Keep the Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday & Rest in Christ

[sheep wrecked]

PART 2

Quote:quote:

Every time that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, it was on Sunday: Matthew 28:10; Luke 24:13-36; John 20:19-23; John 20:26

truthseeker:

Matthew 28:10 was not an appearance to the disciples. Here He appeared to Mary Magdalene and Mary His mother and told them to take a message to the disciples. So this verse is misused. And it was no "meeting" as if they were "having church" or some such. This verse used in the context as presented by Pastor _____ is wrested out of context and said to teach something it does not. We here at Berean U. must study to "see if these things be so."


Luke 24:13-36. This story is the great proof that it was NOT that first Sunday, the day Yeshua arose that the disciples did any setting apart of the first day of the week. In this story, Yeshua is walking along the road to Emmaus with two men going home from Passover the afternoon He arose. How close is that to having church on Sunday morning? Yeshua was making His first appearances, letting people know He is alive and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Fourth Commandment to Remember the Rest day to keep it holy. These two men, when it was getting dark, invited Yeshua into their home. He went in and ate with them. Then after dark on the first day of the week, the evening after He resurrected, that evening, these two men went 7.5 miles back to Jerusalem to find the Disciples and tell them that they had been with Yeshua. Dark, eat, go back to Jerusalem. After they got there and made their report, the Disciples still did not believe. Then Yeshua showed up and they thought they were looking at a ghost. So He took time...time...to eat fish and honeycomb in front of them to prove that He was no ghost. When did this happen? Sunday night after dark. And of necessity that would be Monday (the second day of the week)....because the new day began at sunset. So it was on the SECOND day of the week when the Disciples finally understood that Yeshua was resurrected. Do we have any Bible believers here at Berean University?

John 20:19-23. "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you."

First thing somebody will say: See there? The Bible says it was the First day of the week! Okay, let's consider this. First, Yeshua sees the two women. Then He walks to Emmaus with two men and stays there with them until after dark. Then they go back to Jerusalem after dark to tell the Disciples that Yeshua has resurrected. Then Yeshua appears to eleven unbelieving Disciples. When does He appear to the Disciples? After the two from Emmaus arrive back in Jerusalem. Now, John's record in chapter 19. The King James has the word "day" italicized, meaning it is not in the Greek text. So then the passage would read, Then the same day ate evening, being the first of the week.

Suppose someone, because he refuses to give up Sunday replacement of God's Holy day argues the point. Suppose he says, well, the use of the phrase "first of the week" meant first day. Could be. I don't know. But I can tell you this. If this John 20:19 meeting was at any other time than Sunday night, the story about the two men from Emmaus is a farce. Now that, ladies and gentlemen. is a fact.

John 20:26. "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." Does this verse say anything about it being the first day of the week? Where does it say this was the first day of the week? Let's see. The previous appearance, even if we go along with the idea it was on the First day of the week, would be on Sunday. Eight days later would be Monday. And if it the former appearance was on Sunday night, Monday in Hebrew reckoning, then eight days later would be on Tuesday. There's no way, "eight days later" can fall on Sunday.

So far the Sunday argument is batting 0 for 4. Not so good. And they say it is us who twists Scripture! Okay, back to our Berean Textbook:

From what I see of what the pastor supposedly stated, I don't see where he said anything about Jesus' appearances to the disciples being a "church meeting". What he posted were texts showing that Jesus appeared to them on the first day of the week.

The disciples on the way to Emmanus, traveled there on the first day of the week, the day that Christ arose. Then Jesus appeared that same evening to the disciples. It states this clearly in the text

Luk 24:9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
Luk 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
Luk 24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
Luk 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
Luk 24:14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
Luk 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
Luk 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Luk 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
Luk 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
Luk 24:35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


If one looks back historically, Sunday was chosen as the day of worship, not to "replace" the seventh day, but to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then, in 325, the Nicean Counsel declared that day as the day of worshiping together

The Sabbath was not given to Israel as a day of worship or a day to gather with others

As I pointed out, the first of the week means, in Greek, the first day of the week or Sunday as we know it

[sheep wrecked]

PART 3

Quote:quote:

The Day of Pentecost was on Sunday: Acts 2:1

truthseeker:

What does that prove? Anything? Pentecost had been on the first day of the week for one thousand, five hundred years, give or take a few....on the fiftieth day after the seventh sabbath after First Fruits. So what's new? When else would Pentecost (Shavuot) happen? If we're going to use this to establish some practice for so-called "church age" believers, everybody needs to get ready to celebrate the annual festival. So Pentecost happened on the first day of the week? What does that prove? It proves the ingathering, not Sunday worship. On Pentecost, 5,000 were added. I recently read someone's post that pointed out that on Pentecost at Sinai 5,000 were killed "when the Law was given" and on Pentecost in Jerusalem when the Spirit descended, 5,000 were saved. Yes, it's true that 5K died at Rephadim at the time of the first Pentecost. But it was not the giving of the Law that killed them. It was their orgies and worship of the Egyptian bull-god, Apis. It wasn't the giving of the Law that rendered them dead. It was their wickedness. No, the Pentecost-on-Sunday argument carries no weight for abrogation of God's Fourth Commandment, the only one He prefixed with the word, "Remember." If Pentecost means we should make any practice, then we should start observing the annual Festival and celebrate Simchat Torah (Rejoicing in the Torah), the giving of the Torah/Teaching and the giving of the Spirit.

