protestants in denial

Eric B,
I've got 5 minutes, and I'm slow, so here's a reference for you that will interest you greatly, I'm sure, tackling every of the things you mention here, www.biblestudents.co.za.
God bless

 

The Church in Acts met every day of the week. People can get together anytime for prayer and fellowship, and they are still "the Church". Meeting one day out of the week is ONE thing the Church does; not ALL the Church does; and outside of that, it doesn't exist! It is not all about a building and a certain time of the week. It is the traditions of men that have defined the Church like that.
"Going nuts"? All I have done is clamly tell you the truth. You are the one reacting. "offended"? Why would I be; when your position clearly is notboiblical. "escape"? what is this, you think you have me on trial or something? (You're obviously the one "offended", then; it's like I "offended" you, and now you're "chasing" me or something!) "distorting what you say"? You are reaffirming it. No, the Church is not only the Church at a set meeting time. If so, that would mean we were outside of Christ and not saved the minute we set foot outside the building, until the next week. "By ONE SPIRIT are we baptized into one BODY. "Body of Christ" is synonymous with "the Church". We are not in and out of the Body every week.
As we see, you do lose focus of the truth; by turning the very concept of Christ's Church (a SPIRITUAL fellowship and Kingdom) into a mechanical routine of people meeting at a certain time in a certain place.

You make the same exact mistake as the Sunday keepers! That passage says not ONE THING about a day of the week. John was, however taken "in spirit" (vision) to the "Day of the Lord", which was the time of His judgment! It was in the 2nd century when that term was first assumed to be a day of the week, and that day was Sunday. So all you are doing is trying to beat the Sundaykeepers at their own game.

Armstrong offshoot Christian Biblical Church of God writer Ron Coulter points out that both interpretations of the term "3 days and 3 nights" are harmonized at one particular pair of times. If "day and nights" means only "parts of 3 days"; that can be from the end of the first day to the beginning of the 3rd day; which would be the traditional Friday noght to Sunday. But it could also be the beginning of the first day to the end of the 3rd Day. Which would be practically 72 hours, agreeing with the literal interpretation. If we postulate they didn't actually make it to the tomb before the annual Sabbath began; the annual Sabbath would be the first day. And of course, if He actually arose at the end of the weekly Sabbath (and was discovered after it ended), then the weekly sabbath would actually be the "3rd day". I had found that "today is the 3rd day since these things occurred" (Luke 24:21) could possibly be translated something to the effect that "the third day has passed". (I'd have to look it up again). That would make sense, because why would they necessarily expect Him to have been risen already at the beginning of the day? There would be the rest of the day for Him to rise to fulfill the prophecy.
I had accepted this, until I noticed that all of the resurrection accounts; we see a progression of "Crucifixion Day--Sabbath Day--Resurrection Day". It really doesn't seem there were two sabbaths in there with another day inbetween.
As for the argument about women and the spices before and after the sabbath; I harmonize all of the accounts
here </font>[/QUOTE]You have noticed: "It really doesn't seem there were two sabbaths in there with another day inbetween."
Spot on!
But two 'sabbaths' there were, the first having been the Passover's Sabbath Day, the day properly called "The Passover". Jesus was crucified on the "Preparation of the Passover (Sabbath)". Then followed (beginning with its evening after which Joseph obtained permission) this "High Day (Sabbath)". Joseph buried Jesus on it. Then followed the third day - resurrection-day, Day of "First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD". It happened to be the weekly Sabbath.

Then by the buy, The early Christians did not meet every day in the way you want it to mean.
Argument: The Apostles appointed others to attend to some of their duties so that they could minister full time.
Argument: "Every day" simply means 'every day they worshipped, they worshipped in the temple'. Otherwise it also must mean they never worshipped in another place like the synagogues. But we know they did.
And so on - but read my book, 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace' from the webpage I referred you to.

 

I found a web site that has a table part way down their web page that gives the timeframes of Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Their chart agrees with what I've been saying--- everything occurred on the feast days AND the 72 hour requirement was fulfilled.

When one looks carefully at all the other viewpoints, they somehow contradict the biblical information or leave things out. I can't see how any other timing would satisfy the requirements as he has charted out. The events are bounded mathematically and prophetically.

http://yephiah.com/wednesday.html

 

Wopik,

I liked your passage from Joel about the Day of the Lord which speaks about the Second Coming of Christ. This is also picked up in the New Testament in Matthew 24:29, II Thessalonians 1:7-9, II Peter 3:10 and Jude verses 14-15. Peter actually says, ‘. . . the Day of the Lord.’

