James Version the English term holydays is used in col. 2:16, in the same manner as it is being explained by me. A great term for that text. Heorte means "feast", and it also means "festival". Cont...
epw0003 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Festival- a day or time of religious or other celebration, marked by feasting, ceremonies, or other observances: the festival of Christmas; a Roman festival. The English term "festival" is just as general as the Hebrew term "mowed". Considering how the Hebrew term "shabbath" is only used to describe the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement, all the other holydays are distinguished by the use of the Hebrew term "shabbathown"; a very clear distinction.
epw0003 1 year ago
@dconklin58 A very clear distinction. Understanding that the "moweds of the LORD" and the "sabbaths of the LORD" are 2 completely different and distinguishable categories. The sabbaths of the LORD are simply the 7th day sabbaths plurally, speaking as to more than one occurrence of this same day. There is no exception to this distinction in the whole Bible. Therefore since no holydays can use the term shabbath other than the 7th day sabbath and the Day of Atonement, this cannot be ignored...
epw0003 1 year ago
@dconklin58 The term "festival" is more appropriate, therefore. It has the same meaning as the Hebrew term "mowed", and is appropriate in that it generally summarizes all the days of observance that is "besides the sabbaths of the LORD". Since the holydays cannot use the term for the 7th day sabbath, it's only place is within the Greek term "heorte" in the Col. 2:16 text. There would have been less confusion if the English translators would have used the term "festivals" instead of "feasts".
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "The term "festival" is more appropriate, therefore. It has the same meaning as the Hebrew term "mowed", "
That is not true. The Hebrew word "mow'ed" means "appointed sacred time."
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 festival- "a day or time of religious or other celebration, marked by feasting, ceremonies, ((or)) other observances: the festival of Christmas; a Roman festival." Not true? Sounds like "appointed times" to me. Like I said, term "festival" is more appropriate for the text than the term "feast".
epw0003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@epw0003: "Since the holydays cannot use the term for the 7th day sabbath, it's only place is within the Greek term "heorte" in the Col. 2:16 text. "
The use of the word "holydays" in the KJV rendering of Col. 2:16 is the ONLY place in which the Greek word "heorte" is mistranslated.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@epw0003: "There would have been less confusion if the English translators would have used the term "festivals" instead of "feasts".
That is just as confusing--everywhere else the word is translated as "feast." For example, see Matthew 26:5, 27:15, Mark 14:2, 15:6.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Now do that with the Greek term Sabbaton. In every verse in the New Testament it is used to signify the 7th day sabbath and the common word week. Like I said, it's only when u go to Col. 2:16 (where it is last used) that u can't accept the meaning of the word and the context of how it is translated everywhere else in the New Testament.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "Now do that with the Greek term Sabbaton. In every verse in the New Testament it is used to signify the 7th day sabbath and the common word week."
Not relevant. You have to look at what is being talked about in the NT. Does it mention the Day of Atonement or the blowing of trumpets? Secondly you need to recognize the sentence structure as being the same as in Hos 2:11, etc..
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Very relevant. Not only have I looked at what was being said in each instance, I also studied to show myself approved by looking up the definition of the greek term "sabbaton". So what the term actually means and how it was used is what was considered. Not once was it used in the entire original text of the New Testament to mean anything other than the 7th day sabbath and the common word week. Very similar to how the OT Hebrew is with how the term shabbath was used.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003": "all the other holydays are distinguished by the use of the Hebrew term "shabbathown";"
Then you'd have no problem showing where.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Ur expounding on the word "chag" is red herring (as u say of everyone who exposes weakness in ur arguments). The reason being is, u are ignoring the distinction God made in the text. Where you find the use of the word chag ((after verse 4)), is among the days that are explained by God in detail that summarizes what the mowed(s) of the LORD are. These are they which are said to be "besides" the sabbaths of the LORD. Ur argument is invalid in that "chag" does not appear in verse 44.
epw0003 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Notice that in verse 44 it does not say that Moses declared unto the children of Israel the "sabbaths" of the Lord, nor the "chags" of LORD; but the "mowed" of the LORD. Where was the term "chag"? It was generalized within the term "mowed". So contextually, u are not to separate and make a distinction between mowed and chag in Lev. 23 because God made no such distinction in the text. The is very obvious. Chag is tucked in where it applied under the category of mowed...
