Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Sanctuary > Deep Waters
Facebook

Notices

Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 08-10-2017, 08:41 AM
mfblume's Avatar
mfblume mfblume is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portage la Prairie, MB CANADA
Posts: 38,154
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffi View Post
Also, I do not believe you are accusing me of teaching Salvation by Works, which of course I am not. I can tell, my brother, you have a very good grasp of the argument at issue.

But where you and I may differ is not over whether Justification comes to any one through obedience to The Law, but over the question of the continued validity of The Law for Believers under Grace, and that touches to the question of The Law's usefulness.

You implied, for example, that The Law is "expired", that It is "complete" because It is no longer USEFUL. But I have a hard time believing that you really believe The Law is not useful. Even Paul continued to believe that The Law retained usefulness for defining "sin", otherwise a lot of his argument would be moot.
Of course law was correct in indicating what was sin. That was its usefulness. Paul taught Law came to show what sin really is. But much of it was through object lessons like sabbath days and feast days and commands to not mingle wool with linen. Paul said the law did indeed urge people to be righteous through works. I am glad you do not consider law as a means to become righteous although that is actually what it was for. I think you are mistaken to think it was not. However, the plus side of this is that you do not work for salvation. But Lev 18:5 was quoted by Gal 3 and indeed did say eternal life was attained through DOING of the law, which is salvation by works. Paul said that did not succeed. god knew it wouldn't. But man needed that lesson to prepare him for grace.

So law indeed has a use, but not to make people righteous ANY MORE, whereas that was its purpose.

So, in a more overall sense, the purpose of law was really to prove to man that he needs God to make him righteous, so that when Jesus came through death with that gift man would know beforehand he cannot attain it any other way. After Israel tried law and failed miserably, they should have accepted Christ's gift at the drop of a hat. But they were blinded with another more overall purpose in blindness in effect.

Quote:

How is it then that The Law is no longer useful?
]It is not longer useful to save us. Like I said, Lev 18:5 says that's what it was for. But overall, God used it to show man he cannot save himself.

Quote:
As I see it, The Law is very useful still. Noting that The Law was NEVER a means for Justification (Gal. 3:11), that is not in the debate.
It actually is.

The same chapter, brother, spoke of Lev 18:5. That clearly states salvation by works. however, the reason Paul also quoted Hab 2:4 was because law COULD NOT SUCCEED. Why? Because the \law could not deal with the sin in man's flesh (Rom 8:3). It was meant to accomplish righteousness, but it was too weak to do so. If that's not the case, then Paul's use of Lev 18:5 was incorrect.

Quote:
Concerning as a means for understanding the perfect Righteousness of God, how can anyone argue that The Law is NOT useful here?
I agree with you here. But what I think you're missing is that law really was meant to make man righteous through doing, and I think all you you dear sincere lawkeepers under grace have mistaken the context of Law in Paul's writings.

Quote:
Concerning as a means for defining a superior ethic, or for measuring moral behavior, again how can anyone argue against The Law's usefulness?
I cannot! That's my point. As high as a level of righteousness God demanded through man's DOING of the Law according to Lev 18:5, man was unable to keep it. That's why Jer 31 referred to Israel's inability to CONTINUE IN THE LAW. Why would a new covenant come? Jer said it would come because man needed a covenant he could succeed in, or continue in. NO ONE could succeed under law. Peter said so in Acts 15, and, no, that was not a reference to a distorted Pharisaical law, but actual bona fide Law of Moses which required circumcision, while circumcision was a hallmark of law-keeping according to Gal 5.

Quote:
As a moral, ethical code, obviously The Torah has a usefulness even for unregenerate people, but It was specifically revealed FOR regenerate people, those who had a "circumcised heart" . . . the 'Ezrach, or "Born-In-The-Land-Man", the "Twice-Born-Man".
But writing the law in our hearts does not mean LOVING fleshly ordinances and rituals. It is the keeping of the spirit of the Law, not the letter. That means the same righteousness law tried to provide through forcing man to work for it, which would have succeeded had man not had sin in his flesh by the way, is now offered totally apart from law-keeping. In other words, righteousness was provided through two avenues. the first was law before the second was even available. Works. Man realized that does not work! --- the hard way! And after man adequately should have learned his lesson, the intended way came about... grace. That's essentially what this passage is saying:
Romans 3:19-22 KJV Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Law came with a purpose to prove to man he cannot save himself by works. That was really the overall purpose of Law. It was not a reference to a pharaisical distortion of law, again, due to Lev 18:5.If you good brethren could grasp Lev 18:5 you'd realize the reality of the purpose of law, and tie that in with the above passage from Romans 3.