I think what the Pastor was trying to get across is that the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples empowering them with boldness to witness the Gospel as Jesus had prophesied - on the first day of the week, which coincided with His resurrection. This made that first day even more special

Pentecost was never the celebtration for the giving of the Torah. That was added later as noted in the Talmud. There is no reference to this anywhere in the Bible. It is pure conjecture and adding to the Word of God

Exodus 34:22 And you shall observe the feast of weeks, of the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.

Leviticus 2:12 As for the oblation of the first fruits, you shall offer them to the LORD: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet smell.
Lev 2:13 And every oblation of your meat offering shall you season with salt; neither shall you suffer the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meat offering: with all your offerings you shall offer salt.
Lev 2:14 And if you offer a meat offering of your first fruits to the LORD, you shall offer for the meat offering of your first fruits green ears of corn dried by the fire, even corn beaten out of full ears.
Lev 2:15 And you shall put oil on it, and lay frankincense thereon: it is a meat offering.
Lev 2:16 And the priest shall burn the memorial of it, part of the beaten corn thereof, and part of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof: it is an offering made by fire to the LORD.

Leviticus 23:15 And you shall count to you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:
Lev 23:16 Even to the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall you number fifty days; and you shall offer a new meat offering to the LORD.
Lev 23:17 You shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals; they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven; they are the first fruits to the LORD.
Lev 23:18 And you shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering to the LORD, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet smell to the LORD.
Lev 23:19 Then you shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings.
Lev 23:20 And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the LORD for the priest.
Lev 23:21 And you shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation to you: you shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.
Lev 23:22 And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not make clean riddance of the corners of your field when you reap, neither shall you gather any gleaning of your harvest: you shall leave them to the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Numbers 28:26 Also in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meat offering to the LORD, after your weeks be out, you shall have an holy convocation; you shall do no servile work:
Num 28:27 But you shall offer the burnt offering for a sweet smell to the LORD; two young bullocks, one ram, seven lambs of the first year;
Num 28:28 And their meat offering of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals to one bullock, two tenth deals to one ram,
Num 28:29 A several tenth deal to one lamb, throughout the seven lambs;
Num 28:30 And one kid of the goats, to make an atonement for you.
Num 28:31 You shall offer them beside the continual burnt offering, and his meat offering, (they shall be to you without blemish) and their drink offerings.


Pentecost had to do with the giving of one's first fruits which Paul showed us is Christ - the fulfillment of Pentecost


1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

[sheep wrecked]

PART 4

Quote:quote:

Sunday, the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread:

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.
13 And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.
14 And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene.
15 And we sailed thence, and came the next day over against Chios; and the next day we arrived at Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium; and the next day we came to Miletus.

truthseeker:

Does the text say, On the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to worship? to pray? to hold a convocation? No, it says they were gathered to break bread. Now, somebody wrote a song about breaking bread together on our knees, where "breaking bread" would mean studying the Word. So, it should be then that if the song says breaking bread is Bible study, then that's what it is right? Well, the song goes on to say..."with our face to the rising sun." Need I say anymore?

At Pentecost, or in the days that followed, they went about from house to house "breaking bread." This was in Jerusalem, Israel. This was with Jewish people, followers of the LORD's Torah. And there, breaking bread was the breaking of the Afikomen, the unleavened bread that held special meaning in the Passover Meal. Remember Yeshua's words? "This is my body which was broken for you." When the folks after Pentecost were going from house to house breaking bread, they were showing the people how that the Afikomen of the Passover Seder is fulfilled in the broken body of Yeshua. And for centuries now, in Jewish homes, one part of the bread that is broken is hidden away until later in the meal and then it is "found." Believers see this as representing the Resurrection. So, the "breaking of bread" at Pentecost was not humble, Law-abiding men taking it upon themselves to modify the immutable. It was simply a demonstration of the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Yeshua.

Passover was LONG over by Pentecost. Not sure why you are attaching breaking of bread with that? They broke bread together aka they met in each other's homes and ate together, prayed, and worshiped. Then they went to the Temple to witness to the Jews.