Just think Enoch preached about the Second Coming back in Genesis 5:23 when he lived and Jude calls attention to Enoch’s prophecy in Jude verse 14.

Enoch lived about 2,950 years before the birth of Christ and we are still looking forward to this grand day when Jesus will come to judge the wicked.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

If you are talking about Rev. 1:10, well, no day of the week is associated with this term.

It is referring to "the day of the Lord" -- when the moon and sun will be darkened and the stars will fall from heaven (Zephaniah 1 and Joel 2).


http://www.centuryone.com/crucifixion.html </font>[/QUOTE]The Greeek is kyriakehi hehmerai -
First the word "day" stands there to be taken for real, "the day the Lord Jesus'", 'Lordly Day' - implying two distinctives: Day of becoming Lord through Victory (Col.2:15, Eph.1:19f), Day earmarked by Christ - the Lord - when He triumphed.
Two: Day of the worship of Him this 'Lordly' Lord: "I John was in the Spirit". The Lord Jesus is worshipped "in Spirit and in Truth".
Both these distinctives synchronised in the Sabbath Day for which reason Jesus declared "Therefore the Som of Man is Lord of the Sabbath Day".
Maybe judgement day will also be on a Sabbath, remembering His resurrection-day was judgement-day He being vindicated and exalted over every name and every authority "WHEN raised". (Just in passing)
The Greek is NOT, hehmera (tou) kyriou - Genitive of the Noun - ALWAYS used for the last day of the Lord. No, it's the Adjectival, like in "the Lord (Jesus') Supper". Clearly a peculiar use for a peculiar Reason - Jesus.

 

Quoting Eric B, QB The Church in Acts met every day of the week. People can get together anytime for prayer and fellowship, and they are still "the Church". Meeting one day out of the week is ONE thing the Church does; not ALL the Church does; and outside of that, it doesn't exist! It is not all about a building and a certain time of the week. It is the traditions of men that have defined the Church like that.
"Going nuts"? All I have done is clamly tell you the truth. You are the one reacting. "offended"? Why would I be; when your position clearly is notboiblical. "escape"? what is this, you think you have me on trial or something? (You're obviously the one "offended", then; it's like I "offended" you, and now you're "chasing" me or something!) "distorting what you say"? You are reaffirming it. No, the Church is not only the Church at a set meeting time. If so, that would mean we were outside of Christ and not saved the minute we set foot outside the building, until the next week. "By ONE SPIRIT are we baptized into one BODY. "Body of Christ" is synonymous with "the Church". We are not in and out of the Body every week.
As we see, you do lose focus of the truth; by turning the very concept of Christ's Church (a SPIRITUAL fellowship and Kingdom) into a mechanical routine of people meeting at a certain time in a certain place. QE

No fine, you'r e right, and I am sorry I created the misunderstanding. It was not my intention the Church exists only while in the Gathering.
But I think you know I didn't.
We, the Church, don't we confess, I believe the Communion of the Saints, the work of the Holy Spirit not only to bring Christ into the heart of the lonely, but to bring all believers together in the worship and praises and confession of the Christ? Is the Church not the completion of the work of the Holy Spirit in the event of the Gathering of the Believers? (I'm not talking of a building, but of "The Body of Christ's Own" (Col.2:17) I'm talking of the WITNESS IN THE WORLD
which is the Church ultimately. When all the world sees: HERE, are the People of God. (Mixed of course with the false members, but no less.) When is sounding over all the world the WORD PROCLAIMED. That doesn't happen in a corner, but as a judgement against them who hear, both inside the Church and outside. The Church is portrayed as a CITY - visible, located, shining in the darkness. Yes the individual light too, but how easily a buschel may be put over it; not so easy with a city.
To see the appropriateness of the Sabbath Day for the people of God in this context is as easy as unavoidable.
You cannot get away from texts like Hb.4:9 and Col.2:16-17. They imply the Sabbath Day celebrated by the Spiritual Church in unity in Christ, in physical unity combined on the Sabbath Day. For one reason: Jesus Christ and HE in resurrection from the dead!
In the last analysis, the Sabbath Day is God's design and provision (also His Command); our likes and dislikes cannot change the fact in the least.

 

This domain name has been reserved for hosting and/or development.

www.biblestudents.co.za. is now registered, for further info or any queries please contact info@imaginet.co.za

Your site is apparently down.

