Sunday Keepers Dare to explain this

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
;) Isaiah 66:22-24King James Version (KJV)

22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.



I will not be at all surprised if the appointed times of Leviticus 23 are mandatory after Jesus' return; but many Bible verses and passages make it clear that they are not mandatory now.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
Yeah. Whether we say go to church Saturday or Sunday we can actually be giving the wrong idea to non Christians. It's an everyday thing not a once a week thing. Just think how many people out there believe they are Christian because they go to church once a week. why? Because we aren't preaching the Gospel of Christ but talking more about "a day".
It is my understanding that church is something to be NOT something to go to.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
Yeah. Whether we say go to church Saturday or Sunday we can actually be giving the wrong idea to non Christians. It's an everyday thing not a once a week thing. Just think how many people out there believe they are Christian because they go to church once a week. why? Because we aren't preaching the Gospel of Christ but talking more about "a day".
It is my understanding that church is something to be NOT something to go to.
 
Dec 9, 2011
14,102
1,796
113
Lord. have mercy
Don't you mean the LORD had mercy.

The WORD of GOD was sent to the world in the flesh to be a sin offering for man because no one could keep the law.

The sacrifice was accepted by GOD and Grace was provided.

And we have access to this Grace through faith.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
Ironically there is no Sunday Keeper explaining the verse I wonder Why

an attempt was made to the contrary though ?

Isaiah 66:22-24King James Version (KJV)

22 For as the new [COLOR=#0000FF !important]heavens and the [COLOR=#0000FF !important]new earth[/COLOR], which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.[/COLOR]
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one [COLOR=#0000FF !important]sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.[/COLOR]
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.


I just occurred to me to ask:

Who appointed you to sit in judgement of other believer's practice?

BTW I keep the Sabbath; but I don't think it my role to compel others to do so.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
are you circumised of the heart, are you presenting God, yourself as a living sacarfice ?

I hope so because that is what the bible says to do.

oh thats right you do not believe we can become kings and priests in the future
I don't know where you got that from. Believers will reign with Christ.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
those verses say no such thing like you claim, we been over this before.

-shadows of things to come is future tence for starters.

God must be so proud of you fighting againest people who keep

Holy what God proclaimed Holy, and will be in the future.
As I have told you, the SAME language is used in the context of animal sacrifices in Hebrews 10:1-2.

You cannot use that language as a reason to claim that the Sabbath and Holy Days are applicable to New Covenant Christians, and you are judging them.

In addition, the Sabbath and festivals are grouped with food and drink offerings in the SAME VERSES. It is really silliness to try to fight around the obvious. I have shown it to you PLAINLY.


Colossians 2:16-17 [SUP]16 [/SUP]Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. [SUP]17 [/SUP]These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Hebrews 9:10-12 [SUP]10 [/SUP]but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. [SUP]11 [/SUP]But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,[SUP][a][/SUP] then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) [SUP]12 [/SUP]he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Galatians 3:16-25 [SUP]16 [/SUP]Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. [SUP]17 [/SUP]This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. [SUP]18 [/SUP]For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. [SUP]20 [/SUP]Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. [SUP]21 [/SUP]Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. [SUP]22 [/SUP]But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [SUP]23 [/SUP]Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. [SUP]24 [/SUP]So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. [SUP]25 [/SUP]But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

Here is the reasoning:

1. Colossians 2:16-17 groups food and drink offerings, the Sabbath and annual festivals together.

2. Food and drink offerings were imposed until the time of Reformation..which was when Christ came and died for our sins
per Hebrews 9:10-12.

3. Galatians 3:16-25 provides further support that the Old Covenant was only in effect until Christ came and died for our
sins. It is no longer in effect.

4. Since Colossians 2:16-17 groups food and drink offerings, the Sabbath and annual festivals together, they are under the
same level of applicability to the New Covenant believer.

5. Additionally, Hebrews 10:1-2 uses the same language of "shadows of things to come" in reference to animal sacrifices that
is applied to the Sabbath and Holy Days, placing them in this same category of inapplicable things.

As indicated on other posts, an additional point is that Hebrews 10:1-2 uses the same reference of "shadow of things to come" in reference to the animal sacrifices as Colossians 2:16-17 uses in regards to the Sabbath, Holy Days, food and drink offerings.

Hebrews 10:1-2 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?


