God's seventh-day Sabbath: Its not Sunday.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Why is it that the Orthodox Jews and the Muslims are awaiting the arrival of the Messiah to rebuild the Third Temple, then?

Just because they came up with a plan to build a temple does not mean it was ever prophesied.

Prophecy is being fulfilled right before our very eyes.

See my comment above.

It is written into Holy Writ repeatedly that a Third Temple will be rebuilt.

Nope, it never does. Every mention of a temple not already fulfilled by the rebuilt temple after the Babylonian captivity is built by God, which rules out any man-make projects no matter how elaborate or expensive.

We are living witnesses to prophecy, and will likely see the Third Temple be rebuilt in our lifetimes.

Except that there is no such prophecy.

It's happening already. It's not a matter of "if", but a matter of "when". The groundwork and the plans have already been arranged to rebuild the Third Temple.

It either has to be built on the plan of Herod's temple, or the temple of Ezekiel, which one is it? It can't be both.

The number "3" is repeatedly utilized throughout the Bible for a reason. It has enormous significance. And, there is plenty of biblical and rabbinical evidence to support the rebuilding of a Third Temple, despite your baseless opinions to the contrary.

That is just more of your cult indoctrination coming through. None of those things mean anything.

No, when the Bible refers to the Temple, it refers to the Temple in Jerusalem, not in Rome. Nice try. We must not be reading the same book.

The book of Acts has Paul going to Athens and talking about the temples and shrines there, so that blows your theory away.

Uh, no. There have already been two literal Temples in Jerusalem already. A Third will be here soon enough. See above.

Except that the Bible never mentions a third temple that is a literal physical temple. The one in Revelation is made in heaven and Jesus and God live in it.

reply to post by tinfoilman

These are the only laws of the OT a Gentile had to follow to be right with God and assured a place in the afterlife.

There is no such law of Noah in the Bible.
That was something that was invented more recently by Jewish rabbis to enslave the rest of humanity and to kill all those who will not accept their servitude.

. . . falsely worshiping on the Sabbath . . .

The Sabbath according to the Ten Commandments was a day off for your employees, and had nothing to do with worshiping other than realizing that God expects you to treat your fellow man properly.
If there are self-proclaimed "Jews" worshiping the Sabbath then they are committing idolatry.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

Assembling to worship God in the New Covenant on Sunday is part of keeping God's Commandment.

That only works as long as you believe that "God's Law" is determined by human councils.
Like you said, "the truth" is a lot of Christians think that Sunday is the Lord's Day, but it is only because they haven't had anyone tell them the real truth, which is that this belief is only based on half-truths maintained by people interested in their own status quo based on human authority.
True faithfulness to God overlooks human pretenders to being worthy of worship.

Jim

I said something nice about your name in an earlier post and I didn't see a response?

"A lot of Christians", records reveal the numbers are in the billions....

Who determined your beliefs? God revealed to you personally millions of Christians and earlier, the first Christians Catholics, gathered on Sunday to worship God in the highest form of worship, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in all the thousands of Catholic Churches and Cathedrals that dot the planet worldwide...are wrong?


God bless you jd,

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

I just posted 10 verses that show the first Christians gathered on Sunday to worship God, honoring Our Lord's Day of resurrection.

But you didn't show anything that says that Sunday was ever made The Lord's Day.
People gathered for certain occasions, according to the verses you provided but they are not described as being on the first day as anyway connected to the resurrection.

The "first day of the week" is Sunday and they met on the "Lord's Day."

That is you saying it was on The Lord's Day. In the verses, it just says the first day of the week.

edit on 24-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

"Sunday" wasn't a term back then, Christians are aware, they know what the "first day of the week" is...

Martin Luther's got you believing in his heresy of Sola Scriptura. I shared already, it has been revealed
orally, passed down from the Apostles. Just because the two aren't written together in Scripture..."the first day of the week" and John's "the Lord's Day" doesn't make what we know about their meaning not true. Believe the Apostles, you can. Maybe, a quote from an Apostolic Father would help you to believe. I'll look for one.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by Lee78

 

Holy crap, is this thread still going? Anyway, first there is more than one type of Sabbath, but the 7th day Sabbath you're referring to is and always was Saturday. But that Sabbath was only given to the Israelites along with many of the other 613 laws in the OT.

They were only to be followed by the Israelites as God wanted to make them his chosen holy people and different than any other people. Everyone else, were called Gentiles and only had seven laws to follow. The Seven Laws of Noah or the Noahide Laws as they are called are as follows.