Quote:
That's not to say that we teach that God requires the keeping of The Law in order to be Justified,
Yes, God did require that, though! Lev 18:5!

Quote:
but that the Justified will keep The Law out of the issue of his/her love for God.
And it was impossible due to sin in the flesh. But now that we have the righteousness which the law tried to provide through works of man's obedience to it, it's usefulness is fulfilled.

Quote:
I mean, we teach that as a fundamental truth of Apostolic Pentecostalism. So what really is at question is NOT whether we keep laws or commandments as Christians, but the question is over the handful of those Commandments called The 'Edot (The Testimonies), such as those Commandments dealing with the Sabbaths, the Feasts, clean and unclean meats, and other identifier principles intended to mark Israel out as a unique, set-apart People. Are Christians supposed to keep these Commandments? Do keeping these Commandments put us in bondage, and if so, is this the "bondage" to which Paul was referring to in Galatians 3 and 4?
Yes it does keep christians in bondage,. The context of days and months and years are from reference to law that was only Israel's schoolmaster til Christi came. Then Israel is no longer under it all. So, Paul's point in Gal was that gentiles in the church were trying to keep Israel's schoolmaster when even Israel was not longer intended to keep it since Christ came!

Quote:
I think to get to the heart of what Paul was thinking about when he was talking about that bondage, we can look at other places in Paul's theology. For example, in Romans 7:6 Paul is talking about the need to be "delivered" from something.
Law.

Quote:
"But now we are DELIVERED from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Romans 7:6 KJV

Some teach that here Paul claims that The Law is dead, so now we are free from It, implying that The Law was a bondage.
That's exactly what Paul meant.

Quote:
But this would disagree with Paul in Romans 3:31 where he "ESTABLISHES The Law", that is "AFFIRMS" The Law.
No, there is not contradiction. He stated in Rom 3 that the law was correct in all it said as far as what is required to make man righteous. But that does not mean we still keep law. Paul was laying a foundation for deliverance from law in those early chapters of Romans. He first had to let Jews in the church realize that mere possession of Law as God's people did not make them better than anyone else, for that caused them to miss the purpose of Law. The purpose was to prove to them that man cannot make himself righteous. But the Jews not only in the church but outside in Paul's day had twisted it's purpose. But not in the way you think. They felt that simply being Jews who were given law made them better than gentiles. So, Paul told them they're as sinful as gentiles are sinful as described in Romans 1, if they violate law like gentiles did. And to further stress his point, he noted Esaias' favourite verse where if a hypothetical gentile kept law by conscience without having been given law, he's better than a jew who was given law and violates it. That verse in no way states gentiles did indeed keep law by conscience as if to validate modern-day law-keeping under grace. Once Paul let them know they really DID have to obey law to be righteous through the context of chapters 1-3, he then could let them know in chapter 3 that there is the same righteousness provided totally apart from law-keeping. Grace.

Brother, law is made for transgressors. Howso? It proves to the they need to be righteous, and that they cannot make themselves so. Once that is understood, they will then be directed to receive the gift of righteousness from God by grace through faith. And they no longer need it. THAT is the context of Romans 3.

Quote:
When he says, "we are delivered from The Law", he is talking about the "Penalty" of The Law, not The Law Itself,
No. He meant just what he said. LAW. law was an impossible system to keep just like a cruel husband is an impossible man to live with. But there is no freedom from it til death occurs. And whereas the husband usually had to die before the wife could marry another, in THIS case the WIFE (us) dies and is risen again with Christ to be married to another, namely Christ.

continued...
__________________
...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.

"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-10-2017, 08:41 AM
mfblume's Avatar
mfblume mfblume is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portage la Prairie, MB CANADA
Posts: 38,154
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

...continued.

Quote:
which was established by an UNCHANGING God, and affirmed by Paul himself. He is using a rabbinic Hebraism here. Messiah frees us from the bondage of sin, and this delivers us from the PENALTY of The Law against us. It does NOT free us from the obligation of obedience.
Incorrect. But that is not to say there is no obedience required in any manner! The Spirit that leads us will lead us to righteous living. It causes us to do the same things law tried to get people to do morally and spiritually, NOT THE FLESHLY ORDINANCES OF THE Law though. 1 Cor 9 and Gal 5 say as much:

1 Corinthians 9:21 KJV To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Galatians 5:16-18 KJV This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. (17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

So while the Spirit delivers us from the law's life of works, at the same time it does not lead us to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. And there is no law against the things the Spirit leads us to do. It just so happens that the righteousness of the law is simply the same thing the Spirit successfully causes us to live.