The reasoning that the Sabbath and Holy Days do not apply to New Covenant Christians is inescapable. If someone wants to observe them, fine, but don't accuse other non-observant individuals of being false Christians or being in sin.

The tendency of those who claim these things apply to New Covenant believers, though, is to judge others as spiritually inferior or even unsaved. Here is a record of that, both Scripturally and on this forum:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...-old-covenant-observance-causes-division.html
 
S

sparkman

Guest
Just so this is clear, read these verses:

Hebrews 10:1-2 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?

The same language of "shadows of the good things to come" applies to animal sacrifices and the ceremonial and ritualistic laws of the Old Covenant. Comparing this to Colossians 2:16-17 groups the Sabbath and annual festivals into the same classification. In addition, the mentioning of food and drink offerings in Colossians 2:16-17 places the Sabbath and Holy Days in the same classification of ceremonial and ritualistic laws.

It is really not a difficult thing to see that since the Sabbath and Holy Days are grouped with food and drink offerings, and the same language of "shadows of things to come" is used with regard to the animal sacrifices, that Colossians 2:16-17 CANNOT be used to support keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days. In fact, it proves the opposite.

If you want to keep them, fine. Do it. The Jewish Christians in the New Testament church did. Due to Romans 14, you are allowed to do so, but don't try to claim they are requirements for New Covenant believers today. They are not requirements for New Covenant believers.

You really cannot get around this. I believed the same way that you do for over a decade, and you are in error. I realize you are probably sincere and well-meaning, but wrong. Quit trying to judge others. Read the Bible for the plain and main message, which is the need to place your faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. The message of Christ and the apostles was not about some elaborate conspiracy theory like Herbert Armstrong concocted.

Note this as well..the false gospel of the Galatians was about keeping elements of the Old Covenant, not about an effort to undermine the law. For Herbert Armstrong to quote Galatians 1:6-7 in this regard, claiming that other Christians are following a counterfeit gospel, is an outright misrepresentation, as the context is clearly about Judaizing, which was his message. Read Galatians in its entirety. Think about it and let it soak in.

The errors that are being conveyed by those who claim these things are required for New Covenant Christians should be resolved by anyone who has a decent grasp of the context of these books: Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, Colossians. Read them and ask God to reveal if you have any deception or false doctrine in your thinking. Buy a few good commentaries such as MacArthur's or the Pillar Set.

those verses say no such thing like you claim, we been over this before.

-shadows of things to come is future tence for starters.

God must be so proud of you fighting againest people who keep

Holy what God proclaimed Holy, and will be in the future.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
are you circumised of the heart, are you presenting God, yourself as a living sacarfice ?

I hope so because that is what the bible says to do.

oh thats right you do not believe we can become kings and priests in the future
Presenting one's self as a living sacrifice is not an animal sacrifice, therefore your reasoning falls apart. The Millennial references are to animal sacrifices, and we don't observe those today as New Covenant believers, so therefore to claim the Sabbath is required for New Covenant believers is inconsistent reasoning.

And, as I've explained, Colossians 2:16-17 cannot be read in a manner that requires Sabbath and festival observance. Compare the language with Hebrews 10:1-2 to see that the same language is used in regards to animal sacrifices. In addition, Colossians 2:16-17 refers to food and drink offerings, which are defunct. Hebrews 9:9-11 makes this clear..they were only imposed until the time of Reformation, which is when Christ came.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
I don't know where you got that from. Believers will reign with Christ.
so now you have selective memory i see,

Two, the theology of cults appeal to human pride and vanity.
One of their doctrines was that those who were members of WCG
would [be kings and priests] in the Millennium.
you labeled them a colt for believing in the bible about this remember
 
S

sparkman

Guest
A question I'd have is why you care if you aren't a part of them and the groups that descended from Herbert Armstrong's teachings. You have said that you aren't part of them..so why do you care?

I was a part of Worldwide Church of God so I know what he taught.

