Better than following a 'Pastor' that isn't even a real Pastor, like Terry here, who is recognized by NO official church.

For Pete's sake, even my Husband is ordained. It cost Him $40.

Little Whip
Mine cost me alot of study,as for being recognized,I am recognized as a Senor online Pastor for Truth and Knowledge Ministries out of Bediford Maine,Bishop James Sheldon runs the home church,and has been wanting me to move up there so we can take the brunt of the online to the congregation.
Bet that was the easiest 40 dollars he ever spent,at least I did not have to buy mine,see I am not recognized by the christian system because I teach the Way as the Apostles taught in there day thats why.

As for me I can really care less about titles,but if someone came along speaking truth the roman organized christian system does not recognize as truth but was totally scriptual I for one would listen,for you never know if one who is sent to speak to you might one day actually be Yahshua himself.

Your response is one which got the Apostles killed for standing on the Torah and the Prophets and not coming out of the web of deciet the false ones through over the unwary.

You gettin much smoke up there?

Respect,everyone wants respect,but the problem is not many return respect,this is what happened in 325 A.D. one side loved their neighbors,respected their neighbors,but the other side killed them all in the name of Universalism/Christianity,why was this so?

Why did one side do all they could to show care,helpfulness,love and the other side showed hate,they killed those who showed love and kept to the Way of Israel,and the sad thing is both sides professed belief in the same Savour,Redeemer,King and High Priest,but one side killed the other,was this respect?
Pastor Terry

I am not sure if you are poking fun at me or not. If you are, good for you. if not, nope I live 300 miles from the fires, we up here in the northern part of the state do not get those crazy fires that burns up everything. BTW those huge wildfires are because of the LIBERALS that keep other people from thinning the trees and cleaning underbrush because they don't want to disturb the buffalo cricket or some such other nonsense!

Well thank you both for the welcome home.

Now that would be very cool.

BTW, you need to learn to not bite when bait is thrown out there.

MM

lil of both hehe.

Ornery I know.

KFC POSTSED #203

AD posts:

AD,

Let's discuss what v. 27 means taken in full context St.Mark 2: 23-28. My understanding of v. 27 is that all mankind should honor the sabbath which is the 7th day following 6 days of work as a day of rest and giving glory to God and v. 28 sums it all up..."so, the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath."

Here is the entire passage:

23 One sabbath he (Christ) was going through the grain fields and as they made their way His disciples began to pluck ears of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to HIm, "Look, why they are doing is not lawful on the sabbath?" 25 And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the presence, which is not lawful for anyone but the priest to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" 27 And He said to them, "The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath; 28 so the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath."


So, here Christ defends 2 things...in the previous passages He defends His disciples failure to fast and here their breaking the sabbath by "plucking the ears of corn" because of their hunger. This is a scandal to the Pharisees as the plucking of corn is listed under the 39 activities forbidden on the sabbath. It was regarded as a 'work of reaping". The dispute leads to the Pharisees being told that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.

V.28 is something of Christ's teaching with authority and His free, sovereign behavior is revealed. He had often overridden sabbatical precepts which were exceedingly important to the Jews and strictly observed. From this a claim of Jesus emerges. He testifies to being "Lord of" which the early Church understood and recognized and connected with an earlier statement that the Son of man has the power to forgive sins on earth 2:10.

The Bread of the Presence consisted of 12 loaves or cakes placed each morning on the table in the sanctuary as homage to the Lord from the 12 tribes of Israel. The loaves withdrawn to make room for fresh ones were reserved to the priests.

Abiathar's action anticipates what Christ teaches here. Already in the Old Testament God had established a hierarchy in the precepts of the Old Law so that the lesser ones yielded to the main ones. This explains why a ceremonial precept, such as this one was, should yield before a precept of Natural Law. Similiarly, the Commandment to keep the sabbath does not come before the duty to seek basic subsistence.

The Catholic Church teaches this passage underlines the value of human person over and above economic and social development. The social order and its development must always yield to the good of the person since the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons and not the other way around as the Lord suggested when He said that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. The social order requires constant improvement: it must be founded in truth, built on justice, and enlivened by love. (And as a sidenote: I'd say that some of our civil laws fail miserably at this.)

Finally, in this passage, Christ teaches God's purpose in instituting the sabbath: God established it for man's good, to help him rest and devote himself to Divine worship in joy and peace. The Pharisees, through their interpretation of the Law had turned this day into a source of anguish and scruple due to all the various prescriptions and prohibitions they introduced.

So the correct meaning of the sabbath was made for man is that the sabbath was established for not only man's rest but also to allow him to give glory to God.

By proclaiming Himself, "Lord of the sabbath", Christ affirms His Divinity and His universal authority. Becasue He is Lord of all, He has the power to establish other laws, as Yahweh in the OT.

So, because Christ is God, He has every right to say that He is Lord of the sabbath. Christ restores to the weekly day of rest its full, religious meaning. It's not just a matter of fulfilling a number of legal precepts or of concern for physical well-being..the Sabbath belongs to God, it is one way suited to human nature of rendering glory and honor to the Almighty. The Chruch, from the time of the Apostles onwards, transferred the observance to the following day--the Lord's Day--in celebration of the Resurrection of Christ.