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003 This is very obvious. Not, "The is very obvious." Typo
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "Ur expounding on the word "chag" is red herring (as u say of everyone who exposes weakness in ur arguments). "
It was your lie that I even implied that chag was in Lev 23:2-4 that is the red herring.
>Ur argument is invalid in that "chag" does not appear in verse 44.
Didn't say that it was, nor have you shown that it is required. Another red herring argument, thereby showing the weakness in your argument.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 I have not lied. The inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4 is the crux of Lev. 23. This distinction was proof that ur argument was contrary to the context of what God said to Moses and how Moses responded in verse 44. Ur argument draws a distinction between the terms "mowed" and "chag"; when God only makes the distinction between The "shabbath of the LORD" and the "mowed of the LORD". Everything that was besides the shabbaths of the LORD was what Moses declared as the mowed of the LORD.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "I have not lied. The inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4 is the crux of Lev. 23."
The first is false--you claimed I said something about the inclusio that I didn't say.
The second is an overstatement. The inclusion shows that the days stated in the chapter are to be taken as sabbaths.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 The fact that there is no distinction between the "mowed of the LORD" and the "chag of the LORD" in verse 44 is proof that they are one in the same in the context of Lev. 23. What this means is your argument is hereby proven inaccurate. Ur making a big difference between "chag" and "mowed" is a useless wrangling of scripture. They are one in the context, but u are trying to divide them to advance ur theology. Have u any respect for the word of God?
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003 : "The fact that there is no distinction between the "mowed of the LORD" and the "chag of the LORD" in verse 44 is proof that they are one in the same in the context of Lev. 23."
1) It is foolish to base doctrine on one verse.
2) Read through the entire chapter. Mow'ed means "appointed sacred time"; "chag" means feast--this term doesn't even show up in verse 44 so it is illegitimate to draw any conclusion about it based on that one verse.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 It is foolish for u to marginalize the fact that after God finished speaking to Moses in Lev. 23, Moses fulfilled the whole purpose of Lev. 23 by declaring to the children of Israel the mowed of the LORD. That is not basing doctrine on one verse. It's just that when a verse makes a complete point, u should honor it. I know that mowed means appointed times. It doesn't add credibility to ur argument just because u go to define it. We covered that a year or more so ago.
epw0003 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Your "one verse" argument is a strawman argument. I covered the whole outline of Lev. 23. U just ignored all of my points. I told u before, show me one place in the Hebrew Old Testament where any of the mowed days are called shabbaths and I will concede. You can't. The fact is that the sentence structure of Hosea 2:11 etc. supports my argument and I have mentioned all this in the past and u ignored it.
epw0003 1 year ago
@@dconklin58 Oh, before u hurry and say "the Day of Atonement" is a mowed day that the term "shabbath" covers, let me reiterate that I've already acknowledged this. It is already established that the Day of Atonement is the only exception. So don't even try it. Show me one place in the Hebrew Old Testament where any of the mow'ed days other than the Day of Atonement is signified by the term "shabbath" and I will concede...
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "let me reiterate that I've already acknowledged this. "
Who cares?!?
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 That's ur problem. U don't care about things that matter. I notice that ur standard for judging whether something is important or not is not based on any in-depth investigation, but simply by ur stance in an argument. Very biased on ur part. Ur attitude towards looking into anything that opposes ur point of view is cynical.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "U don't care about things that matter. "
On the contrary I do care about things that do matter. It is the nonsense that I don't care about.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@epw0003: "show me one place in the Hebrew Old Testament where any of the mowed days are called shabbaths and I will concede. You can't. "
Lev. 23:2-4.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 So u are outright denying that God made a distinction between the shabbaths of the LORD and the mowed(s) of the LORD. The mowed days are not even detailed until after verse 4. Verses 2-4 clearly distinguishes the terms "shabbath" and "mowed". The inclusio only declares that they are related, but are not one in the same. Vss. 37-38 reiterates the fact that these terms are not to be confused. Vs. 37 speaks of the mowed(s), & Vs. 38 the shabbaths. U are therefore greatly mistaken.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "So u are outright denying that God made a distinction between the shabbaths of the LORD and the mowed(s) of the LORD."