The prohibition of Idolatry.
The prohibition of Murder.
The prohibition of Theft.
The prohibition of Sexual immorality.
The prohibition of Blasphemy.
The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

Seven Laws of Noah

These are the only laws of the OT a Gentile had to follow to be right with God and assured a place in the afterlife. Some would refer to these as the moral laws that everyone has to follow.

The extra ritual laws and dietary laws in the OT for the Israelites were only supposed to be followed by the Israelites. One of those laws was observing the Sabbath. Gentiles were NOT SUPPOSED to observe the Sabbath.

Many Israelite writings, Jews, Rabbis, and so forth have even called for the death of any Gentile that ritually observes the Sabbath or tries to follow other parts of the OT law because the Sabbath and the ritual laws ARE NOT FOR THEM. It and the other ritual OT laws like circumcision were ONLY FOR Israelites to make them special.

But the Sabbath was only a shadow of things to come. Those things to come were Jesus and the New Covenant that both Jews and Gentiles could take place in. They were all going to be one happy family now right?

There's just one problem. The OT law and God's law DOESN'T CHANGE. It CAN'T CHANGE. Therefore Gentiles still aren't allowed to ritually observe the Sabbath, get circumcised and so forth. So, the early church leaders had a problem? What do we do now?

Well the early church leaders decided that Gentiles didn't have to convert to Judaism to take place in the NT Covenant. Which is correct. They're not supposed to observe the Sabbath, they're not supposed to get circumcised. They don't have dietary restrictions. They can eat whatever they want.

They ONLY have to follow to the NT law. Because there is no Jew or Gentile under the OT law so nobody under the NT has to follow the Jewish only parts of the law. But there's a problem. If there's no Jews how do we observe the Sabbath? Only Jews are supposed to do so?

Simple, we worship on Sunday instead, the Lord's Day. Now we don't have to kill any Gentiles for falsely worshiping on the Sabbath when only the Jewish people are supposed to be doing that.

tfm, I like your avatar pic...

The Old has been fulfilled. Believe Our Lord's words, this is the New Testament.


Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

reply to post by colbe

I said something nice about your name in an earlier post and I didn't see a response?

Maybe because that isn't my name. Some people might think so, seeing the JM and inserting a vowel.That comes from an old email address I used back when I first started going online (still use, though no one on this forum needs to email me since we have Private Messaging here). Dewey is a "borrowed" name to make the address more "unique", since just JM is a bit common, and "60" was a automatic suggestion from the email provider. The "J" is the initial for Jon.

"A lot of Christians", records reveal the numbers are in the billions....

That is rather convenient for your side of the argument but I don't see it as in any way being persuasive, considering the "wide path" described by Jesus that leads to destruction.

"Sunday" wasn't a term back then, Christians are aware, they know what the "first day of the week" is...

The days of the week have always been associated with the supposed "seven planets" as long as there has been recorded history, and always the same "planet" for each day, all the way to this day.

Martin Luther's got you believing in his heresy of Sola Scriptura.

It's not just that. I have studied enough of the history of the early church to know that there is no Apostolic Succession since the priesthood was broken by the deaths from the Arian controversy where the church had to go far out into the hinterland to recruit pagan priests to fill in for the Christian ones killed for supposed "heresy" by one side or the other.

Just because the two aren't written together in Scripture..."the first day of the week" and John's "the Lord's Day" doesn't make what we know about their meaning not true. Believe the Apostles, you can. Maybe, a quote from an Apostolic Father would help you to believe. I'll look for one.

It isn't in any other documents, either. If there was documented evidence to the contrary, I suppose that it would have been destroyed by the "authorities".

reply to post by colbe

The Old has been fulfilled. Believe Our Lord's words, this is the New Testament.

Well yes, but my point was, even before the NT Gentiles weren't required to follow much of the OT law anyway like dietary laws and such. Now we have the NT, So, I don't know why everyone is always still arguing about it. Gentiles could eat pork even back in OT times and still get into Heaven. Why is everyone on my case about it now?

The vast majority of the parts of the OT Covenants basically amounted to what you'd call a land contract for Israel and had nothing to do with getting into Heaven. I think that's what confuses most people.

Col. 2:13-16: “[God] kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us . . . Therefore let no man judge you in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath.

The Mosaic Law commanded that no work be done on the Sabbath. The same Mosaic Law also commanded that anyone breaking the Sabbath be stoned. Why do those who support the part of the Mosaic law that commands keeping the Sabbath choose to ignore the part about the whole congregation killing offenders of it by stoning?

It is indeed a good thing that we are no longer under that Mosaic Law as regards keeping the Sabbath or stoning those who break it. The Mosaic law was "blotted out", wiped clean. It is clear that an approved standing with God no longer requires observance of the sabbath requirement given to Israel.

reply to post by Sparky63

It is clear that an approved standing with God no longer requires observance of the sabbath requirement given to Israel.

