Sunday -vs.- The Lord's Day
Sunday or Sabbath initiated (by TL and updated by TL):
January 2004, rescued from the defunct "Without The Camp" Message Board (destroyed by a hacker)
Lets start first by looking at the Lords day when
John, on the island of Patmos, was granted revelation by the Spirit of
God:
Rev. 1:10. " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day ".
By desperate measures people try to link this 'one and only' verse to
justify Sunday as the Lord's day. However, they have been unable
to come up with one
shred of proof to prove this to be so. Therefore, we conclude this
theology as assumption only, based entirely on traditional
hearsay. At its worse it is christianized Babylonianism! By
letting the Bible speak for itself
we see the Lord's Day, or the Day of the Lord, is future ... when the
Lord will have His day, by pouring out His wrath upon the earth 's
rebellious Christ- rejecting multitudes.
Today, is
our day!
The believers day!
The day of grace:
John. 4:23. "But the hour cometh, and
now is".
2 Co 6:2 ... "behold,
now is the accepted time; behold,
now is the day
of salvation."
Heb. 3:7 ..."as the Holy Ghost saith,
To day if ye will hear his voice".
Heb. 3:13. "But exhort one another
daily, while it is called
To day ".
Did you know that today it is still called
To day
as we have just read from Heb. 3:13! John was taken in the
Spirit, by vision, into the future (beyond To day/our day), where he
witnessed many horrific things coming to pass when the Lord would have
His day. How can a sound reasonable person argue against
this? Yet correctionists and traditionalists would still argue
that this
future day is Sunday without a one shred of biblical proof.
The sabbath, the seventh day principle, runs right through scripture.
By missing it we can unconsciously or unwittingly be dishonouring our Lord as Creator
as the scriptures cannot be broken:
God's principle ... work six days then rest, acknowledging our Maker
created the world in six days, then rested and consecrated the seventh
day. This is long before Abraham, before Israel became a nation,
before
the ten commandments were inscribed. If you can destroy this
principle,
then you would be able to destroy the whole Bible. However,
remember ... the scriptures cannot be broken, as Jesus
said. Man can only do this on paper (but not in reality) when he
manipulates the word to fit into his statement or article of faith, catechism, or dogma.
Babylon's principle ... pay homage first, then go out and work six
days. Using this principle there is no personal Creator to
acknowledge ... only a "higher power" who
demands unconditional allegiance first, along with formal
acknowledgement. In other words ... blind submission is needed in
order to gratify this notion/god and false doctrine. With no time
to
question nor window of opportunity left open, to weigh things
up, evaluate, or to draw your own conclusions. Just the run of the
mill religious way in doing things.
Now let's see what God says
about the beginning and the end: compared to mans distortion to
manufacture his own way in serving his god:
God's way ... Ecc. 7:8. "Better is the end of a thing than the beginning
thereof".
Babylon's way ... instant gratification. The NOW generation.
God's way ... honouring the God of Creation through received revelation.
Babylon's way ... venerating the sun, the evolving earth, through
early morning consecration or New Age 'cosmos consciousness'.
God's week ... sunset to sunset; Saturday evening
to the following Saturday evening (the sun diminishing - no 'sun giver
of light and life' to be side-tracked with here). The authority
used in this department ... the word of God.
Babylon's week ... sunrise to sunrise; Sunday
morning to the following Sunday morning (the sun appearing - to pay
homage to). The authority used in this department ... the
traditions of man.
Note: Jesus rose early on the first day (God's time) of the week (after
6.00 am Saturday evening) when the sun was going down. Metaphorically
speaking of the Sun of righteousness descending down into the Nether world,
snatching the keys of death and hell from the Devil, and freeing
Paradise and its occupants from its buried confinements in the bowels
of the earth.
The Sun of righteousness rising with healing in his wings (the Creator) was first on
the scene this day, beating the rising of the morning sun
(the creation), similar to (and principle to) the true light
arriving before the created sun in Genesis. After all, He made
it. He
controls it. Three days earlier He blotted it out, when the
Romans
sacrificed Him to their sun god on the cross. If you remember
rightly this was when the earth was
plunged into darkness as the Roman sun god had no control over the
events. Because this whole episode, from the anguish in the
garden, to
the cross, to Jesus' triumphant resurrection, was totally in God's plan
and purpose, without one hiccup, or a hitch on His part.
As the seventh day was a divine principle, Israel (His people) were
commanded to observe and consecrate it as unto the Lord, as a witness
to the world of Jehovah, their great Creator and God Almighty.
Who will re institute it
universally, by the way, during the millennium sabbath reign of King
Jesus on earth, after both the rapture of the Church and the Great
Tribulation have taken place. Here natural Israel will be that promised
light unto the world (replacing the translated light into the heavens - the raptured
church), before the new heavens and the new earth come
into being.
In regards to Sunday: This is a Protestant hangover after they
broke
away from the Church of Rome during the Reformation. It has been
the
main tie to Mother (along with communion observance and the clerical
system) since
they departed. Moreover, it has always been the bridge for the return of her
Daughters (the separated brethren), the Protestant denominations.
Of course, if you belong or are in liaison with Protestantism, you will
never be taught this. This message is only for those
who have or are prepared to step out of Christendom into the refreshing
wilderness and really know what it is to be walking by faith along the
pilgrim way, and not be bound by tradition and days.
Commandment 4)
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy"
We have already covered this one being fulfilled in the New when Jesus
said in Mark 2:27- 28:
"The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."
As
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (it is fully His jurisdiction) and has now
become our rest to enter into, He is now our sabbath day rest:
Heb. 4:8-9. "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not
afterward have spoken of
another day. There remaineth
(present tense) therefore a rest
to the people of God."