Nope, you are lying about what I said.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 U are in error because ur theology is based on a false premise. Ur misunderstanding of the inclusio in Lev. 23 has led u to liberally apply the Hebrew term "shabbath" to all that was called the mowed of the LORD. Though the moweds were "also" days to be observed, this never made them shabbaths. They were what they were, the mowed(s) of the LORD; never to be confused with the shabbaths of the LORD. God demonstrated this twice in the text when He made a distinction between them.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "Ur misunderstanding of the inclusio in Lev. 23"
No proof that I am in error. It appears that you don;'t understand how inclusios work.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 Proof that u are in error is the fact that after the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4, God never uses the terms "mow'ed" and "shabbath" interchangeably. He again distinguishes the 2 terms later in the chapter, namely in verses 37 and 38. The inclusio simply points out that just like how the shabbaths were given to the children of Israel to be observed, likewise they were being given the mow'ed of the LORD to also observe. This never meant that they were interchangeable terms.
epw0003 1 year ago
@epw0003: "Proof that u are in error is the fact that after the inclusio of Lev. 23:2-4, "
The inclusio is there to tell you that the feasts that are in Lev. 23 are to be considered as "sabbaths"--i.e., no work.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 God also proving this by never using the terms interchangeably.
epw0003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@epw0003: "God also proving this by never using the terms interchangeably."
I never claimed that He did. This is a red herring argument.
dconklin58 1 year ago
@dconklin58 This is why the use of sabbaton in the New Testament is limited to only the "7th day sabbath" and the the common word "week". Col. 2:16 is the last place in the New Testament that uses the term "sabbaton". To try to make it mean the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets would undermine how the word is defined and how it is used everywhere else in the scriptures. The SDA will agree that it means "week" and "7th day sabbath" everywhere except Col. 2:16. Isn't that something?
epw0003 1 year ago
The distinction is still there.
epw0003 2 years ago
@dconklin58, There is no such thing as ceremonial yearly shabbaths. Only the Day of Atonement is shown to use the term shabbath as a yearly feast day in the entire bible. Land sabbaths were also shown to use the term shabbath, but this is not relevant to our discussion. I just mentioned it so u wouldn't throw it in my face later. The sabbaths in Col. 2:16 can only mean the 7th day sabbaths. Nothing else is possible.
epw0003 2 years ago
>There is no such thing as ceremonial yearly shabbaths.
Read Lev. 23.
dconklin58 2 years ago
Moses fulfills the purpose of this chapter, he delivers to Israel all the things that were besides the sabbaths of the Lord (the feasts of the Lord) in verse 44. The word for feasts is the term "mo'ed" equivalent to the greek term "heorte". Thus all the feasts days are in the term heorte in Col. 2:16. There is nothing left for sabbaton to mean except for 7th day sabbaths.
epw0003 2 years ago
The hebrew term "shabbath" (Strong's # H7676) is synonomous to the greek term "sabbaton" (Strong's # G4521). Likewise, the hebrew term "shabbathone" (Strong's # H7677) is equal to the greek term "sabbatismos" (Strong's # G4520). This is significant because of the distinction God makes between the Sabbaths of the Lord in Lev. 23:3, and the Feasts of the Lord in verse 4. Then He shows consistency with this distinction when He says in vs. 38 "besides the sabbaths of the Lord".
epw0003 2 years ago
If ppl understood basic hebrew and greek, there would be no 7th day adventists. Col. 2:16 includes the Saturday sabbaths; where verse 17 calls it among the other days " 'a' shadow of things to come." I know this because there are no such things as yearly sabbatons (plural), in that only the Day of Atonement uses the hebrew term "shabbath" (Strong's # H7676) as used for the 7th day sabbaths in Lev. 23. The rest use "shabbathone" (Strong's # 7677).
