The Sabbath verses Sunday

[sparow]

Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ picked by the Lord Himself and testified among the apostles ( Acts 9:27, from the overall account of Acts 9:1-27).

​

I regard Acts as historical as are the Talmuds, but just because things happen it does not necessarily mean God is pleased. Acts 9, does not convince me that I am not reading about the great deception Christ warned Peter of.

 

[pasifika]

So you just reject scripture you disagree with. Not a good thing to do.

i don't reject scriptures, cos i don't disagree with them. so, i don't know how you come to the conclusion that i disagree and reject scriptures.

 

[Lukaris]

I regard Acts as historical as are the Talmuds, but just because things happen it does not necessarily mean God is pleased. Acts 9, does not convince me that I am not reading about the great deception Christ warned Peter of.

The Lord warned Peter that he would deny the Lord 3 times before the rooster crowed on Friday morning ( this is in Luke 22:31-62 etc.). The main reason I hi light Luke is that Luke also wrote the book of Acts as he was telling his friend: Theophilus ( see Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1). Also note that Peter confirms the authority of Paul’s preaching ( 2 Peter 3:13-18).

 

[sparow]

The Lord warned Peter that he would deny the Lord 3 times before the rooster crowed on Friday morning ( this is in Luke 22:31-62 etc.). The main reason I hi light Luke is that Luke also wrote the book of Acts as he was telling his friend: Theophilus ( see Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1). Also note that Peter confirms the authority of Paul’s preaching ( 2 Peter 3:13-18).

You assume Peter and Luke were not deceived; I assume they were. I begin doubting Paul, you do not.

 

[HIM]

I regard Acts as historical as are the Talmuds, but just because things happen it does not necessarily mean God is pleased. Acts 9, does not convince me that I am not reading about the great deception Christ warned Peter of.

The issue is you think Paul contradicts Jesus? What is it you think is the biggest?
Incidentally Jesus did not wright any of the Bible "Physically". Matthew, John, Mark, Luke and Peter did. No prophesy concerning them and they "physically" wrote the NT, not Jesus.

 

[Lukaris]

You assume Peter and Luke were not deceived; I assume they were. I begin doubting Paul, you do not.

I am sorry that you do not understand the New Testament. I would consider comparing the situations of 2 Sauls and the line of King David. In the Old Testament, King Saul failed to suppress King David. In the New Testament, another Saul tried to break the faith of those who worshiped the Son of God of the line of David. Yet the second Saul became Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ.

 

[Gary K]

i don't reject scriptures, cos i don't disagree with them. so, i don't know how you come to the conclusion that i disagree and reject scriptures.

You think you know truth better than God. Therefore you reject scripture. To reject scripture is to not believe it.

 

[sparow]

I am sorry that you do not understand the New Testament. I would consider comparing the situations of 2 Sauls and the line of King David. In the Old Testament, King Saul failed to suppress King David. In the New Testament, another Saul tried to break the faith of those who worshiped the Son of God of the line of David. Yet the second Saul became Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ.

I genuinely appreciate your concern, but I believe it is misplaced. There are things I know, for example, I know that if I were raised and indoctrinated as an Orthodox, I would believe what you believe; if I were raised and indoctrinated into the Catholic Religion I would believe what they believe; if I were raised as a Muslim I would believe what they believe; if I were raised and indoctrinated as a Jew I would believe what they believe. God is looking for overcomers, Israelites.

The Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first Pope, I am not aware Peter ever called himself Father, or assumed the authority of God; Paul may not have used the “F”word, but he did refer to his congregation as his little children, and by abrogating circumcision he made them gentiles eternally.

Paul was the first Vicar of Christ, in sheep's clothing.

 

[Lukaris]

I genuinely appreciate your concern, but I believe it is misplaced. There are things I know, for example, I know that if I were raised and indoctrinated as an Orthodox, I would believe what you believe; if I were raised and indoctrinated into the Catholic Religion I would believe what they believe; if I were raised as a Muslim I would believe what they believe; if I were raised and indoctrinated as a Jew I would believe what they believe. God is looking for overcomers, Israelites.

The Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first Pope, I am not aware Peter ever called himself Father, or assumed the authority of God; Paul may not have used the “F”word, but he did refer to his congregation as his little children, and by abrogating circumcision he made them gentiles eternally.

Paul was the first Vicar of Christ, in

I genuinely appreciate your concern, but I believe it is misplaced. There are things I know, for example, I know that if I were raised and indoctrinated as an Orthodox, I would believe what you believe; if I were raised and indoctrinated into the Catholic Religion I would believe what they believe; if I were raised as a Muslim I would believe what they believe; if I were raised and indoctrinated as a Jew I would believe what they believe. God is looking for overcomers, Israelites.

The Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first Pope, I am not aware Peter ever called himself Father, or assumed the authority of God; Paul may not have used the “F”word, but he did refer to his congregation as his little children, and by abrogating circumcision he made them gentiles eternally.

Paul was the first Vicar of Christ, in sheep's clothing.

I wasn’t raised Orthodox but in a combined Methodist and Presbyterian congregation. How such a formation could be rationalized is a mystery to me. Basically, I walked away in my teens, I really came to faith around turning 40 when I was about to deny the Lord and then realized to do so would be hating God & every person living ( John 3:16-21, Matthew 22:36-40, Ephesians 2:8-10 etc.).

I have no idea where you rationalize Paul as a deceiver. Personally I believe Paul told Luke much of what is in the gospel of Luke & Acts. Since Luke’s gospel is among the Synoptics, I fail to see Paul as a deceiver. It reaches a point as to why bother being Christian?

There is a good inspiring movie of a perspective on the evangelical relationship of Paul & Luke. It is called Paul: Aposle of Christ. This is no feel good movie; the persecutions of Nero are the overall setting. There are people being immolated, tortured etc. although there is no gore.

Paul, Apostle of Christ - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[sparow]

I wasn’t raised Orthodox but in a combined Methodist and Presbyterian congregation. How such a formation could be rationalized is a mystery to me. Basically, I walked away in my teens, I really came to faith around turning 40 when I was about to deny the Lord and then realized to do so would be hating God & every person living ( John 3:16-21, Matthew 22:36-40, Ephesians 2:8-10 etc.).

I have no idea where you rationalize Paul as a deceiver. Personally I believe Paul told Luke much of what is in the gospel of Luke & Acts. Since Luke’s gospel is among the Synoptics, I fail to see Paul as a deceiver. It reaches a point as to why bother being Christian?

There is a good inspiring movie of a perspective on the evangelical relationship of Paul & Luke. It is called Paul: Aposle of Christ. This is no feel good movie; the persecutions of Nero are the overall setting. There are people being immolated, tortured etc. although there is no gore.

Paul, Apostle of Christ - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I have a Presbyterian origin, my parent were never practicing except for births deaths and marriages; in those days' religions were required for identity. Apart from what Presbyterians teach to eight-year old's, I never knew what they taught; I did hear while in high school some of their criticism of the RCC. I have always regarded myself to be a Christian.

Rationalizing Paul as a deceiver began ten after the fact, using SDA metaphor, a door was definitely shut.

I have heard Seminary types question Paul, say things like, all women have to do to be saved is to have babies, and those with the different gospel that Paul threatened to curse, were Peter and James and others from the Jerusalem church, I have not heard anyone other than myself call him a deceiver. Deceiver is a conclusion I reach after being told to disregard him.

“It reaches a point as to why bother being Christian” What is a Christian? Is Paul required in the definition? What does the word “synoptic mean to you? I am not familiar with religious jargon. Even apart from Paul, I always allow that the NT has been edited and is only true when it complies with the OT as a second witness. If Paul had never happened, would it then be possible to follow Christ?

Hypothetically, if the angel of light that sent Paul was Satan, then Paul's actions against the Pagans mentioned in Acts would be enough to convert Goebbels. The deceiver had to be good enough to deceive the very elect.

How would one test an apostle, Rev 2:2, it vary with the situation, I believe, if the apostle was ten times taller than Christ and more important he would need to be introduced early in Genesis, and in every other book, i.e. Paul in all the scriptures. For me, given his importance and the worship he receives, I would need to be forewarned of Paul at least once in the OT prophesies.