As a Messianic Jew the "Son of man" should be of great interest to you. The origin of the messianic meaning of this expression is found in Daniel 7:13, where Daniel, in a prophetic vision, contemplates "one like the son of man" coming down on the clouds of Heaven, who even goes up to GOd's throne and is given dominion and glory and royal power over all peoples and nations." This was fulfilled by Christ's Ascension into Heaven. This expression appears 69 times in the Gospels where Christ prefers it to other ways of describing the Messiah such as the son of David, etc. thereby avoiding nationalistic overtones those expressions had in the Jewish minds at the time.

A second sidenote:

The next chapter following this has an other sabbath story, this time one of Christ healing on the sabbath.

AD POSTS:



Sorry, of post 203, AD, while you did some good sleuth work on "the first day of the week and the morrow, you have come to the wrong conclusion about when the meeting on the first day of the week...I believe it was Sunday...based on the "breaking of the bread"


First of all, what do we know from the couple of previous verses. That St.Paul was in Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in 5 days he and St.Luke went to Troas for 7 days. The Azymes or days of Unleavened Bread are the week when the Passover is celebrated. The Christian celebration of the Resurrection (Easter) and the Jewish Passover fell on the same days. St. Matt. 26:2,17. It is possible that the date can be fixed by this which is done several times in Acts by means of the Jewish calendar 2:1; 12:3; and 27:9.

Here's V. 7----- "And on the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread Paul talked with them intending to depart on the morrow and prolonged his speech until midnight."

V. 7 is the first reference in Acts to the Christian custom of the community meeting on the first day of the week to celebrate the Eucharist 2:42; 1Cor.10:16 (which Christ first spoke of as I am the living Bread, and at the Last Supper had told them to "do this" commemmorate in of Him). We can see how this day was celebrated as the day of the Lord on which the early Church assembled together to worship Him. The special character of the day is also shown in 1Cor. 16:2 and Rev. 1:10. Going back to v. 6:4 gives us more of a clue it was our Sunday for it was a day of the ministry of the word, the preaching of salvation, and the eucharistic meal, the breaking of the bread, were all part of the weekly celebration.

I believe that at the death of Christ, when the Temple veil was split from top to bottom, the observance of the Sabbath was abrogated as well as the other Old Covenant Hebrew rites and ceremonies. These disappeared at the coming of Light and Truth which is Jesus Christ. The Jewish Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the Apostles. They consecrated the first day of the week to the divine worship and called it ‘the Lord’s Day”. St.John in Apocalypse 1:10 mentions the Lord’s Day and the Apostle commands collections to be made “on the first day of the week”.

The practice of the Christian assembly (the early Mass) dates from the beginnings of Apostolic times. Acts. 2:42-46; 1Cor.11:17. The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful “not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another.” Heb. 10:25. There are many, many writings of the Church Fathers that tell how Tradition preserves the memory of an ever timely exhortation : Come to the Church early, approach the Lord and confess your sins, repent in prayer....be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal.....We have often said: this day is given to you for rest and prayer. This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad.”


From this we learn that from the days in Troas, the Lord’s Day was kept holy in the Church. Creation is ordered to the Sabbath ,the day to be kept holy to the praise and worship of God. Just as the seventh day of the Sabbath completes the first Creation, so the “eighth day” Sunday, the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead, is celebrated as the “holy day” by Christians-----the day on which the “new creation” began. Thus the Christian observance of Sunday fulfills the Third Commandment to remember and keep holy the Sabbath day.

On this passage the Latin version according to St.Bede translates "on the Lord's Day, the first day after the sabbath, when we gather together to celebrate our mysteries."

What I find amzing is the quick to post response and not paying attention to the reply. Let me ask the board this question....Why you defending Rome and her pagan sun worship instituted as christianity without understanding in ancient times christians were sun worshippers,they kept solarice high days as holy,just like ancient Israel did when they went and got themselves divorced from the covenant.
See the Redeemer came to restore not just the House of Jacob/Judah but the House of Joseph/Ephraim Israel back to covenant along with anyone else who wanted to partake in this precious offer of Redemption from the King of All Israel.

Most are quick to defend their christian sect without ever really studying the root of said church,this is what got me excommunicated,I went to studying and asking questions and refused to sit down and shut up like the pastor and part of the congregation wanted me to do. I know what I speak is truth for the pastor was also a ex seminary instructor,and we talked alot behind closed doors,and through those discusions he realized he was a roman pastor not a israelite pastor like covenant proclaims,and was made uncomfortable so to get his comfort zone back he created a lie.