epw0003 2 years ago
New storm Rising's Account has been Suspended on You tube and is NO longer available.
spoke777 2 years ago
ha haaa good luck debating SDA Lazbo, you would have more success bangin your head against the wall.
jesuitinfiltrator 3 years ago
Just stating something like that doens't make it so. When people see the debates they will decided on their own with rational thought and not the nonsense that people keep pushing out there, about Hell, death, and what no. David is not in Heaven Acts 2 and Job 14 states that people sleep and will not be roused out of it untill Heaven is No more...
spoke777 2 years ago
this is typical deception tactics that bingolly1/newstormraisins uses in his videos. how unfortunate a "christian" will lie and twist truth in order to hurt others.
BibleBlunders 3 years ago
Newstormrising is Bingolly1 using a new username.
daro2096 3 years ago
i am aware of that my brother, he has and has had many aliases... rookam3, youhaveatwistedreality,justicewillwin, popelicker, erauds are all accounts he closed when they were discovered to be controlled by him. As you well know he has many existing accounts that he will not admit to controlling
do you know of any bingolly1 accounts past and present not listed above, maybe we should make a video appeal asking users to list his aliases, maybe we can create a list in this forum
lazbo4174 3 years ago
No, I don't know of any others.
daro2096 3 years ago
how are you doing by the way? how are things up north?
lazbo4174 3 years ago
I am well, thanks. You?
Things are quiet, I have the house to myself for a couple of hours. The sun is shining.
daro2096 3 years ago
i am doing fine. am at work at the moment but i will be leaving soon to go to a Bible study at 4 p.m. my friend John and i have been studying with a young pentacostal lady, please pray for us and especially for her
lazbo4174 3 years ago
Will do, Mark.
daro2096 3 years ago
thankyou brother
lazbo4174 3 years ago
Well Mark, I must say, you are very "easy-going" I was expecting a hard nut. If you found me a bit harsh, just look at all the comments I get. Every day, someone repeats the same thing over and over...
I am very disappointed that you are a SDA... I read something about catholics having similar doctrine or something (from jesus-is-savior).
elen g. white and the false prophecies are the biggest holes in SDA you know.
devonrose742 3 years ago
my friend i have learnt that arguing is pointless, i too receive many repetative comments attacking me and my faith, there are also a couple of youtube users who question my integrity in various videos, the sad thing is that they never make me aware of the existence of the slanderous videos.
lazbo4174 3 years ago
i am not aware of any similarities between the SDA church and the RC church, maybe you could share with me what you have read.
i am fully aware of the accusations made against E G White and her writings, often the accusations are based upon a misunderstanding of her mission. I have all of her writings and have spent hours readings them and learning how to correctly apply the principals contained therein, i have yet to find anything that is contradictory or misleading.
lazbo4174 3 years ago
thankyou for your respectfull reply.
lazbo4174 3 years ago
Enough being said, here is one "non-denominational" channel that is an eye-opener in a spiritual sense for His glory;
channel: forTrueChristians
Obznana 3 years ago
I think that being a member of the SDA church is NOT going to save you from the coming judgment but having a private and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ in prayer daily WILL save you. These are my thoughts.
"Church" doesn't save, instead it blinds.
"Private home prayer" does save and revealsHim
Obznana 3 years ago
being a member of any church will not save anyone. but that does not make attending church a bad thing, the Bible encourages believers to congregate together.
lazbo4174 3 years ago
That's not the point. Going to a particular building and congregating to worship Him is not the issue. The issue is CHURCH DOCTRINE that you "AHDERE" to so that you follow their "principles" and their "rehearsed" way of worship which is the same as taking part in an "Opera play".
Obznana 3 years ago
Most people go to church once a week and sit on a bench shoulder to shoulder and sing a few songs and listen to the pastor "dictating" and reading out of the Bible like it's a bed time story thus the focus is on the pastor instead of the focus being on Christ Jesus.