 

[Lukaris]

I have a Presbyterian origin, my parent were never practicing except for births deaths and marriages; in those days' religions were required for identity. Apart from what Presbyterians teach to eight-year old's, I never knew what they taught; I did hear while in high school some of their criticism of the RCC. I have always regarded myself to be a Christian.

Rationalizing Paul as a deceiver began ten after the fact, using SDA metaphor, a door was definitely shut.

I have heard Seminary types question Paul, say things like, all women have to do to be saved is to have babies, and those with the different gospel that Paul threatened to curse, were Peter and James and others from the Jerusalem church, I have not heard anyone other than myself call him a deceiver. Deceiver is a conclusion I reach after being told to disregard him.

“It reaches a point as to why bother being Christian” What is a Christian? Is Paul required in the definition? What does the word “synoptic mean to you? I am not familiar with religious jargon. Even apart from Paul, I always allow that the NT has been edited and is only true when it complies with the OT as a second witness. If Paul had never happened, would it then be possible to follow Christ?

Hypothetically, if the angel of light that sent Paul was Satan, then Paul's actions against the Pagans mentioned in Acts would be enough to convert Goebbels. The deceiver had to be good enough to deceive the very elect.

How would one test an apostle, Rev 2:2, it vary with the situation, I believe, if the apostle was ten times taller than Christ and more important he would need to be introduced early in Genesis, and in every other book, i.e. Paul in all the scriptures. For me, given his importance and the worship he receives, I would need to be forewarned of Paul at least once in the OT prophesies.

Synoptic just refers to the basic shared common content of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, & Luke. John is equal to the other Gospels and has more unique content.

As far as the stuff Paul says about women becoming saved by child bearing or being silent in church etc. these are the weakest parts in his epistles. They are also probably reflective of the greater & regrettable social reality of women in the ancient world. These are also extremely brief points in his overall writings.

The main accounts of Paul and pagans I recall from Acts seem harmless like at Lystra in Acts 14:8-19, Ephesus in Acts 19:1-41, Athens in Acts 17:16-34. Compare the account of Peter & Ananias & Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11.

I fail to see where Paul contradicts the Gospels when he preaches. For ex. the deity of Jesus Christ in John 1:1-5, John 1:14-18 compare to Colossians 1:15-18. The Lord’s resurrection; compare Matthew 28:1-20 to 1 Corinthians 15:1-58. The Lord’s commandments; compare Matthew 19:16-19 & John 14:15-18 to Romans 13:8-10. Salvation by grace; compare John 15:1-27 to Ephesians 2:8-18 etc.

I have no understanding that the New Testament was edited. Some writings were either considered as revelation or not.

 

[sparow]

I am aware that there are differences between the Gospels, without knowing what they are, and that these are normally considered to be insignificant. I have heard people speak of editing, so others have noticed it. The Gospels were first written down about 30 years after Jesus' death; the earliest copies available today are 30 years later again, the newest copies are around 300 AD. Not that there is anything wrong with the story of Mary Magdalene, but in one Gospels that story appears for the first time around 300 AD. The problem with malicious editing, one would not know where it was.

I do not recall, if I ever knew, what upset the spirit that dwells in me; if it was contradiction it would be subtle and subjective and subject to interpretation. I expect the problem is more to do usurping the authority of the Father or replacing Jesus as teacher. Paul does not have to say anything wrong, he only needs to be an alien installing himself as mediator.

What Paul does or says could prove him false, but not true, for the same logical reason a negative hypotheses can not be proven.

My reference to Paul engaging Pagans in Acts was a reaction to a you-tube I had just watch that promoted Paul as hero.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Keeping Sunday does not fulfil the commands requirement.

The Fourth Commandment (biblehub.com)


The Catholic Church's main doctrine is “the Law is abrogated”; it then provides a substitute Law, that produces a form of righteousness. Protestants also abrogate the Law, but for most part they do not have a substitute Law and are Lawless.


Some English churches use the Westminster Confession which does not abrogate God's Law, yet they keep Sunday thinking that is Lawful.