Is this "another day" not the
To day mentioned at the beginning of this post? Like ... "
To day if ye will hear his voice".
The following verses again had to be spelled out to Israel in the
flesh as they were limited to time and place in labour, worship, and
devotion to the Lord.
9. "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work
10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates:
11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed
the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
During the church age (the hallowed day of salvation- the day of grace
period)
when someone is born again, he is translated (spiritually) from this
present world system into the kingdom of God. He now has left one
sequence of conduct and mode to live under a new testament/covenant in
the kingdom
where Christ is king and His word is settled forever. Nothing
else
matters except the Lordship of Christ, prescribed to through what is now known as the
royal law (James 2:8). Who is Lord of the sabbath and
our rest to enter into, anyway?
However, because we are still physically in the world, we
temporary live here as pilgrims and strangers. Moreover, because we want to
live as His blameless representatives during our sojourning here we can
still respect and obey the worlds rules (without getting hung-up on
their rule book thing) when they don't conflict with God's.
Therefore, because our citizenship is in Heaven, the physical
shadow of God's law (like keeping a natural day) no longer applies. It
can't ... there are too many technicalities and discrepancies. In fact,
apart from not being able to keep the physical law alone, we run into
real problems with sabbath keeping due to society being governed by a
catholic calendar, leap years, the international date line, and so
forth. For instance ... is Saturday really Saturday? Will the first of
January year 2,000 or 2,001 accurately be the new millennium? If we are
leaving day six (six thousand years since creation) then when does day
seven (the millennium sabbath) kick-in for the thousand year rest with
Christ on earth? Very soon, yes! But when?
Matt. 24:36. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels of heaven, but my Father only."
To be precise; as believers (likened to our heavenly position
in Christ Jesus) there is a similarity, like going back before the sun
was created. Spinny? ... Not really! We are talking about not
being
governed by time here. So lets go back to Genesis chapter one,
when God said, "let there be
light". Here, time came into being, because we had light and
darkness dividing
the day ... day
one, day
two, day
three ... etc. However,
we still did not have
weeks, months, or years did we? But we did have light, even
though the sun had
not been created at this stage. Therefore, what caused the light
to shine before there was time and before the sun was created?
The answer is found here in 2 Cor. 4:6:
"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of
darkness
(Genesis), hath shined in our hearts
(New Covenant), to give
the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ."
Here
we see before there was time God's light was Christ. When we turn
to the book of
the Revelation of Jesus Christ we see this light is the light that
lights up heaven, just as it was before the sun was created. In
other words, time would have ceased by then and been replaced by
eternity:
Rev. 21:23. "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the
moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb
is the light thereof."
Rev. 22:5. "And there shall be no night there; and they need no
candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light:
and they shall reign for ever and ever
(eternally)."
Yes, it is obvious there will be no sun in Heaven. Therefore no time, then no weeks.
What do you mean here ... no weeks in Heaven?
You see, it was not until the day
four that God created the sun plus the rest of Creation. And for what purpose may I add?
Gen. 1: 14 ... "to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years".
Verse 15 to 16: "And let them be for lights in the firmament of
the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made
two great lights; the greater light
(the sun) to rule the day, and the
lesser light
(the sun's reflection off the moon) to rule the night: he
made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to
give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night ".
The Divine Light (verse 3 & 4) was now superseded with the
created light (the sun) carrying on time ... days, and seasons divided
into years. However, we still did not have weeks. Why? Because creation
was not complete until seven days! Doesn't this make sense?
By division of the day, time started to role on day one. Then it was
divided up into days, years and seasons (governed by months) on day
four. On day
six (go and read it all for yourself) man was created. Then on day
seven (the sabbath, the day after
man's day) the week became a completed reality.
Therefore, when someone is born again into Christ's kingdom, which is
also called the kingdom of light because it consists of light, there is
no sun or time as we have known it, because we are no longer
governed by days, and months, and times, and years. Spiritually,
there
is no natural seventh day. Because we enter that day where Christ
becomes our completion and our sabbath day rest.
In other words ... we were born on day
six into Adam, being governed by
time. Then on day
seven (the completion) we were reborn into the second
Adam no longer governed by time:
"This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell" ...
You can now say, "alelujah!!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
29/1/04
Much material in these last two posts are cuttings
from "The Day"
on the Radical Pilgrim:
Let's look at the two scriptures that are bent by Protestants to New Testamentalize
Sunday ... Here's the first one:
# 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."
This
event happening in Acts 20 was actually a Saturday evening, not
morning, when they came
together. And the bread (supper) was not eaten till sometime
after
Paul's speech (after midnight, verse 11) the next morning. Go on
...
check it out!? When you consider the 'evening supper' turned
'morning
breakfast' was unplanned, it changes everything eh! Yet, man has
turned this around to fit into his own tradition of Sunday
observance, which no longer fits in at all, now that we have rightly
divided the word of truth here! Hence, another sacred cow
dissipates into thin air.
Here's the next one:
# 1 Co r. 16:2. "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."
These were actually Jewish believers here in Corinthians who were used
to doing business on
the first day of the week, the Jewish day of reckoning, after the
sabbath. The collectors went from
house to house (not necessarily
that
evening) where the true remnant church was found (
no mention of gatherings that
day),
collecting for the brethren in another town who had been hit hard
by a famine. This had nothing to do with collecting tithes and
offerings
in an
auditorium ("why weren't they at church?" - naughty naughty!!!).