The Afikomen has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper or Passover now or in the first century. This is an added Rabbinical concept implemented long after the first century. It has zero allegorical representation of anything having to do with Jesus Christ. It was conceived and "brought forth" by men who not only denied Jesus Christ is the Messiah, but denigrate and blaspheme Him in their writings [Talmud]

Quote:Now here in Acts 20, we see these words again. They came together to break bread. Was this the Afikomen? No. These folk did not need that demonstration and this was not Passover. What then was this?

There is the practice that after Shabbat, at the close of Sabbath, there is a gathering called the Havdalah service. It is a time of refreshing (eating) and fellowship. Further, many Jews fasted on Shabbat. The Havdalah service is not a Resurrection ceremony. It is and has been for over two thousand years a meeting at the close of the Sabbath.

First of all, it was not Saturday nite - it was Sunday night [the FIRST day of the week].

Secondly, there was no such thing as a "havdala service". That is an added tradition from the Talmud

Jews fast on the Sabbath? Where did you come up with that one????

Quote:Also, during the Havdalah service, the men each will light a candle. (Tradition has it at the beginning of Shabbat, the lady of the house lights two candles.) At the close of Shabbat all the males light candles.

Talmudic/kabbalah stuff, which is occultic and magic. It has nothing to do with the Bible

[sheep wrecked]

PART 5

Quote:Note the words in our text. "There were many lights in the upper chamber where they were gathered together." This statement points to two things. There were many folks present. And it was not "Sunday morning." The text reads: "...upon the first day of the week,...." "Upon" would indicate the beginning of. And once again, class, this would be just after the close of Sabbath "at even."

Paul preached until midnight. This was Saturday evening. The Sabbath was past and they got together for the evening meal. Paul was to leave first thing in the morning and they wanted all they could get from him who had spent three years in the desert with the Son of God. (Gal. 1:17-18) If Dr. Billy Graham were in town for the evening, would not there be many people raise up their voices and cry, "Preach to us Dr. Graham?" It would not matter what day of the week it was, folks would want him to share a few words.

Put on your thinking caps, class. If this were a Sunday morning gathering (worship service in "celebration of the Resurrection," then Paul's preaching until midnight would possibly constitute the longest sermon by one man in history. No wonder Eutychus fell asleep!

Then, first thing in the morning (Sunday), Paul lights out on a long journey...more than any Sabbath day's journey. This was the first day of the week, the first day of labor and the weekly routine. He had spent Sabbath and then that night they sat up all night together. Then Paul heads for Assos.

I have to really smile at your attempt to "rearrange" the text:

Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Act 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

The text states:

1) The FIRST day of the week.

2) He preached all day, they broke bread and ate, and continued his speech until midnight.

3) It got dark so they lit candles, afterall, it WAS nighttime!

4) Paul left in the morning on his journey - Monday morning.

Quote:Here at Berean University we will not force on Scripture things it doesn't say?

As Jesus said: physician, heal thyself

[sheep wrecked]

PART 6

Quote:There is no indication here that God's Law has changed. On the contrary, we see people closing out their time together on God's holy Sabbath. Have you new students learned the school motto yet? Shall we recite it? Altogether: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of God." And what did we learn our first week of school? To divide is to dispense. To each one is divided his portion. It does not imply taking a McCullah chain saw and chopping the Word of God into ages. A dispensation is a giving out, not a time period. A soldier goes to the dispensary to get supplies, not time. Study so that you might rightly dispense, ladies and gentlemen. That is our motto here at Berean U.

You said: "we see people closing out their time together on God's holy Sabbath." Isn't the hebrew word Shabbat---is that too hard to say if you are going to attempt to mix languages?


You sound like Michael Rood .... he was partial to chain saws too

The text actually says this:

2Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

The word divide:

G3718
ὀρθοτομέω
orthotomeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways
1a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right
2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly

It's no wonder you are having problems if you don't even know the meanings of the words. Divide, does not mean "dispense". I think your Berean "U" needs to go back to the drawing board

Quote:quote:

Offerings to God on Sunday as instructed by Paul: 1 Corinthians 16:2

truthseeker:
Wrong again. What is being pushed here? Excuses for Sunday worship over God's sacred commandment? Let's investigate this verse to see if the Sunday folk have gotten on base or if they have swung another strike?

The verse:


"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

"Upon the first day of the week." Do we not teach that? Take God's money first, and lay it aside and then use the rest for other matters. This was to be done before anything else. Might I suggest that they were to go home and tomorrow, the first day of the week, lay by in store?