That's why he then said this:

Galatians 5:22-23 KJV But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

To be continued. Gotta run. Thanks for the great and civil and non-mocking chat! Rare around here.
__________________
...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.

"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-10-2017, 08:50 AM
peter83 peter83 is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,395
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Τhe law is written in our hearts. Is the perfect law of the Spirit.
I spoke with a very educated Greek christian. Although he study scriptures he translate everything through a religion filter. He "saw" me scriptures in order to convince me that we must keep the law too!
It is dangerous those last days even to speak and chat with them who distort scriptures. We dont have time even to loose in such conversations. We take so much informations everyday and is a waste of time if not dangerous speak about things that we had to know already. We drink until now some milk and we have to moove and eat some meat too. But in the basis og truth we came ,we must stay on that. We don move away from the basic faith. We only go deeper.
It is time for the real Son be born. The church of Philadelphia must be separate from Laodiceans. God will take His church but He will take a glorified body.
"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ"
The church will be ONE not be a part of them who separate them self! We have to move from the religion spirit and be more like Christ. Not need any philosophy, Hebrew names,laws of foods..day..months.
Every time the "woman" is ready to give birth to this "perfect man" she have pain . When the church left Catholicism had pain, when baptizers went out from Protestants had pain,when Pentecostals went out of Evangelicalism had pain....So this happens now the perfect man in knowledge is not yet born but we must have our eyes open. We dont want to stay back like the catholics,evangelicals,baptists,pentecostals etc. All of them continue to exist! Although oneness church went out of them. But there is more of that.

Last edited by peter83; 08-10-2017 at 08:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-10-2017, 09:50 AM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Thank you, brother.
I am currently in the process of reading over you responses. As I am about to clock in to my work, it will be later that I can respond back.

Have a blessed day.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-10-2017, 06:50 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
It just so happens that the righteousness of the law is simply the same thing the Spirit successfully causes us to live.
Therefore, the actions or deeds of a person who is living by the Spirit will include the things contained in the commandments of God. For example, a Spirit-led person will honour their mother and father. A Spirit-led person will abstain from idolatry. A Spirit-led person will remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. And so forth.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-10-2017, 08:47 PM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

I originally wrote an entire post on the current discussion, and when I went to hit submit, for whatever reason the entire post got dumped and I have not been able to find it. Sorry.
I will have to retype the ENTIRE thing.

Aggravating, but kind of funny.

Peace.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-10-2017, 10:11 PM
Captain Captain is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 22
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Romans 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. . .

Romans 14:13 Therefore..let..us..not..pass..judgment..on..one.. another..any..longer,..but..rather..decide never..to..put..a..stumbling..block..or..hindrance ..in..the..way..of..a..brother.

Of course Romans 14 should be read in it's full context but suffice it to say that the Bible is very clear that the law concerning the Sabbath is not binding in the New Testament. If someone is disposed to keep the Sabbath anyway then it is - according to all of Paul's writing concerning these "extra" or non-scriptural standards - a matter of spiritual weakness. So let them keep their laws if that is what they require due to their lack of strength, but it is not a binding law in the NT.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-10-2017, 10:33 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

The Sabbath is not in consideration in Romans 14, the larger context of the epistle indicates the subject is 'brethren weak in the faith' vs those 'strong in the faith'. And those weak in the faith were Jews who had an issue with dropping their Pharisaic traditions. Pharisees 'fasted twice in the week', for example. They had set fast days and set rules for fasting on those set days. Such things were 'doubtful disputations' as there was absolutely no Scripture regarding set fast days and set rules for how said fasting was to be done (except of course the once -a-year Day of Atonement).

The Fourth Commandment could not possibly be called a 'doubtful disputation'. There is zero ambiguity in the fourth commandment. Furthermore, there is nothing in the fourth commandment regarding eating meat vs eating vegetables. With traditional man-made fast days (such as were passed down by tradition among the Pharisees) there were many doubtful disputations, not only among the Jews themselves but especially in regards to whether gentiles should be bound to follow rabbinical halakah.

It would have made absolutely no sense for Paul to say of the fourth commandment that it all depends on how one personally esteems it or not. It simply never was up to any man's estimation of worth or value. It was created by God Himself, it was commanded to be remembered BECAUSE God sanctified that day (not man). Therefore, whatever Paul is talking about in Romans 14, it cannot be the Sabbath.