Hebrews 4 shows that the true "Sabbath rest" is spiritual; meaning "ceasing from one's works"; not just on one day, but every day, and that would include trying to "keep" a day to fulfill the Law. (that in this case is considered WORK; not "rest".
Colossians is talling us not to let anyone judge us over sabbath days, meats, etc. as "lawkeepers" do.
No, it is not about likes or dislikes' it is about what the New Testament truly teaches us.

 

You will find many references to these two texts on www.biblestudents.co.za.

Are your "lawkeepers" those who judge, or those who are judged? If the last, then they are "lawkeepers" with God's blessing! Never heard of God-fearing "lawkeepers" who are condemned by Christ for being "lawkeepers"! In fact: "Here are they (the patient saints) that keep the commandments of God indeed the faith of Jesus", standing with the Lamb and singing the Song of Moses and the Lamb with their Father's Name written in their foreheads! What a picture of freedom and victory!
Stop parroting the real legalists, and start appreciating the Scriptures for yourself.
In Hb.4 the "rest" - anapausis - is Jesus Christ; and "a keeping of the Sabbath THEREFORE, is still valid for the People of God".
In Colossians the Church - the Christian Church - is judged by the world and its authorities on wisdom and doctrine (the real 'legalists') for feasting her Sabbaths - the Lord's Sabbaths.

 

Eric:

If Gerhard can't help you with his own site, I will. The correct URL is:

http://www.biblestudents.co.za

He had a period in the end of the hyperlink, and I found it interesting that he just kept going on and on without regard to your question. After all, if you cannot get onto the site, how can you see what's going on?

Maybe this is what they call "talking past" the other person or needing listening skills?

 

The "lawkeepers" are obviously the ones who do the judging. Who is the one coming onto the board suggesting that everyone is sinning by not keeping the right day?
Talk about a total turnaround. We are the "legalists" (the word means one preaching Law; not the one claiming to not be under the Law!)The passage says "judge..in regards to...a sabbath day". Not "judge you for keeping the day". What Paul teaches us elsewhere is "One man esteems one day above another day; and another esteems every day alike. Let each one be fully assured in his own mind. He who regards the day regards it to the Lord; and he not regarding the day, does not regard it to the Lord." (Roman 14:5, 6-- which agrees with the teaching in Col.)

If the rest is Jesus Christ; then that means this is spiritual, and not a literal "rest" on a particular day.
There are other "commandments" besides the letter of the 10 Commandments; so that does not prove the sabbath either.

See Sabath and the Faith of Abraham

 

Thank you, Liafailrock!
How stupid can I be - I have no clue what was wrong even though you explained it. I had a fullstop at the end - is that "a period"? Then I also didn't say http://
I have experienced that the http:// is not always needed - the computor simply puts one on track.
Well well I shall rather stop making a greater fool of myself!
But thanks once more!

 

First, as I see it - no Scripture to back me up with - a "lawkeeper" is not a legalist, but a legalist is one who, where there is no law, creates his own, to obey as though his life depends on it. Not your usual version, but holding water. The Pharisees were legalists - they weren't "lawkeepers", because they BROKE God's Law in order to obey thei OWN laws. The Sabbath-incidents in the Gospels illustrate very well. With doing their own laws, the Pharisees thought they could earn God's favour (in whatever respect). By not caring about the love-principle of God's Law whether as contained in the Fourth Commandment or whether as contained in the Greatest Commandment itself, concerned them no bit.
Now I say Christianity generally despieses the Fourth Commandment because they say Christ is not honoured by it. Are they not sinners for it however they may protest?
But then Christianity generally increases its indebtedness to God's Law by setting up their own - which is Sunday-keeping, and think they honour Christ through it. Are they not legalists for it?
Behaving as though Sunday-keeping does not exist as Law and works of the Church won't excuse it. It just further proves the hypocracy of it.

But worst is to force God's Word to excuse oneself while simply despising the Sabbath-Commandment as the Sabbath, and adoring and venerating Sunday in practice, doctrine and ideology.
Who is fooled?