So then would you recommend that people who have employees working for them require them to work seven days a week?
God says that is a sin against your workers, which I would guess still applies even if we don't live in a camp in the Sinai desert where we have to stone people for infractions.

reply to post by tinfoilman

The vast majority of the parts of the OT Covenants basically amounted to what you'd call a land contract for Israel and had nothing to do with getting into Heaven.

That "contract" is not convertible to anyone who wants to claim it.
The Lord said He would renew it from one generation to the next by reaffirming it with whoever was the inheritor of that birthright.
Seeing how God, or anyone else of a divine nature, has not shown up to reconfirm the "contract", it has to be considered null and void.
It has been replaced in an expanded version which incorporates everyone in the world. The old one does not still exist in its former form.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You have to be careful which one you're talking about. There are seven covenants in the Bible. Not two.

If you're talking about the Mosaic Covenant God already considers it null and void because it had been broken too many times by the Jews.

Jeremiah 31:31
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

reply to post by jmdewey60


God even predicted it would happen.

Deuteronomy 31
15 Then the Lord appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. 16 And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. 17 And in that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and calamities will come on them, and in that day they will ask, ‘Have not these disasters come on us because our God is not with us?’ 18 And I will certainly hide my face in that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.

He said when it happened he was not going to come down and renew anything every generation. Instead he said he was going to "hide his face from them".

So, that's what he did. Hid his face from them.

reply to post by tinfoilman

There are seven covenants in the Bible.

Were you planning on going anywhere with that?
The Old Testament is the book of the covenant, supposedly between God and this particular tribal confederation.
Well, nice little stories, in a Medieval sort of way, but nothing that pertains to the present world.
There are certain psychopathic people who (wrongly) believe it is still relevant, who are more dangerous than any sort of Al Qaeda bugaboo, calling themselves Israel.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

There are seven covenants in the Bible.

Were you planning on going anywhere with that?
The Old Testament is the book of the covenant, supposedly between God and this particular tribal confederation.
Well, nice little stories, in a Medieval sort of way, but nothing that pertains to the present world.
There are certain psychopathic people who (wrongly) believe it is still relevant, who are more dangerous than any sort of Al Qaeda bugaboo, calling themselves Israel.

Well we both agree there.

The ones in the Bible are metaphorical "heavenly" temples. Physical, man-made temples on the ground cannot fulfill those predictions.

The Temple in Jerusalem - both Solomon's Temple and Herod's - were both real life, physical buildings. Not imaginary make-believe.

Synagogue tradition would allow a guest to read the Prophets scroll, while the rabbi would read the Torah.

The Torah was still primary.

Maybe if you have a very broad definition for Torah, where it can mean any kind of law. If you mean the Old Testament Law of Moses, then no, there is no support for that theory in the Bible.

Christ taught the finer more spiritual aspects of Torah. By the time Christ arrived on the scene, the Torah had been polluted with arcane rules and man-made traditions. Christ sought to remove these obstacles and blinders, as Christ considered these traditions and rules harmful.

I think that the idea that Sunday was somehow a "Christian Sabbath" came from the Puritans.

Constantine. The earliest Jewish followers all followed traditional Sabbath observance until the pagan Gentile Church overruled their smaller numbers. The earliest Jewish followers of Christ were all Torah observant.

Jesus said, it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, it is what comes out of his mouth.

Yes, that is true, as I have already noted. But Christ never said to go ahead and eat pork and all other unhealthy animals either. Gentile Christians misinterpret Christ to give credence to eating ham, pork, and all manner of unclean animals, all of which are very harmful to one's health. Christ never abolished the kosher laws altogether - He just expounded upon the additional spiritual dimension of kashrut --- i.e., that we need to be careful with our words.

It actually says those things in the gospels, like, "Hail Mary, full of grace." You may not like that but the Bible supports those things including the saints.

The First Commandment prohibits idolatry. The Jews and Muslims understand this, but apparently Catholics do not. And the Catholics have all kinds of ways to tiptoe around the subject to act as if it is just fine to pray to statues and intercessors, when G-d makes it quite clear in the First Commandment that idolatry is not allowed. Somehow, the Catholic Church missed the memo from G-d about monotheism.

"Logos" is the Greek word in John 1 that usually gets translated as "word". Logos in the Greek Old Testament is used 122 times to mean prophecy.

"Miltha" in Aramaic, referring to Christ's words and actions that demonstrated the word and will of G-d which upholds Torah observance. The pagans turn this concept on its heels.