Nothing to do with responding to a mellowed sustained note
on an electronic keyboard, or crowd engineering. No, they went
from house to house collecting, not down the isle of the
"sanctuary"! Which means, folk were at home that day with their
families. Why would Jewish believers want to do anything else
that day apart from getting their business in order for the new week?
Furthermore, what happened to the money? Did it go to the
Pastor's bank account as wages or to the building fund or both?
Nay! We read clearly in Acts 11: 29-30 where it went:
"Then the disciples, every man according to his ability
(NB: not 10%), determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in
Judaea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of
Barnabas and Saul."
Therefore, how does the principle of the sabbath tie in under the New
Covenant?
From the Old Testament we see that the sabbath and circumcision are
related. F'instance, both were required with Abraham, the father of
our faith, and both were later incorporated into the law with Israel.
John. 7:22. "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it
is of Moses, but of the fathers -
meaning it was around before Moses) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a
man."
What do we learn from this? ...
Circumcision and
sabbath keeping went together. Right!
From the book of Romans and Galatians we can see clearly that
circumcision is not a requirement for salvation. What was it then?:
Circumcision: Rom. 4:11. "And he received the
sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet
being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that
believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be
imputed unto them also:
Circumcision was a sign ... first a natural sign for Israel in the
flesh as they were geographically separated unto Him. Now a spiritual
one for the Body of Christ, as we are spiritually separated unto Him.
In other words, as our flesh is now spiritually cut-off by being in
Christ, God now recognize us as being spiritually circumcised, set
apart for Him. Simply because there is no outward requirement necessary
under the New Cuv! Meaning, circumcision can't save!
Although, okay for medical or
health reasons only.
Sabbath: Ex. 31:17. "It is a
sign between me and the children of
Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on
the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Likewise, the Sabbath is also a sign ... first a natural sign for
Israel in the flesh as they were a ritualized worship unto Him. Now a
spiritual one for the Body of Christ, as we are a spiritual worship
unto Him.
Again, no outward requirement necessary. Meaning, sabbath day
keeping cannot save anyone! But okay if you want to put a
day aside for a sleep-in and tell the boss six days is enough grinding
at the wheel!
To say (as Christians living under the New Covenant) the Sabbath is
still
a physical requirement necessary in pleasing God, this would be the
same as saying we were still under circumcision as a physical
requirement. Of course Abraham is our
father according to the promise, not according to circumcision,
tithing, or the
sabbath for that matter. He is simply our father according to
faith, not legal formality.
Heb. 4:8. "For if Jesus had given them rest
(the children of Israel in
the wilderness), then would he not afterward have spoken of another day
(Christ our rest, our sabbath).
Therefore Jesus is our rest, our sabbath, not a physical 24 hour day
that is merely governed by time outside eternity and therefore outside
the kingdom of God.
Rom. 14:17. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink
(keeping the law); but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday or Sabbath or the Lord's day?
Third response to being rebuffed about the issue of the Sabbath/Lord's day
Hey, I don't care what the Catholics, or
Protestants, or Evangelicals,
or great "Christian" men of old or present have said. Let's rightly divide and get
everything in perspective Bros! All from da scriptures!!
Three posts back on this thread I quoted:
"Rev. 1:10. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day".
By desperate measures people try to link this 'one and only' verse to
justify Sunday as the Lord's day. However, they cannot come up
with one
shred of proof to prove this to be so. Therefore, we conclude this
theology is assumption only, based entirely on hearsay. At its
worst, it is Christianized Babylonianism! By letting the Bible
speak for itself
we see the Lord's Day, or the Day of the Lord, is future ... when the
Lord will have His day, by pouring out His wrath upon the earth 's
rebellious Christ- rejecting multitudes."
Here are some verse comparisons throughout da scripture to get ya thinking caps on (could dae
all mean tha same thing?):
"the LORD's offering" or "the offering of the LORD" ... are dae different?
"the LORD's host" or "the host of the LORD" ... are dae different?
"the LORD's wrath" or "the wrath of the LORD" ... are dae different?
"the LORD's anger" or "the anger of the LORD" ... are dae different?
"the LORD's law" or "the law of the LORD" ... are dae different?
"the LORD's anointed" or "the anointed of the LORD" ... are dae different?
"the LORD's people" or "the people of the LORD" ... are dae different?
"the LORD's passover" or "the passover of the LORD" ... are dae different?
"the
Lord's day" or
"the day of the Lord" ... are dae different?
How is zat, me pilgrims!!!
Phunny ... Protestant tradition (making the scriptures
inconsistent ) say dae are both different things (thatz the Lord's day and the day of the LORD)! And I fort God
was a God of order and not a God of confusion! I fort He was always consistent and that it was impossible for Him to lie!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: What Is The TRUE Christian Sabbath?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brother,
My answer to your question (getting back to the purpose of this thread
... "What Is The TRUE Christian Sabbath?") would be:
Firstly: The Jewish scriptural Sabbath (Saturday) ...? Nope!
Secondly: The Catholic and Protestant Sabbath (Sunday) ... supposedly God changing
the 4th Commandment to the first day from the seventh ...? Nope!
And thirdly: The Lord's day ... supposedly John received revelation on one
special day, in the present tense, not being taken in Spirit forward
into the future contradicting the rest of the Book of Revelations (again the first
day) ...? Nope!
Lastly: JESUS (beyond time - Hebrews 4:8 ) ...? Yes!
Paul supports this, my friends, when confronted with those who would
bring us again under bondage again:
Gal. 4: 10-11. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am
afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."
"Ye observe days"!!! What's wrong with this? Well, Paul
said he would be afraid of us if we went back to this sort of
observance. Yes, it is all there, without gaps and
contradictions, without mumbo jumbo,
if you would only chuck out your tradition and rightly divide the word of
truth. Tradition never sets anyone free, but scripture is clear
that "continuing in the truth" does!