So lets get honest here anyone really truly believe the roman lie that the apostles taught a fake gospel of lies and deciets,or do you believe the scriptures which honestly instruct you in the ways of the Kingdom and that the Apostles taught the same gospel as the Redeemer.
Pastor Terry

No. There was never a "new Sabbath." Sabbath has always been seventh day. The first day of the week or Lords Day was never referred to as the Sabbath. It's not treated as such or have such rules and regs attached like the Sabbath of old did. While I used to be a legalist about Sundays I know now that there is certain freedoms in Christ and this is one of them. Everyday should be a "Sabbath" to us. Everyday we should be resting in Christ. That was the WHOLE IDEA when he said, "come to me you who are heavy laden, I will give you rest."



forgive me for being too tired to refute you properly AD but I'm moving tomorrow and will be unable to do much clear thinking for the next week. But here all I can say is you are being very influenced by Sabbath Day Keepers and I cannot, nor did the early church see this in the whole of the NT and being an Adventist and baptized into that faith when I was 15 I know all the angles. I agree with much of what you said about what was going on in the Jerusalem Council up to the point where you are discounting the ...."and the law" in v24.

I would suggest you do a thorough reading of Romans and Galatians which refutes the whole idea of us still being under the law.

The reason they were meeting on Sunday night was because they had to after working all day. Just like in our day (or used to) Sunday's everything was closed especially when I was a kid. So we would work on Saturdays. It's the same here. They would have to abstain from work on Sabbath because the culture in that day demanded it. This was the early church, it took a while for these changes to take place. For a Jew coming into the faith this would have been a huge step of faith to worship God on a Sunday night and leave the Sabbath behind.

You can see very clearly from Acts 15:24 that it mentions both the Torah (law) and circumcision although circumcision was the hot topic of this conversation, I agree. You can't really separate one from the other. The circumcised kept the law.

Maybe when I get to where I'm going I'll be able to answer you more on what you have written AD (if you want). I know you are very sincere here. I have not doubt, and it may be a point where we'll have to agree to disagree? I have a very dear friend who is an Adventist and we just usually stay away from this (and election) topics more for here than me because you know me....I'll talk about this stuff till the moon turns blue....  

AD posts:

I love reading Acts 15 becasue it describes how the first Council at Jerusalem was held, the subject matter discussed, and the significance of the decision arrived by it. This is significant The Council of Jerusalem was the first Apostolic decree and has become the prototype or pattern of all succeeding official pronouncements of the General Councils through today. Just as today, to give finality to the decision, a written decree was sent to the Church at Antioch, "which when they read, they rejoiced for the consolation" that no barriers, such as circumcision, were to be put in the way of their salvation. Antioch is named as the first church becasue the mission to the Gentiles originated there. It was here too that the quarrel first arose about the question of circumcision.

The first Council at Jerusalem had rendered the Church's first dogmatic pronouncement something that God had already decided.


From #204



The Judaizers had brought unrest and complication into the churches. Here, the question, dispute and dissension arose between the Jewish and Gentile Christian converts the Gentile Christian's freedom from specific parts of the Old Law.


The Council at Jerusalem clearly separates itself from the activities of the Judaizers for we know the final decision was taken by only "the apostles and the elders". The Council's decision is attributed first and foremost to God, the Holy Spirit. And this sheds a fundamental light on the early Chruch's understanding of herself. She lives by the mystery, the "power' of the Holy Ghost who had been promised her by the Risen Lord, 1:8. Only in closest union with the Holy Spirit so the Church authorities receive their own authority and effectiveness in deciding matters of faith and morals.

Why O Why do you all abstain from reading all of Acts 15 and in context?
The verse christo's abstain from is the part about the people were attending the syngogues on the Sabbath to learn the Torah of Moses and the Council deemed there decision was right,for by putting a few commands on the new convert they had the privalage of learning every Sabbath more about being a Holy People.
Caught many of a seminary trained phoney on this chapter and blew all they learned out of the water all because they did not go study for themselves but allowed another paid phoney to lie to them on the context.
Pastor Terry

Let’s take a look at the preposition used in 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.”

Used in this context the definition for ‘upon’ is: immediately or very soon after.
The Strong’s Greek translation of ‘en’ is in agreement here with definitions of: in, at, upon.

This remains consistent to what I presented earlier about this being Saturday evening after sundown.

I appreciate you educating me more about the Eucharist but I fail to see how it pertains to the text here.

Terry, I'm probably not the one to give you advice here but here's what I have to offer. You may take it or leave it.

I'm sure you've noticed that your comments haven't been discussed nor really replied to.

You come across as a 'shock jock evangelist.' I'm not sure if I just made up this expression but it seems to be what I see as a suiting description of the character you portray.

When you don't give background or provide additional information to support your comment you appear to be trying to get a rile or spark an emotional response from those of us who read through condescending remarks you are being first of all very rude and seem to be more concerned about condemning others rather they showing them where they are wrong. This tactic may work in speaking or other arenas but I know on JoeUser this isn't the type that is welcomed.

The cool thing about JoeUser here is you don't have to have XYZ credentials to be listened to. Quite the contrary, my experience here is that everyone starts out with a clean slate and over the course of time you build up credibility among the readers.

The reason I see people attacking your credentials is your eagerness to wave them and say, 'because of these you should listen to me.' This is the second part of the description I am using for you. Many evangelists are more concerned about telling others what THEY have to say rather than having a basic conversational exchange.

The ideas that you present are intriguing but your delivery in my opinion needs lil adjustment.

I say this because I would like to know more about what you are saying here but you can't just leave us baseless from where you get this idea.

Just my thoughts.