Obznana 3 years ago
If you wanna congregate DO IT AT HOME AND NOT IN CHURCH WHERE YOU ARE BEING SPIRITUALLY KILLED WITH CHURCH DOCTRINE.
You might as well face it and take it like a man Mark, TAKE IT LIKE A MAN and admit that as long as you're in church, you will not know Christ as you follow instructions of your pastor, preacher etc. Following church instructions and singing songs of praise and reading the Bible like a manual is NEVER gonna get you to heaven.
DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO LEAVE CHURCH???
Obznana 3 years ago
A time is fast approaching when all who follow Christ will have to run to the secluded places of the world leaving the towns and cities (and churches) until then there IS a work to do in the churches
lazbo4174 3 years ago
As soon as there is a leader in the congregation you get "set rules and manual principles" of "dead church worship" with man made religion and tradition.
"HOWBEIT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN"
Mark 7:7
Going to church is a commandment of "MEN".
Obznana 3 years ago
"Going to church is a commandment of "MEN"
Your kidding of course! :)
I am sorry to ask it like this but do you read your bible at all? The church is Christs body, and that "body" has "members" that all work TOGETHER. A big part of the reason for going to church is learning to get along with each other. If you can't get along, you can't go to heaven, just ask the devil, he knows.
Heb 10:25 & Acts 2:47
BibleBlunders 3 years ago
It is the Spirit of Yah that will shake the ppl attending all kinds of church buildings, were all kinds of ppl being part of the body of Christ regularly come to attend service. This is done by the command of the Father. No one is to know when and maybe (even) how this is going to happen. In the mean time, the only duty for us to do is. Proclaim the Everlasing Gospel (Rev. 14:65,,7) end testify in LOve, of His character through the chances in our live. ah Bless
deborahbetty58 3 years ago 2
why would he want to leave church? to be a little "spiritual Rambo"? The bible cleary puts church attendance in a POSITIVE light, not a negative one as you have here.
Acts 2:47 ...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved....
Hebrews 10:25
Let us not give up meeting together, AS SOME (Rambo's) are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Got any verses that say get out of the church?
BibleBlunders 3 years ago
good points and very relevant verses my friend
lazbo4174 3 years ago
Our Pastor's do not dictate my brother, and more often than not it is laymen and women who preach from our pulpits. I have preached many times in many different churches and i am not a pastor and i never dictate to a congregation what they ought to be doing. i present the Word and it is their choice what they do with the information given
lazbo4174 3 years ago
we use a very interactive form of worship involving the congregation as much as possible. It is not rehearsed my friend but very spontanious.
lazbo4174 3 years ago
Well, I suppose I'm being too "judgmental" on you so why don't you visit the following channels to see "the light" in church darkness;
Please look at the following two channels;
BroJustin
finalcall07
Obznana 3 years ago
Before I make my videos, I would like to say "ellen g. white" will be my victory over the false SDA. Satan always leaves empty holes, the truth is only of Christ.
In Jesus' Name
- DR
devonrose742 3 years ago
"Before I make my videos, I would like to say "ellen g. white" will be my victory over the false SDA. Satan always leaves empty holes, the truth is only of Christ"
i will, the Most High willing, watch your videos.
lazbo4174 3 years ago
and please tell me where i myself have tried to hide and shift things as you make a sweeping statement acusing SDA's of doing such things
lazbo4174 3 years ago
Also, we are not to follow doctrines of men. I thought you were stronger against satan...
devonrose742 3 years ago
I am afraid I disagree with seventh day adventists. The holy spirit, bible, and faulty human quotes from adventists is more than enough evidence.
If you TRULY watched my whole video on calvinism, you would have seen I called seventh day adventism a false doctrine. But I see you did not.
It seems I have to make videos on seventh day adventists. I'm sure you will enjoy them as much as my calvinist videos... since I follow the quote you placed on your youtube page (reproving false doctrine).
devonrose742 3 years ago
did you not know that i was Adventist when i commented on your video.
A number of those i interact with on Youtube have told me that they think i am part of a false church yet they have posted positive comments on some of my videos. And i have left positive comments on some of their videos.
lazbo4174 3 years ago