Keeping the Sabbath-day, like repenting and marriage, requires the presence of God; it is not for me to say whether God would or wouldn't be present on Sunday, but it seems to me Sunday is an enormous gamble.


What about seventh day keepers, is God automatically present, is God's presence a wrong assumption? It depends on the people I think; if two or more of His people gather in His name, He would be there regardless of the day.​

Where two or more are gathered in His name, Jesus is there. There is no particular time or day. My wife and I had communion Monday evening. At home. It was a blessed time.

 

[sparow]

Where two or more are gathered in His name, Jesus is there. There is no particular time or day. My wife and I had communion Monday evening. At home. It was a blessed time.

Matt. 18:18, Amen I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on ! earth shall be bound in heaven ! And what things soever ye shall loose on ! Earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Things is a word without a Strong number it is added by translators.

Jesus repeats this, using different words.

Matt. 18:19, Again, Amen, I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on ! Earth as touching anything they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my ! Father who is in the heavens.

Verse 20, says Jesus will be there; but these verses do not give license to change the day, the time, the Law or the purpose.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Matt. 18:18, Amen I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on ! earth shall be bound in heaven ! And what things soever ye shall loose on ! Earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Things is a word without a Strong number it is added by translators.

Jesus repeats this, using different words.

Matt. 18:19, Again, Amen, I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on ! Earth as touching anything they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my ! Father who is in the heavens.

Verse 20, says Jesus will be there; but these verses do not give license to change the day, the time, the Law or the purpose.

Well, Jesus is always with me. Or this that against your legalistic interpretation of God's word too? I could not be more blessed in this lifetime. When the church gathers in Jesus' name, whatever time it is, He has promised to be there. Would you forbid someone meeting on a Monday? The early church met in each other's homes and in the temple courts every day.

"With one accord they continued to meet daily in the temple courts and to break bread from house to house, sharing their meals with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

You should tell God that He should not have blessed the early church. They were not following the Law!

The early church was fully alive and in unity. Legalism is one of the the best ways to put an end to God's blessing.

 

[sparow]

Well, Jesus is always with me. Or this that against your legalistic interpretation of God's word too? I could not be more blessed in this lifetime. When the church gathers in Jesus' name, whatever time it is, He has promised to be there. Would you forbid someone meeting on a Monday? The early church met in each other's homes and in the temple courts every day.

"With one accord they continued to meet daily in the temple courts and to break bread from house to house, sharing their meals with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

You should tell God that He should not have blessed the early church. They were not following the Law!

The early church was fully alive and in unity. Legalism is one of the the best ways to put an end to God's blessing.

It sounds like it is your intention is to not bless me. If it would help, I will give you permission to meet on any day; I cannot guarantee Jesus will be there.

The 4th commandment and the Sabbath, is an entirely different thing; you do not need my permission to keep the Sabbath.

 

[HIM]

Where two or more are gathered in His name, Jesus is there. There is no particular time or day. My wife and I had communion Monday evening. At home. It was a blessed time.

Praise God! Where is Jesus when there is only one though?
What does the Bible say about that!

 

[Aussie Pete]

Praise God! Where is Jesus when there is only one though?
What does the Bible say about that!

Jesus said that He never leaves us or forsakes us as individuals. He dwells within. When we gather in His name, He is present among us, or in our midst as some versions put it. We do not have to pray for His presence. He's already there.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It sounds like it is your intention is to not bless me. If it would help, I will give you permission to meet on any day; I cannot guarantee Jesus will be there.

The 4th commandment and the Sabbath, is an entirely different thing; you do not need my permission to keep the Sabbath.

Jesus promised to be with us when we meet in His name. I do not recall any mention of the sabbath in that statement. See, I died to the Law. Now I live to God. Galatians 2:19. I expect that is in your bible too. If not, throw it away and get the real one.

I do not need your permission in anything to do with the things of God. I would love to bless you with truth and grace. You reject that. You prefer what comes through Moses to that which comes through Jesus. That's in your hands, not mine.

 

[HIM]

Jesus said that He never leaves us or forsakes us as individuals. He dwells within. When we gather in His name, He is present among us, or in our midst as some versions put it. We do not have to pray for His presence. He's already there.

What is it to be gathered in His name?