~~~
31/1/04
Re:
What Is The TRUE Christian Sabbath?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bro,
I like a righteous fighter and someone who will not
believe anyone, but would need to get final revelation from the word. Like written proof ...
the all conclusive chapter and verse
to say the Lord's day is Sunday (the day of the Sun)?
Therefore, if ya don't mind me saying, I must repeat my question again ...
chapter
and verse please? Thanks!
Quote:
there is no reason why we cannot look at writings of
the people who were there at the time or just afterwards.
No problem with your quote above. However, it means absolutely
nothing
as 'final authority' at the end of the day, and this is where we need
scripture to
back scripture (as I did) and not the quotations of men. Wouldn't
you agree, me old mate? I would never (and correct me if you ever
find a contradiction
please) use just one scripture to make a biblical point without at
lease one or two other scriptures to back it. Like f'instance ... "in
the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word may be established." I'm pretty limp
without
my two edged sword you know?
Again, it is imperative for you to supply me with just one verse to
substantiate your endorsement of Christendom's claim that Sunday (the
pagan sacred day) is indeed the Lord's day?
Now let's have a wee look at your point that "the Lord's day" is not "the day of the Lord" as it is not in
capitals and being inconsistent with the other verse examples that were:
Well I could have easily used the many Old Testament verses but I
purposely chose the NT verses as Acts 2:20, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2
Corinthians 1:14, and 1 Thessalonians 5:2 (using "day of the Lord"),
corresponding with Revelation 1:10 in
lower case. However, this
time I will choose just one random verse out of many of the OT verses
to prove this point finally, conclusively and irrefutably:
"the LORD's offering" or "the offering of the LORD" ... repeated again!
"the LORD's host" or "the host of the LORD" ... repeated again!
"the LORD's wrath" or "the wrath of the LORD" ... repeated again!
"the LORD's anger" or "the anger of the LORD" ... repeated again!
"the LORD's law" or the law of the LORD" ... repeated again!
"the LORD's anointed" or "the anointed of the LORD" ... repeated again!
"the LORD's people" or "the people of the LORD" ... repeated again!
"the LORD's passover" or "the passover of the LORD" ... repeated again!
"the Lord's day" or "the day of the
LORD" (capitals this time, and irrefutably and undeniably from the OT, the proof you must have thought was not there)
Therefore, is this what you are after? Still not convinced?
In regards to lower case and capitals for "the Lord" you will not find
one verse in the NT giving the Lord capitals anyway, except in a few places
where it quotes Psalm 110:1. Here is Acts 2:34 e.g. "For David is not ascended
into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit
thou on my right hand"!
In the OT you will find the LORD is quoted hundreds of time in capitals, whereas in
the NT it is quoted hundreds of times in lower case only, except in the
case I just mentioned. In my article "The Sacred Names or The Holy
name" on the RP I explain why:
The name in relation to His people:
Title ... The LORD (meaning the ultimate
authority - Ruler above all rulers).
Name for Israel (Jew - Old Testament) ...
JEHOVAH
Name for the Church (both Jew and Gentile - New
Testament) ... JESUS
Proclamation of Deity ... the LORD - in
capitals. The Lordship of a people called out and elect:
The LORD (standard, by itself - the LORD is Lord as
GOD is God!)
The LORD God of your fathers (He had a
people. A warning was given. Pr. 22:28. "Remove not
the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.")
Or ...
the LORD God of thy fathers
the LORD God of Israel (He was their
God yet they choose another. Jer. 2:23. "How canst thou say, I
am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim?")
The LORD your God (in relationship to His people)
Or ...
the LORD thy God
The LORD our God (in relationship
to His people)
the LORD our Lord (proclamation
and personalization)
Ps. 8:9. "O LORD (in capitals a proclamation) our
Lord
(in lower case a personalization),
how excellent is thy name in all the earth!"
The LORD makes Israel his nation. His people
are commanded to make the LORD their God, for they cannot make their (own)
God. For
He is who He is!! When He is acknowledged for
whom He is in relationship, the letters to His title become lower case but
the first letter is still in a capital:
Judges 6:13. "And Gideon said unto him (the
LORD), Oh my Lord (relationship/personal), if the LORD (proclamation of
Deity/His position) be with us, why then is all this befallen us?"
Check it out!! You'll only find it in the
Holy Bible (Authorized Bible) though. This cannot be mere coincidence,
or word manipulation. I believe the translators would've never known
about it. It proves God's word is Divinely inspired and completely
and totally authoritative! But once again, because I do not give the
Hebraic scholars monopoly over the word of God but the Holy Spirit, I will
be labelled anti-Semitic. It is the only weapon the New Age Judaizers
have left.
Here is another random verse out of many in the
Old Testament:
Judges 16:28. "And Samson called unto the
LORD (proclamation of Deity), and said, O Lord (relationship) GOD (proclamation of Deity), remember
me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God (relationship),
that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes"
O Lord GOD was the Old Testament title for
addressing the LORD
Lord means the highest authority within a governable
sphere. Therefore, mere rulers in scripture (separate from Deity)
were referred to as lord (first letter in lower case as all others) e.g.:
2 Sam. 19:19. "And said unto the king,
Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember
that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king
went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart."
Just as the g is in lower case when the word is referring to an inferior god, below the God (One God of heaven) of gods (many below heaven)"
Ex. 15:11. "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?"