"Lay by him in store." This is not to be confused with "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse" (Malachi 3:10). The storehouse is not the same as "lay by him in store." To lay by [their offerings] in store is to put the money on the mantle, in a sock, under the mattress, or somewhere for safe keeping and easy to find. Paul did not say, Upon the first day of the week, bring to the storehouse. He said, "lay by him in store." "Lay by him...." - put next to himself, keep it with him. Why? "...That there be no gatherings when I come." This was not a weekly, Sunday gathering; it was a command for each of them to hold back in storage some coins so that when Paul showed up, they would not have to be running to the ATM machine or taking out loans.

One more thing: "Now concerning the collection for the saints...." This was not the tithe. No, sir! It was a separate collection that was to be kept close at hand until Paul arrived. The making of it a into tithe to be brought to church every Sunday is not what the Word of God says. Since we here at Berean U. are known for "seeing if these things are so," we must freely admit that the use of this passage to claim it as "another evidence" that Christians are not to keep God's Sabbath is claiming Scripture teaches something it doesn't.

Again, Sunday was never instituted to take the place of Saturday worship. It was to celebrate the day Christ arose. If Christians choose to use that day for offerings, they have a good example as Paul stated

The tithe was never part of the NT

If you had taken the time to become familiar with the forum, as Vic had recommended you do, you would have seen the tithe discussed here:

http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=116

and also > http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=341

You might want to actually listen to what is being said to you--especially by the admins.

[sheep wrecked]

PART 7

Quote:quote:

The apostle Paul started his work by trying to reach the Jews by preaching to them on the Jewish Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 13:14, 42, 44) but to the Christians he preached on Sundays (Acts 20:7) even though he had already arrived there before the Saturday (verse 6).

truthseeker:

"...before the Saturday?" Is the word "Sabbath" too hard to say?

First, note the words, "Jewish Sabbath." This nomenclature goes back to the days of the "early church" when there was much antisemitism among the church fathers. "Jewish Sabbath?" The use of this phrase is to make the Command of God something not to be kept by anybody but those Jews "under the old covenant." "Jewish Sabbath?" What does Scripture call the Sabbath? Isaiah 58, "My holy day." Leviticus 23, it is the first of the Eight (not seven) Festivals of the LORD. This is the LORD's Sabbath; not a "Jewish Sabbath." The only purpose for saying "Jewish Sabbath," "Jewish Feasts" is to stigmatize and separate from them. It gives a sense of being for another people at another time.

The seventh day Sabbath IS the Jewish Sabbath. It was given to ISRAEL as a sign of the old covenant. If one is a good Berean, one is familiar with what the Old Testament actually states

Quote:The only purpose for saying "Jewish Sabbath," "Jewish Feasts" is to stigmatize and separate from them. It gives a sense of being for another people at another time.

Judaism is a separate belief system and they are offended when others attempt to familairise or take what is their beliefs. It shows total lack of respect for their belief choices

Quote:truthseeker:

One thing you have to watch for when antinomians start expounding is . . . What are they NOT telling you? Are they telling you the WHOLE truth?

What one has to watch for according to Jesus and the Apostles---is wolves in sheeps clothing, and men who crept in unawares, and deceviers, and those who bring on doctrines of demons and another gospel and another Jesus. Speaking of which....that is what you are doing --- presenting another gospel that was refuted by the apostles -- many times

Quote:Pastor _____ said, "The apostle Paul started his work by trying to reach the Jews by preaching to them on the Jewish Sabbath in the synagogues ... but to the Christians he preached on Sundays." Acts 13 is given for proof.

Okay: Acts 13:42, one of the verses he suggested:


And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

"But to the 'Christians' he preached on Sundays? Was Luke, the one who penned the Epistle of Acts, trying to call Sunday the Sabbath? Was he suggesting that the Jewish folk had gone to calling the first day of the week, "Sabbath?"
C.I.! No dozing in class, young man.


Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Oh no! Gentiles in the (Jewish) synagogues on Shabbat getting saved. Don't tell the Sunday folk about this. It makes them uneasy. They may contest, Well, this was their only chance to hear the Gospel. So, I suppose we're to think they went to synagogue on Sabbath, got the blessings from Heaven and then got up the next morning to start a new tradition.

Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Here's another:

Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.
3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

"...and persuaded Jews and the Greeks." Persuaded them to what? Come back in the morning? Or was he persuading the Jews to continue meeting on the day Yeshua expunged as a Commandment and the Gentiles to come back tomorrow to "celebrate the Resurrection" on "their" "Gentile, Christian day of worship?" Was that the "good news" that Paul was imprisoned and suffered for? Telling Gentiles they have another day? Or was it for telling Gentiles that all men everywhere could, by grace, go directly to the Father through the atoning blood of His Son? ...And that they would then be made part and parcel with the Nation of Israel -- no circumcision necessary for induction into the family?


Acts 20:7 we've already covered.