Here's an outline of it:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/114577-beware-armstrongism.html

These elements would be cultic:

1. Claiming you are the only true church and that salvation isn't available outside of your organization
2. Calling other individuals who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ "so-called Christians", "false Christians" or saying that
they are following a counterfeit Christianity
3. Claiming that believers will be part of the Godhead in the resurrection
4. Claiming that you have "the truth" and others didn't...and largely this "truth" revolves around Judaizing.
5. Following a leader who claims to be God's apostle on the same level as the 12 apostles and Paul, and the Elijah to Come
6. Rejection of core Christian doctrines such as the Trinity doctrine, bodily resurrection, and personhood of the Holy Spirit

By the way, Herbert Armstrong insinuated he would be one of the "two witnesses" of Revelation. And somehow I don't think he's going to be one of the two witnesses as he is nothing but bones and maggots by this time.

He also prophecied Christ's return in 1975 which didn't happen, making him a false prophet. I believe he prophecied the same thing in 1956 then claimed he was off by one "nineteen year time cycle" and adjusted his projected date. See the book "1975 In Prophecy"..it is probably online somewhere in pdf form.

The proof of a true prophet is 100% accuracy, and Herbert Armstrong fails the test. I realize some try to claim he didn't teach that, but he most certainly did, and the church membership at that time knew he taught it. Somehow that wasn't part of my indoctrination lessons, though.

He was nothing but a false prophet, and those who follow his teachings should know that. Instead, they plug their ears and babble like fools claiming to be wise, throwing rocks at believers who have placed their faith in Christ and not foolishness.

But, as I've asked, why do you care about what I've said about Herbert Armstrong and Worldwide Church of God if you deny association with him or the groups that follow his teachings today?

so now you have selective memory i see,



you labeled them a colt for believing in the bible about this remember
 
Last edited:
S

sparkman

Guest
so now you have selective memory i see,



you labeled them a colt for believing in the bible about this remember
I didn't label them a cult for that reason. I label them a cult for the other reasons that I mentioned.

Regarding "kings and priests", believers will be kings and priests. I have no issue with that. However, their excessive emphasis on that appeals to human pride. I may have worded that particular thread in a manner that was not so good. However, you had to look a long time to find something like that to criticize me for.

So, that concept is Scriptural, but their emphasis on it appeals to human pride and vanity. Unlike their teaching that believers are going to be part of the Godhead, which is blatantly unscriptural and blasphemous. God is the creator and not part of the creation. We will always be part of the creation. Our status will be somewhere between God and angels, but to claim that we will be fully God is blasphemous. We will also never be worshipped...only God will be worshipped.

In WCG, the common understanding was that we would be Gods ruling over our own planets, and that is why there are so many planets in the universe. I imagine the loony splinter groups that came from WCG still teach the same nonsense given the pdf of the booklets you posted on threads in the past. Some even claimed that we might be called upon to die on the cross like Christ did for the sins of those planets. It's utter nonsense and speculation, like much of Armstrongism.

Like I said, Armstrongites simply plug their fingers in their ears and utter nonsense while claiming to be wise and to know more than everyone else. God may choose to enlighten them at some point but that is their behavior in general.
 
Last edited:
T

tanach

Guest
It is a pity that the Book of Jubilees was not included in the cannon of Scripture. That book believed to be written by a Pharisee
between the testaments actually says that the Sabbath was meant for Israel not the Gentiles. Still although it is not considered
inspired it does show that at least some Jews believed about this issue back then.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
I didn't label them a cult for that reason. I label them a cult for the other reasons that I mentioned.

.
Originally Posted by sparkman


Two, the theology of [cults] appeal to human pride and vanity.

[One] of their doctrines was that those who were members of WCG
would [be kings and priests] in the Millennium.

-looked that way to me,you labeled them a colt for reading and believing
what bible verses say about kings and priests.


it is you blasting everwhere about sabbath colts, not just wcg

you even made another bold lie that a woman started all the sabbath colts.
 
Last edited:

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,714
13,519
113
happy tuesday -- this day is also the Lord's

:)
 
S

sparkman

Guest
Originally Posted by sparkman


Two, the theology of [cults] appeal to human pride and vanity.

[One] of their doctrines was that those who were members of WCG
would [be kings and priests] in the Millennium.

-looked that way to me,you labeled them a colt for reading and believing
what bible verses say about kings and priests.


it is you blasting everwhere about sabbath colts, not just wcg

you even made another bold lie that a woman started all the sabbath colts.
You are distorting my words, but that's ok because there's a lot of truth to them.

Ellen G. White was very instrumental, along with Joseph Bates, for much of the modern Judaizing teachings. This is indisputable. Herbert Armstrong and his teachings were indirectly affected by them.