In fact, if Paul was genuinely teaching that obedience to the Fourth Commandment was entirely a matter of 'personal conviction' he would have been routinely accused of breaking the Law of God, of being a sinner, of teaching people to break the Law of God, of promoting lawlessness and sin. And guess what? He WAS accused of such things, but he vehemently denied the veracity of all such claims. If then the claims were false, then it necessarily follows he did NOT teach any disobedience to the Commandments of God. In fact, he makes the following statements in the very epistle under consideration:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Paul here identifies the fact that those Gentiles who are in the new covenant actually do the things written in the law of God demonstrate they are in covenant with God, as opposed to the unregenerate Old Covenant Jew who, although having the law as a system of theology and worship nevertheless actually do NOT do the things written in the law.

He also said this:

Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Breaking the law dishonours God. Breaking the law renders a Jew's circumcision irrelevent, he is no different than any heathen gentile. But the uncircumcised gentile, who actually performs the law of God is reckoned as if he were circumcised. Why? Because the true circumcision is in the heart, not the flesh. That is to say, the 'true Jew', the one who is 'circumcised in heart', is the one who actually keeps the law of God.

Who keeps the law of God?

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The carnal mind leads to death, it is the mind that is not regenerated and is 'the flesh'. The carnal mind is not subject to (obedient to) the law of God, and indeed cannot be (a mindset of rebellion against God's law cannot be submitted to God's law at the same time, it is impossible). But those who have the Spirit of God, who walk according to the Spirit of God, are not subject to the law of sin and death, that is, the carnal mind. They are not in the flesh. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them, those who have the Spirit and are led by the Spirit, who follow the Spirit. Those who do not, who are unregenerate, do not have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in them - they do not actually obey the law of God, they are not submitted to it, they are slaves of sin (disobedience) and not righteousness.

Paul clearly never argues against the commandments of God, as if they had become optional or a matter of personal conviction. Paul everywhere teaches throughout the whole epistle that obedience to the law of God is a mark of the regenerated follower of Christ. And that disobedience to the law of God is a mark of the unregenerate slave of sin.

In order for Romans 14 to be dismissing the obligatory nature of the fourth commandment it would have to be shown in Romans that the fourth commandment has been repealed or abolished by God, so that it is no longer part of the law of God. Physical circumcision, though it was a part of the law of God, has been abolished and Paul not only claims as much in Romans, he proves it by using the Old Testament (law and prophets). Yet Paul makes absolutely no such statements regarding the Sabbath commandment. He nowhere mentions the Sabbath in the entire epistle. He nowhere claims it has been done away with. He nowhere proves it has been rendered obsolete by appeal to the law and the prophets.

Romans however does contain a common, overall argument of his - that Jews who boast about having the law of God are lost because the law is not fulfilled in their lives. Gentiles, however, in the new covenant, by the power of the Spirit, do actually keep the law of God and thereby prove they are in covenant with God. The issue was Jew and Gentile in the church, and how they were to relate to one another. The issue in Romans 14 concerns things the law of God never addresses (fast days and food sacrificed to idols, etc). The issues in Romans 14 are clearly matters of Pharisaic halachah that were being imposed on gentile converts. And Paul calls Jew and Gentile to peace and coexistence in Christ, recognising that 'doubtful disputations' cannot be made a matter of fellowship and doctrine.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf


Last edited by Esaias; 08-10-2017 at 10:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-10-2017, 10:54 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

One of the most common errors on this subject and many other subjects is that somehow the New Testament represents a replacement law. A new Sinai, as it were. As if somehow God's Law given in Exodus 20 etc somehow 'expired', everything came to a screeching halt, and the New Testament had to be written with a completely new set of commands, replacing all the old commands.

Thus, 'if it is not repeated in the New Testament it is abolished' is a common belief and saying. People believe and think that any commandment of God not repeated in the New Testament scripture is somehow done away with. But where does such an idea come from? It doesn't come from the Old Testament, that is certain. And it doesn't come from the New Testament either because no such statement or declaration can be found therein.

People take the New Testament and make it a new 'law'. The New Testament does not contain a replacement Torah, it provides (indeed, it IS) the proper and correct INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION, and UNDERSTANDING of the Law of God. In other words, 'the fulfillment of the law'. Jesus said he came NOT TO DESTROY but to FULFILL. This means that the fulfillment of the law does NOT DESTROY IT or abolish it or make it 'go away'. It fulfills it, it brings it to its fullest measure.

Jesus is the Rabbi giving the proper halachah or interpretation and application of the torah, to put it in Jewish terms.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-11-2017, 01:54 PM
Captain Captain is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 22
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
The Sabbath is not in consideration in Romans 14,


Romans 14:5-6 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it...

I've honestly never met a one God apostolic that had such a subjective reading of the Bible as you do.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Our Sabbath Rest is only in Jesus Christ Iron_Bladder Sunday School 6 05-03-2007 03:28 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.