Paul went to the synagogue to preach the Gospel. Once both Jews and gentiles were saved, there was no need for them to go back to the synagogue because Jesus was not preached there by the Jews who had not converted

New converts met in homes at first. Then later we see that they gathered in larger places to worship, teach, and encourage [I & 2 Corinthians]. Christians did not meet in synagogues. As Paul stated, after going to the synagogues over and over again, the Jews refused the Gospel, so Paul went to the Gentiles. It was no longer expedient or necessary for him to go to the synagogues

It appears you are saying that they would then be made part and parcel with the Nation of Israel -- no circumcision necessary for induction into the family?

We are grafted into Christ, not Israel

See this thread:

http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=329

[Vic]

Part 1 of 5 replying to Truth Seeker's final post to me, just before he was banned. Sorry about length.

Truth Seeker, aka Mike,

As you can see you have been banned. The email you sent last night duplicating your post to me that was placed in moderation, was unnecessary. I placed all your posts last night in moderation. You see, your being allowed to post was contingent on you answering my questions---all of them--in this thread and the "Are we commanded to observe the Mosaic law"--which is where your attempt at a brand new topic called, Was the law abolished? was moved to.

-- http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.p...=61&page=2

I made it very clear you are/were under moderation and not to proceed until you had addressed my posts to you. Completely address them. As per your record, and really no different than so many of the same mindset and spirit...you did not do as requested and required. So...game over for you. You have to go play with someone else now.

However, we decided to answer your last posts and then delete yours. Actually, your posts are such a mess and really quite amusing, the
arrogance, the sarcasm, the obnoxious attitude, is so Hebrew Roots. Really. You also give the appearance of have a reading comprehension disability since you seem incapable of staying on track with a question and response. I suppose it could be that you simply are not prepared to actually be held to the rules of the forum--which showed from your beginning post, or to be held accountable.

Quote: Vic >You do not get to post further until you address my posts to you. Is that clear?

Mike

Quote:Vic, relax would you. I don't have as much time available to me on this pc anymore. I was planning on getting back you and everyone, unless you refuse to let the truth be known.

You misinterpret directness and admin authority dealing with forum rule violations for being what? uptight? You have no idea how un uptight I am.

As far as you getting back to me and everyone--believe me when I say, no one has been waiting with bated breath. Your track record was to ignore most of what was said in refutation to you. But I forgot--no one questions your teacherness right? That's why you let the impertinent questions to your "truth" slide. And redirect and attempt, and I say attempt, to steam roll right over anything you don't like.

Problem is Mikey. It's really hard to steamroll something riding a tricycle. It looks as ridiculous as it sounds. And is so very ineffective in presenting anything you have to say as anything but junk doctrine and heresy.

Re the ForeverSabbath.com website---which is a Torah Observant Messianic website. It won a Messianic award Mike. It was Messianic. Your denial that it was not Messianic is just the same old game. You were told to provide the name of the author of the Sabbath 101 article, including the url extension. As per your pattern...you wouldn't do that. ...

Mike

Quote:“Contradiction to the facts”. Actually it wasn't. The author simply stated it was on a Messianic forum.

You are assuming to much. I have authorization from the author (years ago) to use to use his writings. I simply added the url as a convince for anyone that wished to look further. I wasn't aware he had taken his site down. Web-sites come and go you know. I am well aware of copy right laws, thank you. I wasn't aware he had shut down his web-site. You didn't need to waste time researching all you did, all you needed to do was ask me and I would have told you!

I would research regardless what you told me. So far, you aren't reliable on information. Having the author's permission to use the article--still evaded the author's name and the proper url--which I told you to have. You did not---yet you know what it was--or so you say.

As far as asking you --- I suppose it would be redundant to say--that is exactly what I did--and you wouldn't answer the question--again. And to post on the forum at all, as per the rules, you were to have that information when citing someone else's works. Period. You chose to again ignore what was said. Again.

Mike

Quote:Concerning “staying or going” as you've mentioned to me privately, I quote, “We don't disfellowship anyone”. While I don't think this is what you actually meant, as well you shouldn't in my opinion, instead according to scripture, the Matt 18 process is of course the correct process of banishment. This according to the book we all say we believe, as you know requires 1st a sin being committed, along with the offended party bringing the accusation with witnesses. A trial if you will. Any banishment that doesn't follow this format is.....Overlording.

We seem to have an inability to communicate here, Mikey. First, let me assure you, I was the one who let you stay. Others---a group---wanted you banned from the get go.

So you see, the decision was made some time ago by others, who felt your arrogant and obnoxious attitude, your attempt to indoctrinate and proselytise, your ignoring what was being said to you and such was wasting time for otherwise more worthwhile discussion since you were like other HR, and quite literally a broken record of what has been discussed in depth many times.

And according to Forum Rules which you claim to have read---it's not up to you how this forum is run, who gets warned, banned or applauded. It isn't a political forum and people don't get to vote about what happens on this privately owned forum--provided as a service.