Joseph Bates and Ellen G. White are two of the founders of the Seventh Day Adventist church. The parent group of the SDA church had an argument regarding her prophetess-ship, and the Church of God - Seventh Day was birthed as a result. The Seventh Day Adventists went along their merry way with Ellen G. White as their prophetess.

Herbert Armstrong was a pastor of Church of God - Seventh Day until he got disfellowshipped for his British Israelism foolishness and for teaching festival observance.

These groups are closely related and are a source of much of the modern day Judaizing movements of today, including Worldwide Church of God, which also affected the darker side of the Hebrew Roots Movement.

By the way, I have no issue with groups that keep the Sabbath out of preference, but don't try to compel others to keep them as requirements, conditions, or necessary fruits of salvation. I would not label those groups as cults. I would label those who teach that the Sabbath is a requirement, condition, or necessary fruit of salvation as a cult. They are basically identifying other believers who don't agree with their view on this as unbelievers or spiritually inferior..so they are being divisive and requiring observance of ceremonial or ritualistic components of the Old Covenant in addition to faith in Jesus Christ.

If your group does that, then they are a cult. If your group teaches that they will be part of the Godhead in the resurrection, they are a cult. If they call other Christians who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ "so called Christians" or say that they are following a "counterfeit Christianity", they are a cult.

If you want me to use the word "Judaizer" rather than cult, I'd be happy to do that on occasion. Basically it combines the cultic exclusivist aspects of these groups along with the specific details of their assertions.

Let's not forget that Herbert Armstrong is the one who proclaimed orthodox Christianity to be false believers...he was the one that was being divisive, not orthodox Christianity.

He's just one of a group of dolts who claimed to restore true Christianity which hadn't been taught since the apostolic era..along with Joseph Smith of the Mormons and Ellen G. White of the Seventh Day Adventists, and Alexander Campbell of the Church of Christ. They all basically follow the same play book.
 
Last edited:

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
I didn't label them a cult for that reason. I label them a cult for the other reasons that I mentioned.

Regarding "kings and priests", believers will be kings and priests. I have no issue with that. However, their excessive emphasis on that appeals to human pride. I may have worded that particular thread in a manner that was not so good. However, you had to look a long time to find something like that to criticize me for.

.
no I only had to read one days posting by you,

that you searched any thread related to sabbath, and plastered

the same thing on about 30 threads, then if that was not enough,

you started a bunch of threads to bash the sabbaths some more.


I do not follow any man like you claim, but follow the word of God.
 
S

sparkman

Guest
Why do you post entire articles from Armstrongite sites if you are not pressing the agenda?

Besides that, why didn't you identify your source? I always identify my sources. That's because I've got nothing to hide.

You are being deceptive in your posting, yet you accuse me of inappropriate behavior?

My purpose is to identify logical flaws with those who claim that these things are required for salvation, and you can be sure I will continue to do so. I won't allow those who teach this sort of thing to go unchallenged.

no I only had to read one days posting by you,

that you searched any thread related to sabbath, and plastered

the same thing on about 30 threads, then if that was not enough,

you started a bunch of threads to bash the sabbaths some more.


I do not follow any man like you claim, but follow the word of God.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
sparkman;2204349 Besides that said:
let me see how much brotherly love you have.

you went and listed everyone in wcg and all the splinter groups as colts,

and you force people to state what you want them to say,

then you attack them for posting from any of those groups.


time and again I see you try getting people kicked out by telling on them.

do they not have a view here to say what they believe in those groups.
 
S

sydlit

Guest
Why do you post entire articles from Armstrongite sites if you are not pressing the agenda?

Besides that, why didn't you identify your source? I always identify my sources. That's because I've got nothing to hide.

You are being deceptive in your posting, yet you accuse me of inappropriate behavior?

My purpose is to identify logical flaws with those who claim that these things are required for salvation, and you can be sure I will continue to do so. I won't allow those who teach this sort of thing to go unchallenged.
Did Jesus pay for all my sins past present and future when He died on the cross (and then rose from the grave) or didn't He? If He did, do I now and forever have permission to rejoice and thank Him, or is there a certain formula I must follow to be accepted, or certain laws I must keep like new moons and things. What really is the GoodNews of the Gospel?