There is One God of Israel (God's people) and there are many gods of the heaven (non believers):
Deut. 29:18. "Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations"
Summary: When a person in relationship were
referring to the LORD, Lord the majority of times started with a capital
signifying the higher authority in God, as already explained. When
God's title was proclaimed, full capitals the majority of times were used
in acknowledgement to the Authority above every other authority.
Mark 12:36. "For David himself said by
the Holy Ghost, The LORD (in heaven) said to my Lord (Jesus
being glorified), Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies
thy footstool."
Is. 19:4. "And the Egyptians will I give
over into the hand of a cruel lord (the lower authority); and a
fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord
(the highest authority/personal), the LORD
(in heaven) of hosts.
God is usually spelt with lower case letters except
for the first letter when referring to Deity. When capitals (GOD)
is used it is in the Old Testament when His Deity is being extolled by
one of His servants usually in prayer. When a lower case letter is used
for the first letter as 'god' it is in reference to false deity.
F'instance, in reference to the fourth person
in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego:
Dan. 3:25. "He answered and said, Lo, I see
four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt;
and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
This of course is Jesus. However, the modern
versions say in verse 25 ... "a son of the gods". This throws
doubt on the Divinity of Jesus as well as in conjunction of Him being found
in the Old Testament reinforced in the New when the centurion said at the
cross:
Mark 15:39. "Truly this man was the
Son of God."
Once again the modern versions pervert the scriptures
by, or with an added footnote, saying ... "a son of a
god". Once again tampering with Jesus' Divinity or leaving the reader
with the doubt ... hath God said?
The Bible starts off with God the Creator
(beginning of Genesis) and finishes with the Lord Jesus Christ
(end of Revelation). He is the complete word ... Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end, the first and the last. The Son of God,
the Anointed One, is found throughout the Old Testament not including the
hundreds of prophecies relating to His first appearance or His millennium
reign. However, it is not until the New is His full authoritative/holy name revealed:
Matt. 1:1. The very first passage in the
New Testament! What does it say? "The book of the generation
of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
His name is sealed in the Books: In the
Old Testament as JEHOVAH (He is Who He is), mentioned four times
only
in capitals. In the New Testament as JESUS (Jehovah saves), mentioned
four times again in capitals.
Coincidence? Ask the Lord!
Also, the LORD is his name (not just a
title but a name also - nothing to do with Baal) ... is mentioned
four times too (in the OT). Again, Lord in capitals.
Coincidence again? Ask the Lord!
In the Old Testament JEHOVAH
is I AM, covering His complete Divine attributes.
Therefore, in the NT the LORD (Jehovah) becomes personal to each
believer as Jesus (the one who saves - being the sinners friend and our big
brother in the faith) and is the reason LORD in capitals is no longer
used. This is also the reason I used
- "the Lord's day" or "the day of the
LORD" - as an example with Lord in the "Lord's day" quote being in the lower case, taken directly from the NT in this case.
I'm sorry me old mate, but to change the LORD to Jehovah in this case, to me is a
tinge of Alexandrian license. With smacks of HRM thinking may I add. If Jehovah
was the original for these verses then it would mean your
interpretation is over the AB. I'll stick to the present AB and not what the
lost and eluding "original" was suppose to say!
Back to "the Lord's day": If it is written this way in the NT then it
would have to be consistent with the rest of the NT in placing 'Lord'
in lower case only. So it looks like the "the day of the Lord" (from
the four NT verses I presented earlier, all in lower case) could be "the
Lord's day" after all! There's no shadow of turning in the author of the
Book. If it's written LORD then we can't change it. If it's written
Lord, the same! Coz God is always consistent and reliable!
Blessings Bro!!
~~~~~~~~~~
31/4/04
Endorsing Sunday as the Lord's Day
Baal worship is to do with sun worship which
goes back to Babel.
Imperial Rome worshiped Baal in the form of Jupiter the sun god.
Rome
was a sun worshiping empire and the 1st day of the week "the Day of the
Sun" (Sun Day) was an important pagan day to them. When 'the
Imperial
Roman Empire' changed to 'the Holy Roman Empire' after Constantine
christianized the empire (for political benefits), the 1st day of the
week still had importance above
the seventh or any other day.
Sunday, in the Roman universal calendar is 12.00 midnight to 12.00
midnight prior to Monday. The original Jewish/Biblical calendar for the
first day after sabbath was 6.00 pm to 6.00 pm (sunset to sunset).
In scripture there is only two references to the first day of the week
in regards to the church age:
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."
1 Cor. 16:2. "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."
The first verse just mentioned here is to do when the disciples came together to break bread
(evening supper - Saturday night). Remember, this was not served until after
midnight (very early Sunday morning) as Paul preached long until
midnight. Supper (breaking bread in Acts was always to do with a meal
not ritual, where it is mentioned only three times) was actually served
after midnight after Paul revived the dead lad who had fallen out of
the window after he had fallen asleep (verse 10 & 11). Please check it out again, and you're see this quite clearly!
The
other mention of the first day was when the believers were exhorted to
have
money placed aside in the homes (this was nothing to do with a plate
collection at a church gathering - read the end of the verse).
This
money was to be collected by two trusted believers when they went house
to
house, to be sent to the believers in Jerusalem, who were short of food
due to a famine. This was nothing to do with tithes, a Sunday
morning
'church service', or a meeting's collection. Where in fact, it
was to do with a relief effort made by the saints
in one district, for the plight of fellow saints in another
district. The AB is very clear here, where it even uses the word
"relief" (as next passage below). Never the word tithe, offering,
or collection. Moreover, the money was not storehoused or banked,
but sent!
Acts 11:28-30. "And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and
signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout
all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then
the disciples, every man according to his ability
(not 10% or an earmarked "faith pledge"), determined to
send
relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Which also they did,
and
sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."