No one forced you to join and no one is being forced to have you stay. Get over yourself.

As the Forum Rules state >Our goal is to have a welcome and friendly forum where members feel free to discuss Biblical issues and things that affect us as believers. Just as the SeekGod.ca website, this forum is intended for a Christian audience..

Treat others the way you want to be treated. Simple courteous and decent manners goes a long way. Please check your attitude when posting, and make sure you convey things the way you really want to.

... Those not of the Christian faith are welcome to become members but, need to keep it very clearly in their mind that derogatory remarks about God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit, in any language, are not to be used as expletives or interjections or in an abusive, mocking, or insulting way . The same for hate based remarks about Christianity. It is solely at the admins discretion to not only delete those types of things, but possibly permanently ban the poster, with or without warnings.

That goes also for any filth concerning the Bible. If you don't believe it, then please ask questions, but be aware that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God and it is not to be taken lightly. We also believe it is the standard to which we weigh beliefs, doctrines, ideas and behaviors.

Don't become a member to Spam us with your: doctrine, errant beliefs, books, merchandise, website, blogs, etc. Don't repetitively post similar or identical posts or threads. We have zero tolerance for solicitation of commercial products, porn, etc. We want members to feel they can enjoy their stay, not have to be hounded by spammers.
...If someone is being deliberately obnoxious or rude, they will be dealt with by the admins with warnings or a suspension or banning, depending entirely on the admins discretion. ....

...No attempting to Disrupt the Forums by attempting the rehashing of alleged grievances or disputes or publicly complaining via posts or threads in forums throughout the site; or ranting about SeekGod.ca or the admins. If you become a member it is by choice, and you can leave as easily as you come. If you have a disagreement, state it with some semblance of self control.

...Promotion of beliefs contrary to Scripture or what we understand to be Christian beliefs may/will be allowed to a certain point. That is, if someone brings in another gospel and another Jesus, it may be discussed Biblically and exposed for what it is. It will not be allowed to sit unchallenged to Scriptural Truth. It may also be discontinued as a discussion.

How the above are dealt with are completely at the discretion of the admins. It won't be up for debate or discussion..."

It needs to be thoroughly understood that any posters who violate the rules and receive a warning, or dislike what they are being told by the admins/moderators, should not to attempt to carry the issues to the public forum. Do not discuss/complain admin actions concerning upholding the forum rules publicly. It will result in short or permanent banning, and/or warnings.. That includes Any who show a disregard for forum policy or disrespect for forum members or admins; arguments about forum policy, or admin/moderator decisions, or trying to undermine the forum, the forum rules or admins.....you get the picture. ..."

You think spouting in your 2nd thread about censorship, violated the rules Mikey? You took your false ideas public. So, that's where we deal with it.

Do you get the rules Mike. It never was your choice what happens on the forum. You were allowed to post your heresy so others could see how to deal with Hebrew Roots in its varied forms. You are just one of the many who attempt to bring another gospel and another yahushauauaa---you know what I mean. Not of Christ.

Something which you have never claimed to be...of Christ.

[Vic]

Part 2

vic

Quote: ...who is this Yahshua spoken of? Because, in your post held in moderation, we see you use, Yahushua

truth seeker

Quote:Oh no...another rabbit trail! ok...but remember, you asked. I can show you verses in the TaNaKh that say IT is the “way, the truth, and the life.

This is also, as you know, stated of Messiah. The Messaih and the Torah are ONE! ( John 1)
I've read your writings refuting any attempt at spelling the actual Hebrew name of Messiah especially if it's a letter or 2 off. I ask you this. Since we are told there is only one name given under heaven whereby we can be saved, do you suppose it might be a bit more Barean to at least make an attempt?

I agree that the name Jesus is a properly TRANSLITERATED not TRANSLATED name. That's just one problem with the name. When we translate we convert the meaning of a word.Every Hebrew name has meaning. Jesus is a Greek name. Yahshua was and is “Jewish”, not Greek. The other problem with the name your not quite ready for, so I'll save that for some other time. Time will tell which name was more correct, you really need to reconsider your position on this.

Jesus is not a Greek name, Mikey. It's English. The Greek name for Jesus is Iēsous --used 977 times in the KJV NT.

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
Thayer Definition:
Jesus = “Jehovah is salvation”
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate
...
The corresponding Hebrew is >
H3091
יהושׁע / יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa‛
BDB Definition:
Joshua or Jehoshua = “Jehovah is salvation”...

Seems like you don't know much about the languages and the names issue although you like to propogate the sacred name issues. Which are soo easily refuted with facts...The Hebrew name is Yeshua --short form and Yehoshua--long form. It's not that hard to find it in the Scriptures. It's the made up names like Yahushua that one cannot find in the Scriptures.