As to your references to those two Scriptures, I have dealt on them a lot already on BaptistBoard, and on http://www.biblestudents.co.za
So:"The passage says "judge..in regards to...a sabbath day". Not "judge you for keeping the day"."
The passage does NOT say "in regards to...a sabbath day". It says: "in regards to eating and drinking (=feasting) OF Feast or OF Sabbaths", and that again, = feasting. In short: Don't YOU (the Church) let anyone (tis) (of the world) judge = condemn you (hymahs, Acc.) with regard to (en merei) FEASTING (brohsis kai posis), or (by ellipses, FEASTING) OF, Sabbaths FEAST - whether OF month's (singular) or of Sabbaths' (Pl.weekly) (occasion).
Sour old Paul who condemned the happy Church for celebrating her Sabbaths' Feasts? No! Sour old legalists, who demanded, "Don't touch! Don't' taste! Don't practice!"
And you know WHY paul "solicited" (2:2) the Church not to be intimidated and incriminated because she feasted her Sabbaths' Feasts? Because, said he, Christ triumphed over all the sour old legalists - the "authorities" and the "principalities" of this sour old world. Tkae solice - be comforted, as weel as be given good legal advice, Don't you mind these with their blown up greatness, they are but puffed up wind bags, over whom Christ has triumphed gloriously. "THEREFORE (oun): "FEAST your Sabbaths' Feasts!"
Like it? I'm sure you abhore it!
So be it. But that is what the TEXT, means, and with almost so many words, states. To the shame of many a 'translator'.
Not "judge you for keeping the day".

 

Oh, so leave out that little word "OR" (#2228) a few times and hope no one notices? "food, or in drink, OR in respect of an holyday, OR of the new moon, OR of the sabbath days. You are going to some length to butcher the text.
The fact that you have to do this, is what makes you just like the Pharisees you referred to as the legalists. You are setting up your own law (the OT sabbath still in effect) by changing texts, just like the JW's create their own Christ in John 1:1!

Really? I already cited Rom.14: "One man esteems one day above another day; and another esteems every day alike. Let each one be fully assured in his own mind. He who regards the day regards it to the Lord; and he not regarding the day, does not regard it to the Lord." That is what true Christianity teaches. What we "despise" is those who violate these scripturs by saying "You're not keeping all of the commandments like we are", and twisting them to prove it!

It is true that others may legalize Sunday, and I do not agree with them. I have even responded to Frank and other Campbellites when they try to legalize it with Acts 20:7. Still, just because others make it "a law"; you cannot generalize and try to say that every single Christian who goes to church on Sunday is legalizing it, or even "venerating", adoring, etc; so the fact that others are making it a law is hypocrisy on their part. But you're not arguing with them now, so what is the point?

 

Quoting Eric B,
"Oh, so leave out that little word "OR" (#2228) a few times and hope no one notices? "food, or in drink, OR in respect of an holyday, OR of the new moon, OR of the sabbath days. You are going to some length to butcher the text."

Good you make this statement, for man shall live by every word of God's.
"That little word "OR" - first, delete that reference of yours (#2228) because it doesn't apply every time.
Let's see: "... en brohsehi KAI en posehi EH en merehi heortehs EH neomehnias EH sabbatohn ...". One occurrence on its own, and one repetition, that is, two times its effect.
The first EH is used indicatively: "with regard to eating and dring, THAT, with regard to feast". It virtually takes the place of "eating and drinking" which is implied (a second time) through ellipses: "in eating and drinking (Dative), THAT with regard to (eating and drinking) of feast".
Please report me to my Greek teachers for incorrectly applying the sound principles of grammar and syntax they have taught me. But you'll have to explain my errors to them.
You say I "leave out" the word, or, "butcher" it.
The text does not use EH "OR" between "eating" and "drinking". It uses the copulative, "and" - kai, thus making of it ONE CONCEPT, that of "FEAST". The unitary idea is therefore: "eating AND drinking OF FEAST".
Thus the Genitive of the text "OF Feast", is done justice to - it is not "butchered".
The "eating and drinking" is found in the Dative, it being referred to by the expression "en merehi" - "with regard to".
Neither "Feast", nor "month's", nor "Sabbaths'" are in the Dative, but are in the Genitive, and therefore, "with regard to" has bearing on "eating and drinking" ONLY, making perfect sense it being the "feasting OF Feast (celebrating) "WHETHER (EH) OF month's, OR (EH) OF Sabbaths' (occurrence)".
I give account of EACH instance of "the little word "OR"", EH in good, English, idiom.
But I give account of each and every OTHER factor involved in the text - which your version miserably FAILS to do.
Butchering of the text?
Will you report me to God for it, please? How does Paul put, 'dividing the Word of God' godfearingly?
You think I will, because I want to, "buthcher" the Word of God? You may judge me, just like the world judged the Colossian believers who celebrated God's Sabbaths. I rejoice in it!

 

Quoting Eric B,
"I already cited Rom.14: "One man esteems one day above another day; and another esteems every day alike. Let each one be fully assured in his own mind. He who regards the day regards it to the Lord; and he not regarding the day, does not regard it to the Lord."