Backed up by Romans 15:26! You see, this is not quoting mere tradition,
a church's liturgy, an official dogma, or this man or that man, but pure unadulterated
scripture ... the word of God:
"For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make
a certain contribution for
the poor saints (not the storehouse, the building fund, the Pastor's bank account) which are at Jerusalem
(not at "church" on Sunday)."
Baked up again by 1 Cor. 16:3.
"And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your
letters, them will I send to bring your liberality
(not tithes and offerings) unto Jerusalem"
(following verse 2 already mentioned above).
So there we have the only two mentions of the first day of the week at
the commencement of the church age. One is to do with coming together
on a Saturday night for supper and teaching, and the other is to do
with going house to house where the believers lived and fellowshipped,
in order to take the money they had put aside for their poor brothers
and sisters in another district, and relieve them of their
plight. Again, these verses have got nothing to do with tradition
and its teaching
and connection to Sunday worship services. Moreover, it comes
back to what
we will follow ... tradition or the word of God?
Lastly, if Sunday was the Lord's day then this would be undeniably
categorizing this day as a special day above others and contradicting
Paul who said keeping special days was going back under bondage (Gal.
4:10). The only allowance made by
Paul for esteeming one day above the other was for those who were weak
in the faith (novices) who were not to be condemned, but to be understood for
their immature outlook on spiritual matters, and accepted as brothers
with space to grow. Read Romans 14:1-7 in the
context of verse one, and Galatians 6: 1-4 in context again with verse
one. After careful analyse (rightly dividing the word) we can see
that if one was strong in the faith and was found forcing his views on
others as doctrine, by promoting and teaching certain days and certain
foods as new covenant requirement, as well as abstaining from marriage, then his
teachings would be marked as the
doctrine of devils. Remember, both the traditions of men and the
doctrines of devils (which are usually one and the same) bring bondage,
whereas the truth of God's word brings deliverance, freedom and liberty in the
Spirit.
If the first day was special (as the pagans and traditionalists insist)
then there would have been a special mention somewhere in the book of Acts, or at least a mention somewhere the NT, in
endorsing or giving this day some sort of preference or importance in observation.
The
Corinthians were Jewish believers, and the first day (after the
sabbath) was the day of reckoning, as business for the new week swung
back into action. Therefore, the first day would have been the
most practical day for the Jewish brethren if civil routine and
business commenced again on this day
around them. Hence, collecting from house to house or meeting
Saturday
night after the sabbath holiday would make a lot of sense and not be
outta place one iota by God incorporating it into the New Testament. Would it?
Paul never saw one day (let alone Sunday) as special. If he did he
would have endorsed it in Romans 14, would he have not? If Sunday was a special
significance to the apostles or any of the church at its commencement,
then it would've no doubt been mentioned in the letter to the new Gentile intake into the fold as in Acts 15:
23. "And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and
elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the
Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have
troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be
circumcised, and
keep the law: to whom
we gave no such commandment:
25. It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send
chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26. Men that have hazarded their lives
(no mention of diplomatic qualifications here) for the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ.
27. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the
same things by mouth.
28. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you
no
greater burden than these necessary things;
29. That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep
yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
There it is folks! It couldn't be spelt
out any plainer or clearer, could it?
This, no doubt, would've been the apostles big chance in bringing the
Gentile believers into
line either regarding the seventh day or the first day of the week, if
they saw significance or requirement in these things. However, there is not even
a hint, let alone a mention of these things. Why not? Verse
24 gives the reason very clearly ... "we gave no such commandment"!
What else did
they say? That "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us
(God and His people),
to lay upon you
no greater burden than these
necessary things"!
Who can count to four? Reason ... there was only clearly
four (necessary)
things asked of them for requirement purposes, and they were nothing to
do with observing any holy days whatsoever. Just four
things! Simple, plain and clear! And who has the authority
or audacity to add or
subtract to them? Are there just four sensible, practical things
to be careful of? Or are there five, six, ten, twenty, or more
things to observe, in order to please God our Saviour? Or in
order to write into the church's book of rules! Or in order to
comply with the church's government and please your pastor!
Yes, Sunday (the first day) or Saturday (the seventh day) mean absolutely
nothing to our salvation or walk, are not singled out in the NT as
special. Nor giving us a choice if it fits our mould of religion or even
mentioned as a part of the faith. What's the next line?:
P r a i s e t h e L o r d!!!!!!!
"
Fare ye well (as the passage of scripture says)" - brethren and fellow pilgrims!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
31/1/04
Re: The Sun connection
Me again! Got some more to say ...
Apart from the Christ Mass (the Mother of All Traditions), 'Sunday
Observance' is the main bridge for the Protestant Churches to return
home to Mother Rome. This is the main weekly tradition the
break away
"churches" took with them, and the main connection to its source the
RCC (then back to its Babylonian roots), which connects to
this disguised sun-deity
source on a weekly basis. Groups who don't break away from this
important Tradition will heed the call back to Mum (Mom) ... the
Harlot Church, the one who has no qualms about getting into bed with
politics or other faiths if it means it can spread its influence and
spheres of interest and power abroad. Christ's true
remnant will be made up of the ones who only heed the trump towards the
new city
and not towards the one on seven hills.
For clarification or exposition please view:
Baal Worship in Disguise
The Day
~~~~~~~
1/2/04
Attending
"Church" Sunday
Some groups may gather Sunday morning just for
the sake of convenience
(the only spare time they have) like the early Jewish believers on a
sabbath, with no connection to tradition. Others my gather in a denominational setting because they may be a wife
submitting to their husband or a teenager at home still under their
parents covering. While others are doing it out of compulsion,
religious duty and tradition, this does not mean a true child of God
cannot be there geographically but be free in Christ at the same time,
because they walk in the Spirit of truth.