Mike

Quote: The other problem with the name your not quite ready for, so I'll save that for some other time. ...

I realise you think that I am beneath you in intellect and knowledge, but so far you have said little that is accurate factually, linguistically, and most importantly Scripturally.

So..somehow I think I will get over it.... I guess I will have to plug along without your enlightening me, and go by the promises of Scripture.....

1 Corinthians 1:4-8 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; 5. That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; 6. Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: 7. So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 8. Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Vic]

Part 3

vic Wrote:

Quote:For Ex. "Roma 7:25 (NKJV) I thank Yahweh--through Yahushua the Messiah our Master! So then, with the mind I myself serve the Law of Yahweh, but with the flesh the Law of sin.

Again Mike---that is NOT NKJV--but a perversion of it-- which again violates copyright LAW---which claimed law keepers /torah keepers know violates the law of the land--hence --God's laws.

Truth seeker

Quote:You sure are kinda quick to attempt to point out alleged copy right infringements. I agree if this were a true accusation, however you can not say with certainty and neither can I! How do you know the author doesn't have his own “Necessary to correct King James Version

I will take this real slow and easy for you Mike.

Copyright means that someone wrote something that if you quote -----notice now---if you quote it---it has to be exactly as was written, whether it's a sentence, phrase, paragraph or verse.

That means Mike, everytime the NKJV was claimed to be quoted in your post # 14 > http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.p...=61&page=2

And the words were deliberately changed---the copyright law was broken.

Making it real easy here for you.

Here's examples I used for you in that thread.

For example > Yours > Colo 2:16 (NKJV) So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of the Messiah. Paul says that the doers of the Law will be justified and those who break it will be judged.

Actual NKJV > 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

[color=#1E90FF]Yours > Roma 2:12 (NKJV) For as many as have sinned without Law will also perish without Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law 13 (for not the hearers of the Law [are] just in the sight of Yahweh, but the doers of the Law will be justified;

Actual NKJV > Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

[color=#1E90FF]Yours > Roma 7:25 (NKJV) I thank Yahweh--through Yahushua the Messiah our Master! So then, with the mind I myself serve the Law of Yahweh, but with the flesh the Law of sin.

Actual NKJV: Rom 7:25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Every single time God was changed to Yahweh; Jesus Christ our Lord was changed to Yahushua the Messiah our Master-----Copy right LAW was broken.

I say it again....Copyright LAW was broken. Now you claim that:

Quote:You sure are kinda quick to attempt to point out alleged copy right infringements. I agree if this were a true accusation, however you can not say with certainty and neither can I! How do you know the author doesn't have his own “Necessary to correct King James Version

Let's be clear--you were asked which articles were your writings and which were someone elses---and you were to provide proper documentation if you posted someone else's work. Which you didn't do.

You asked, "How do you know the author doesn't have his own “Necessary to correct King James Version?"

Because Mike, you have posted a writing which violated the copyright of the NKJV.

Here's what the publisher of the NKJV has to say:
http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/dep..._id=190000

Policy for Use of New King James Version®

I. GENERAL STATEMENT

A. USES NOT REQUIRING WRITTEN PERMISSION.

Printed, Visual and Electronic Uses:
Up to 1,000 verses (inclusive) from assorted books of the New King James Version® (NKJV™) may be quoted in printed (e.g., book, brochure, magazine, newsletter, lesson outline), visual (e.g., film, videotape), and electronic forms (e.g., computer diskette, CD-ROM, on-line) without written permission, as long as the verses quoted do not amount to 50% of a complete book of the Bible and do not make up 50% or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

These uses of the NKJV must be acknowledged by an appropriate copyright notice as listed in Section II of this policy statement. Permission is contingent upon an appropriate copyright acknowledgment.

...Quotations must conform accurately to the NKJV text, including appropriate spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and special text formats.

...the following notice is to be used at the end of each quotation: "NKJV™".

See Mikey---the publisher of the NKJV says you can't change the "spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and special text formats." -- which you did when you posted as NKJV with changed words, etc in each verse you quoted.. That is breaking copyright Law. Every effort must be taken to quote accurately.

It is not real hard to comprehend.

When you quote something DO NOT Change the content. You went ahead and did change the content to suit your beliefs.

[Vic]

Part 4

vic Wrote:

Quote:Now Foreversabbath.com links to yashanet--a very Jewish based organization. > and specifically to
http://web.archive.org/web/2007062505431...derlaw.htm Not Subject to the Law of God?--- and in it's recommended reading resources---we see talmud, and kabbalah, and more kabbalah... http://www.yashanet.com/reading.htm Not surprising when we see the article you posted--and sent separately to me by email.

truth seeker

Quote: You sound a bit anti-semetic here. I find this in your writings..