It is an unfortunate fact for you, dear Eric B, that the clause, "he not regarding the day, does not regard it to the Lord", does not occurr in the original. Disregard it, because you should, and notice what difference it makes to the whole context. It will show you that the passage reads "the strong" were those who "regarded" days. Tradition got it "the weak", regarded days.

However the Sabbath Day is not here discussed whatsoever. Paul clearly speaks of certain days regarded more important than the rest of the days regarded important, which indicates that some period of regarded or important days - like those of the Passover Season - were involved in the issue in the Church.

But the issue not at all was about days or their regarding - everybody according to the text regarded days; it was about food, which some believed was the content of God's Kingdom.
I need not cite the verses that declare it - you know them as well or better than I do. But you must have forgotten about them, making such an issue of the days that all and everybody of the Chruch regarded!

Quote: "That is what true Christianity teaches. What we "despise" is those who violate these scripturs by saying "You're not keeping all of the commandments like we are", and twisting them to prove it!"

I claim part of "true Christianity" because I claim - yes, believe - my part in Christ. I don't care if that society denies me or disclaims my partnership, because my life is hid in Christ in God. I am a member of the Body of Christ's own, judged guilty and condemned and "despised" for being a Sabbatharian or not. I have the Fulness of joy and peace because I have Christ, or rather because He accepted me, took me and has made me His own; He is mine, mine, exactly because I am this sinner I am. I became His by having become reconciled with God through forgiveness of my sins and of myself through Christ.
So friend, please keep on calling me a Sabbath-Law-keeper - I am assured in one thing, and it is not in a day, it is in Whom I believe.

 

Quoting Eric B,
"It is true that others may legalize Sunday, and I do not agree with them. I have even responded to Frank and other Campbellites when they try to legalize it with Acts 20:7. Still, just because others make it "a law"; you cannot generalize and try to say that every single Christian who goes to church on Sunday is legalizing it, or even "venerating", adoring, etc; so the fact that others are making it a law is hypocrisy on their part. But you're not arguing with them now, so what is the point?"

Point is, I would rather be vilified for being a Sabbath Law-keeper, than be sainted for being a Sunday Law-keeper.
Christ to me is the Law of God. And whether He is it to me or not, Christ still and always will be the Law of God, sharper than a two-edged sword, as Hebrews in close context to the Sabbath, says. We can't get away from HIM, or from the redemption he has wrought, and "that's why there is the Sabbath Day of God still binding upon God's People". Here is another instance of my 'buthchering' of the text. Please pay attention to every word I wrote - it's in the text, clear and bright as that sword's glitter!

 

Dear Eric B,
The thought just came up, maybe you should change your 'displayed name' to 'Protestant in denial'.
Cheers!

 

You may ask what is the point of my defending my Church-membership?
It is that I accept co-responsibility with the Body of Christ's Own, and am fully co-debtor to every shortcoming of the Church. The Church's sins are corporate, and therefore are mine also.
If I say "we" I include myself with every right - in fact, I include myself as I am obliged to do according to the Divine Constitution of the Church.
No man is able to separate me as a member from the Body - not even I myself.
I am not hypocritical - pharisaical - I am just plain straight forward. Accusing others of sinning through Sunday-keeping, brings me under the same judgement being a member of the same Body. The only thing that may make a difference is the confessing of that sin or the talking good of that sin.

 

All I see in my interlinear are (eh's); not "kai", and your making one of the "or"s "that, while one of the possible definitions of the word, still is not proven in what you have just posted; but was conjured up to try to make only only feasing the issue. But then there are other lawkeeping groups who believe the feasts are still obligatory, (and that you are just as disobedient as the sundaykeepers)and they will have some other answer to do away with that.

It doesn;t have to say that; it is a parallel principle, for one thing. And no one ever transferred tht concept of "weak" and "strong" to the days. That is clearly about meats, and I have never seen anyone say otherwise. You are doing that now as ye another straw-man to try to prove your point. It does not say WHICH are weak or strong; the point is NEITHER should judge the other, but rather "be fully assured in his own mind".

Just like in Col. you try to push the issue off onto some law that you do not believe in keepoing. The entire NT church was being assulated by those trying to get them to keep the Law, and other practices like vegetarianism. So food and drink was one issue, and days of worship was another. You cannot lump them all into one thing, uner the banne of "meats". There were many issues people were judging over.

Christ is the Law, ad He is the Sabbath rest; not [any longer] a literal day. That is the point of that passage.

Your name should be "Old Covenant Israelite in Denial"