Just thought I'd share my view point here folks in order that I am not being accused of placing God in my own box.
~~~~
31/1/04
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day
I will pause here and give others the chance
to reply. There is more I
can write, especially from the Book of Revelation, proving conclusively
from the Book itself, that while John was physically on the Island of
Patmos he was somewhere else spiritually, or in spirit.
~~~~
14/3/04
Ritual, ceremony, ordinance, or meal
Brother,
Thanks for your analysis on 1 Cor. 11. If this chapter was standing by
itself then there could be some merit in the 'ordinance' doctrine,
which is one of the main themes in the IC to give it "scriptural"
validity. However, by harmonizing with the rest of scripture I see it
in different light and the reason I go "beyond Protestantism". Following, I
will explain by comparing it with your thoughts ...
Quote:
"I beg to disagree ... 1 Co 11:20. When ye come
together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's
supper."
Bro, if you are implying this coming together was for the sake of an
ordinance (which the IC calls "the Lord's Supper") then you would have
to take this as being literally every time you came together to have
"Communion Service" or else you would be in disobedience. Therefore, if
this is true (which would be in your case) then who is doing this every
time they gather together? Even the IC can't keep to this strictly and
rigidly as they are suppose to, according to their teaching. So they
neatly package it for Sunday mornings. Moreover, if they miss out in the
morning because the format is thrown out of sequence (like a guest
speaker speaks for too long) then they quite often postpone it until the evening
service. Like they had better fulfil their duty or else God might not
be pleased!
Should we have a "Communion Service" (the ritual, or
ordinance, or ceremony of breaking bread in unison) every time we meat
in Jesus name? I don't believe it can be done for practical purposes
alone, which makes this notion an indictment against the ordinance doctrine of
'consubstantiation', which Protestantism teaches and lavishes in constantly.
Quote:
"Isn't Paul rebuking the church at Corinth for their
bad behaviour? Why?
1 Co 11:21. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper:
and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
1 Co 11:22. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise
ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to
you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."
The church wasn't walking in love, as many were feasting while others
would be forgotten or left with nothing to ear. Isn't it what we read?"
Yes, but what has this got to do with supporting an ordinance? A larger
collective meal together has to be more orderly when more than one
family are partaking together. That's why Paul said, "Wherefore, my
brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another
(wait - don't be a gusts
or glutton or show yourself greedy and hasty)." And let those who
show disrespect for the Body by over indulging, have a snack or drink
before they come, if they can't hold on or use self-control! This way they wont be bringing
damnation on themselves!
Remember, Paul was using verses 23-26 (which you quoted) speaking about
the Last Supper (the passover
meal)
as an example for a comparison for the saints supper times. This
actually proves this was a meal and not just an ordinance anyway. The IC
teaches it as an
ordinance so it can structure the meetings and bind the saints with
ritual and liturgy, keeping them bound to the system. The
"Communion
Service" happens to be just 'part' of the liturgy whereas in the NT the
supper was 'central', with fellowship and meal time around the
Lord. The traditional "Communion Service" is definitely not a
fellowship time
in the modern or traditional churches, as everyone is closed off to
each
other and in passivity, visualizing the Lord and His work in their
minds, with eyes closed. There is little if no interaction with
one another. What interaction there is, usually is controlled,
regular
format.
Quote:
"Remembrance... only. Bread, cup, nothing more."
Brother, if your reasoning here was scriptural and it was indeed an
ordinance as you say, being based on symbols, then you have to consider
... was it one cup or many? Furthermore, was there one
loaf, or were many pieces
okay? Moreover, what about the
rest of the Passover Super (as this is what it is based on)? Then
the
passover lamb, the dippings, etc.! More questions to be answered
... was it fermented wine or
just juice (remember leaven
was out of the question during Passover and the few days which followed
- adequate proof in itself, wouldn't you say)? If it was just
juice then it would have to be grape juice (not cordial or artificially
flavoured lolly
water), or else it would not match its symbolic meaning. The
metaphor would not work or make sense, in other words ... Etc.
Etc.!! The 'ordinance' stance
opens the door for endless debate and interpretation leading away from
the simplicity in Christ and inconsistency with other passages of
scripture. Meaning, the only thing this doctrine can please or
fit in with, would be the tradition and teaching of Christendom, not
the full counsel of God.
Quote:
"No
human legislations, rituals, theological debates. Remember (only) the
Lord and His sacrifice, but yes, we do have practical dispositions
there... sort of duty to me. I don't like the formalities either, but
we cannot just flush it, it's there for us to see, and Paul was very
plain:
Now,
do we have any right of defining any ritual over it? I don't
think
so... as many have already stated, it was only and nothing more than
... a meal, as simple as it was in the room ... men gathered around a
table,
to eat, drink, and share from their Lord.
As I read it, I see a commandment, an ordinance ... also, in doing it
wouldn't we be fulfilling our Lord's prayer in John 16, to be one as He
and the Father were one?"
Dear Brother, I would like you to read over these lines you just quoted
and you will see you have out rightly contradicted yourself.
Unless
there has been an interpretation misunderstanding between your native
tongue and the true English meanings. You clearly state you see
the Supper as an
'ordinance' whereas you state in the lines ruling out it being a
'ritual' and questioning whether we have a right defining the Supper as
any 'ritual'.
Question: Are not ordinance and ritual the same thing in this case?