You come up with stuff that fits cult teaching perfectly and are not things someone would come up with on their own by just reading the Bible.

Unfortunately, false accusations and slander are not effective arguments. Since you cannot focus on the topics under debate, nor can you provide factual nor scriptural basis for your baseless opinions, all you can can do instead is make false and unsubstantiated accusations. How very ecumenical of you.

Plans get changed all the time according to the Bible, so you are just making up a rule to apply exclusively to the things that you want to preserve as an everlasting tradition.

G-d doesn't change. He keeps His promises.

Only if you consider the NT a complete lie, and if so, there is no Jesus to be "perverted".

I consider the paganism and false teachings of the Gentile Church to be the perversions. Christ made it abundantly clear that He was very much in favor of the Torah, despite misguided Gentile Christian beliefs to the contrary.

Christ never said to celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. He never advocated praying the Rosary, nor wearing a scapular. Christ would be appalled at statues and idolatry. He didn't celebrate Christmas or Easter, and Christ never prayed to intercessors.

He was talking about his law, the fundamental law of God, according to his interpretation.

As a Jewish rabbi, the Law He would be referring to is called the Torah.

Just because they came up with a plan to build a temple does not mean it was ever prophesied.

It is prophesied multiple times in the Bible, including the latter part of the Book of Ezekiel. I have already quoted several instances in Scripture.

You have yet to quote a single instance in the Bible that states clearly and concisely that there will be no Third Temple. Once again, all we have is your opinion with no evidence to back up your false claims.

Except that there is no such prophecy.

Again, your refusal to cite facts or evidence to the contrary is quite apparent. Read the Book of Ezekiel, the latter portion, which describes the Third Temple in extreme detail. This is not some imaginary vision as you believe, but the actual Third Temple.

It either has to be built on the plan of Herod's temple, or the temple of Ezekiel, which one is it? It can't be both.

Herod's Temple was the Second Temple and was destroyed by the Romans. Ezekiel's Temple is the Third Temple. Solomon's was the First Temple. Read your Bible yourself, and quit misquoting me. Good grief.

That is just more of your cult indoctrination coming through. None of those things mean anything.

Yes, when you cannot argue on facts or logic, you result to slander instead. I won't bother to explain, as it would be far too advanced for you to understand.

The book of Acts has Paul going to Athens and talking about the temples and shrines there, so that blows your theory away.

Uh, no. Again, we aren't reading the same book. It's quite apparent.

Except that the Bible never mentions a third temple that is a literal physical temple. The one in Revelation is made in heaven and Jesus and God live in it.

See above. You really need to do some more reading of Holy Writ.

God doesn't care if you take Sunday off, OK? In fact, go ahead and bang in sick on Monday too.
, because he doesn't care. And why do we always refer to God as he? He could be a she...

reply to post by CookieMonster09

"Miltha" in Aramaic, referring to Christ's words and actions that demonstrated the word and will of G-d which upholds Torah observance.

The Gospel of John was not written in Aramaic, it was written in Greek.
So the word used in the original was Logos, which also shows up in the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the Old Testament, and what Jesus would have read, living in gentile territory all his life.

Unfortunately, false accusations and slander are not effective arguments.

The source of your information is pertinent to the argument. You seem to be a cult member by the way you treat certain things that can only be a matter of opinion as if they were facts. This type of behavior comes devotion to a cult leader where the follower is mesmerized by someone who presents themselves as authoritative, so everything he says is accepted as if it was coming straight out of the mouth of God.

G-d doesn't change. He keeps His promises.

The evidence suggests otherwise. The promises were conditional. Jesus was the one who eventually met the criteria for receiving the gifts of the promise and through him they were dispersed throughout the world to those who believe in him.

Christ made it abundantly clear that He was very much in favor of the Torah, despite misguided Gentile Christian beliefs to the contrary.

It is the New Testament itself that contradicts that, not the work of a later church "perverting" beliefs about Jesus.

God's seventh-day Sabbath: Its not Sunday


To answer the thread's title, we follow a pagan based calendar in which the days are named after the planets, the moon, and the sun. If you are following the Sabbath day, you should not based on a pagan calendar, rather you should trace it all the way back to Moses' time.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

You really need to do some more reading of Holy Writ.

I don't have a problem reading the Bible.
Your problem does not come from reading the Bible but listening to self-proclaimed Jews in the midst of your congregation who are working to subvert Christianity.
You have these beliefs that cannot possibly be arrived at by just someone reading the Bible on their own.
There is a human hand guiding you to look at certain verses and to accept a certain interpretation of them.
The persons doing that have an agenda and it is not concern for the salvation of your soul.