"When individuals register they agree not to post hate content. That includes anti-semitism which most would understand is hate towards Jews. It should not have to be stated again and separately to the regular registration agreement or to the Rules which each member is responsible to read and to become informed of what can and cannot be done on the SeekGod.ca forum. But apparently it is necessary to point this out."

Which is it Vic? I don't believe that is what you were trying to say, right? (By the way, did you know everyone is supposed to convert? “Former Gentiles in the flesh” ring a bell? I can prove this to you in another thread if you'd like? Call it perhaps, “Are gentiles supposed to convert”?

Saying something is Jewish is anti semitic.. --I had no idea. So, Jews who call their writings, Jewish writings, or their books-Talmud and Zohar, Jewish books....are being anti semitic. .... ....

As far as the anti-semitic accusation----how completely messianic and HR of you, and how very predictable.. I don't get called that by the ADL, or Jews for Judaism--who have read my site, Jewish Christians, Jews for Jesus, Jewish members of this forum, nor my Jewish friends.....wonder why that is....

Mike

Quote: ...Correct, I do not agree with the formation of Messianic Judaism nor it's 2 House philosophies. I do however agree with HR. Not the kind of HR that Ignatius promoted though. You really should be more open minded.

Actually Mikey, I prefer to "have the mind of Christ" and be Scripturally focused---which is the standard of our beliefs. The Bible tends to be a bit "close minded" on many things. Like, allowing liars and deceivers and heretics and such to go unchallenged..

1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Php 1:27 Only let your manner of life be as it becomes the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

vic Wrote:

Quote:The HR forum...It's a Messianic/Hebraic Roots section on a Christian forum. And since you are clearly Hebraic Roots....you bring nothing new to the table. Same old, same old.

You aren't shunned--people were asking you direct questions, refuting what you say and you give attitude instead of valid responses. You were put on moderation because of attitude and violating forum rules.

truthseeker

Quote:I cannot type fast enough for all the alternate subjects everyone keeps bringing up. When you say “give attitude” are you saying you are offended by scripture I have posted inappropriately or was there something else in particular, please?

This doesn't even warrant an answer.

vic

Quote:This isn't just a request. It is a requirement. Or you will proceed no further, since you clearly toss aside copyright law.

Quote:Vic, lighten up will you. Can you see your wrong in your misjudged assumptions? Do you suppose an apology is in order now?

It's too late for you to try and publicly apologise now Mikey. You blew it. Wrong assumptions? I was dead on about you. As were the others.

vic

Quote: ....In your moderated new thread,"Was the Law Abolished?" you also showed total lack of respect by your first comment, "Does censorship prevail here, or can each read for themselves? "

Mike

Quote:Perhaps I was a bit insensitive in that comment. It came about because of the constant threats from your moderators on posting anything contrary to what they/you believe. The only way truth can prevail is for an open forum. Otherwise we grasp socialism.

No one threatened you, and the forum is loaded with posts that show disagreement with admins or moderator. It is total garbage to suggest you couldn't post what you have posted---obviously...you have posts on this forum....Did you forget that?

You came with a chip on your shoulder---as per your very first post----Almost afraid to post....Defensive and offensive...and you didn't skip a beat in that attitude.

Truth does prevail because it is not based on opinion, or people or writings which reject Jesus Christ .....it is based on the truth of the Scriptures and Jesus Christ.

vic Wrote:

Quote:Let's be clear....you are under moderation. And it is because of your snarky attitude, violation of and lack of respect for the forum rules and other posters, including admins. You have not come to discuss. You think you are here to correct and teach that which you do not even understand, and you feel you can sweep aside anything you don't like and treat it like wasted information.

Mike

Quote:I saw no forum rules that specified kjv only. None that stated you are not allowed to post alternate opinions in the HR forum. But plenty of snide remarks. As I stated earlier I will get around to answering you or anyone else that asks of me.

You have such disjointed thoughts throughout this, I can't help but laugh. Your pattern of behavior is almost comical. I am not sure how you jumped from what I said to "I saw no forum rules that specified kjv only. " I guess the truth of the statements make you want to change topic.

That would be because there is no such rule and there never has been. Copyright law on all versions require an accurate rendering of the verses--or it is violation of copyright LAW.

Using any version requires that. The difference with use of the KJV is because I have it posted on my site and on this forum that is what I use. This is not rocket science. Quote things correctly, and show source.

As far as being allowed to post alternate opinions--read the rules and the ones I reposted for you. It's not a hard concept. You have been allowed to post. Now you can't because of violation of forum rules and total disrepect to the forum and the admins. It's not hard to comprehend. Then You wouldn't answer the questions I required of you. It was your choice. You were honored for your choice.

Now you don't need to worry about answering and ignoring what others were saying to you in refutation for your erroneous beliefs.