F'instance, the word ordinance is used over and over again in the OT
but dropped totally in the New when it comes to the true church, which
is no doubt for a reason. If you look up the meaning of 'religious
rite' you will see this covers being a ritual, ceremony, or ordinance.
The issue in my article is whether a Christian 'love meal' (Jude 1:12)
also known as breaking bread, is a ritual/ordinance or meal? Just using
1 Cor 11 is not enough. It must back and fit in with other parts of the NT.
Acts (the book of acting out the NT) clearly proves breaking bread is a
meal (a real 'true blue' supper) and not just an ordinance or ritual. Please show me
from Acts otherwise?
Also, 1 Cor 11 must line up with John 6. In this chapter Jesus
provides
a real meal in the wilderness outside the city (camp). People
were not going to Him here for a ritual, but for life, and a real meal
was provided here, as well as spiritual edification. This is
where we go to sup with Jesus
spiritually speaking ... without the camp. He uses this
real meal
situation to explain the spiritual meaning of the bread and wine and it
is nothing to do with a "Communion Service" but our daily walk with the
Lord. Walking in obedience in other words ... meaning we are
eating and drinking from
Him spiritually. Definitely not physically as the Catholics teach
(Transubstantiation), or mystically as the Protestants teach
(Consubstantiation).
You mentioned gathering around the table with brothers as a literal
table for fellowship. No doubt meaning the Lord's table. In
context to
your reference here from 1 Corinthians 10:21, and in contrast to the
Lord's table and cup you have also mentioned; if they were indeed literal,
then why does it mention the table and cup of devils also? Which
means Paul
was being either literal or spiritual here. He couldn't be
literal for
one and not the other I believe, as these two spiritual opposites are
both in the same context. Meaning, if the table of the Lord is
literal, then so must be the table of devils!
Also, when you talked about being ONE in John 17, this is to do with
being one in truth and not in
ordinance. Moreover, in this passage of scripture it is clear
that it is His word
which is truth, which we have to rightly divide of course, in order to
get the spirit of truth and not the spirit of error. Meaning, 1
Cor 11 cannot be
isolated from the Book of Acts (where the breaking of bread is clearly being a
meal), just as it cannot be isolated from John 6 either, that eating
His bread (His
body) and drinking His wine (His blood) is not a ritual, ceremony, or
ordinance, but a daily command and a daily (spiritual) communion, of
abiding in Him. Hence
... Luke 11:3:
"Give us day by day our daily bread."
Love you Bro,
Your fellow servant in Jesus,
Tom.
~~~~
14/3/04
Re: Ritual, ceremony, ordinance, or meal
A simple effective test is (whether a meal or
an ordinance):
* Does the weekly ordinance "Communion Service" really change me, from
the inside out? Like a total change of heart? Or is it my daily
submission to the Lord and walking in the Spirit that transforms my
life towards being more God honouring and Christ like?
* Is it really hypocrisy doing the "breaking of the bread"
routine/ordinance when I am not right with my a brother or sister, (or)
and they are not right with me?
* Would it not be better if I simply got right with my brother and got
on with my walk without "Communion" than partake "Communion" routinely
and fight or ignore the problems?
* If I can be right with the Lord and my brother without an ordinance,
then why do I need an ordinance?
* If I believe it is there simply because of obeying the Lord (where I
can be both right with my brother and partaking of the emblems
together) then would it be wrong to question it and compare my thoughts
with other scriptures, and ask the Lord to show me the truth?
* Do I feel more guilty by not partaking of "the emblems" than I do by
not being right with my brother? And in the Lord's eyes, which would be
more important?
* If the Lord's Supper was fellowship with each other around the Lord,
then why is it generally a "holy hush" time, where I am not free to be
myself with my brethren around me, or really at liberty to truly
fellowship let alone utter a single word to someone beside me without
thinking I am out of order or disturbing a 'holy occasion'?
* If it was wrong to break bread with none Christians then why did Paul
do this in Acts 27:35?
* If the answer was that it happened to be just a meal here in Paul's
case then wouldn't the case be solved, as the other two references (only) in
breaking bread in Acts could only be that too?
* If the only other conclusion is the breaking of bread can either be a
meal or an ordinance in the NT, then why is breaking of bread as a
"Communion Service" not mentioned once in Acts?
* Is it right and truly New Covenant for the two emblems or physical
objects (the elements) to dictate holiness in our coming
together?
Should it not just be the Holy Ghost with the illumination of the word
to our spirits independent of any ritual, observance, or going through
ceremony? If they were just symbols as we are taught, then why
are they given such importance?
* If partaking of the emblems together was instituted by the Lord just
to remember Him and what He had done, then why not partake at home,
anytime, by yourself or with your wife, without the necessity of a
spiritual professional, priest or pastor to administer and govern the situation,
where he would be prepared to openly endorse and teach it as scripturally
sound, as well as giving his whole hearted approval and encouragement to it?
*Futhermore, would it have nothing to do
with John 6 in eating from Him daily? Meaning, 1 Cor 11 does
stand
alone in scripture, with no other scriptural reference or connection in
the Bible to back this
doctrine? And where is the one verse to support we can do
this? Meaning, to interpret just one passage without any other
biblical
reference to support it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My updated conclusion
3/9/06:
There is nothing mystical or ritualistic about this, and it is as
simple as this (although the application can be hard - the cross always
is):
1 Cor. 5:8. " Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven
(religion - the law - observing formality), neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness
(what's in the heart - baggage from the old life or from our traditional background); but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth
(a pure, uncluttered heart, in simplicity and godly sincerity).
This has got nothing to do with observing a rite or observing a day, but a daily attitude towards God our Savour!