Kanye West's "Christian" - "Sunday Service" - Jesus is King Album, Chick Fil-A & the Real Lord's Day

[IndigoChild5559]

Nope.

It's called Bible study, line upon line (Isaiah 28:10,13)

What you are doing is called hand-waving (dismissing).

You are introducing too many scriptures to be handled in a forum setting. This is not the place for comprehensive Bible studies. It's a place for dialogue. Just reply to what Ive said.

As I wrote, I'm not going to respond to the dumping. I'll respond to your main idea.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I just showed you Kanye West's "Christian" - "Sunday Service" - Jesus is King Album, Chick Fil-A & the Real Lord's Day , that is not true. Each of the verses I provided also speak of "the ... LORD's ... day" (the 7th day the sabbath of the LORD in context), but you choose to ignore that.

For instance:

Exodus 20:8-11 - 'the sabbath day', 'the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God', 'sabbath day' [... the LORD ... day ...]

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 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:
Exo 20:11 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.​

I also do not think for one moment you are a Jew practicing Judaism. I am fully aware of those who are the staff in the old man's hand. We know who our real enemy is. We know them by their speech.

Pulling "the Lord....day" out of a verse doesn't qualify as the verse saying "the Lord's day." sorry

On what grounds do you say I am not a Jew practicing Judaism??? Unless you have very good reasons, the rule of thumb is to take a forum writer at their word. I am halakhically a Jew. I have been most active in Orthodox Judaism and am currently attending a Reform synagogue, but probably feel most at home in Conservative Judaism. All in all, I don't claim any particular denomination. I simply am happy wherever Jews gather to pray. I am not quite shomer Shabbat, since I drive to Synagogue and occasionally use the computer (my addiction). I do eat kosher, almost kosher by Orthodox standards, mostly by being practically vegetarian, with the exception of non-kosher cheese and clean meats not kosher certified. I separate my meat and dairy using separate dishes. Any other ridiculous questions?

If I wanted to play tit for tat, I'd challenge you on your Christian Orthodoxy, but I don't want to stoop to your level.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They are all forged, and I provided the links for that. Roman Catholicism is a great system that is known well for forgeries.

The seven accepted by scholars as authentic are not forged. You don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are mistaken, as I already posted this in a previously reply:

Like I said, you are quoting things MUCH older in Catholic history. I can't believe you are quoting the Council of Trent, which is 16th century. Sheesh.

 

[coconut theology]

Israel is a people, not a person.

As I said, your speech gives you away, for I know you are not a Jew practicisng Judaism, for no Jew would ever say such a thing as you have said, for they know the origin of the name itself:

Gen_32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

Gen_32:32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.

Gen_35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.​

"Israel" is a spiritual name (meaning "prince/ruler/overcomer with God", see John 16:33; Revelation 3:21), given for victory over sin, to a single man, who was a "type" of the real Israel (a single person, a man) to come:

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.​

Notice, "Israel" is a single "child", an "him", even specifically "my [God's] son". Matthew, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in Matthew 2:13-15,19-21, citing Hosea 11:1, says that Jesus is the actual fulfillment of Hosea 11:1:

Mat 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.​

Jacob of old, the single person who was given the name, was therefore, not the fulfillment in full, but only in shadow, in type, in example pointing to the reality to come, as Jesus has said:

Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Luk_24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.​

It was Jesus, the real "Israel" who overcame all temptation to sin by the strength of His Father, by and through the Holy Ghost. Jesus wrestled in the garden and won.

Just as Jesus is the real "Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:44-46).

Just as Jesus is the real "David" (Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25; Hosea 3:5).

etc.

Christians are therefore the "children of Israel (Jesus)" (Hebrews 2:13; Isaiah 8:16,18; John 13:33) and thus are real "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16), which are not the children after the flesh of Jacob (Romans 9:8), which are not really "of Israel". Jesus is the true Israel into which persons are grafted, the real stock.

Don't know why you are quoting Ecclesiastes.

Yes, I know why you don't know why.

Ecclesiastes, written by Solomon under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, speaking of the entire "duty" of mankind (all in Adam) towards God:

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man (the Adam).

Ecc 12:13 HOT šôf Dävär haKol nish'mä et-häélohiym y'rä w'et-mitz'wotäyw sh'môr Kiy-zeh Käl-häädäm​

Ecc 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.​

Jesus Christ is the true Adam, 1 Corinthians 15:44-46.

"The Sabbath" was "made" for "the man" (Mark 2:27-28).

The only "the man" in Genesis is Adam, of which things were "made" for.

Colossians 1:16 states that in reality all things were "made" "for" Jesus, who is "the man" (1 Timothy 2:5)

We are to obey those commandments which are for us. Jews have one set, Gentiles have a different set.

You are greatly mistaken, as Ecclesiastes states that keeping God's commandments (Ten Commandments) are every man's (of mankind, of Adam, first or last) duty.

Exo_12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.​

The peoples Israel of old were to be the light to the entire world that was in gross darkness, taking the glorious light of the commandments of God to all:

Pro_6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:​

Deu 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
Deu 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
Deu 4:7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
Deu 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

Isa_60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.

Luk_2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.​

As Jesus said:

Mar_12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?​

 

[coconut theology]

The seven accepted by scholars as authentic are not forged. You don't have a leg to stand on.

See previous links. And I do not accept 'scholars' that accept the forged letters, as other scholars do not accept them, as cited to you. You are clearly a Roman Catholic, masquerading.

 

[coconut theology]

Like I said, you are quoting things MUCH older in Catholic history. I can't believe you are quoting the Council of Trent, which is 16th century. Sheesh.

Trent (council of Jesuits) is current Canon Law (which as a former Roman Catholic of 30 years, I have studied deeply), of which I may cite to you verbatim from the English or Latin.

 

[coconut theology]

You are introducing too many scriptures to be handled in a forum setting.

Arbitrary. Hand-waving. Piffling. You have given no standard of measurement for "too many", neither justification for your aprioric and subjective measurement.

There are 150 Psalms. Psalms 119, has 176 verses. Isaiah has 66 chapters. Jeremiah has 52 chapters. Matthew has 28 chapters. Revelation has 22 chapters. Matthew 5, the beatitudes, has 48 verses. Many of my responses are shorter than that sermon on the mount.

This is not the place for comprehensive Bible studies.

It is called "Religious forums", and we are presently posting in "General religious debates" (of which you are currently not very good at):

Act_6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.​

It is the perfect place to support the true position (as I am sharing with you and all) the evidences for said position. I give evidences, and documentation, with citation, and you merely provide "you".

When Jesus refuted the devil, the opponent, it was with "It is written".

It's a place for dialogue.

I am so dialoguing, but you are simply trying to dictate how I am to dialogue. You are attempting to formulate personal aprioric 'rules' for how we engage. You might as well sit down with it, since no country worth its salt would agree to such terms in a war. Make no mistake, we are at war - a polemics. The Bible says:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2Ti_4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.​

Paul himself:

Act_18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.​

Therefore, I will continue as I am, even as you will continue presenting vanity. Your method is not even as these noble ones:

Act_17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.​

You refuse to consider the texts I provide. You are Roman Catholic. It is obvious.

Just reply to what Ive said.

I have replied to what you have said, and demonstrated by scripture the position which is true. That you do not accept this method is due to the faulty foundation by which you attempt engagement. Even "Augustine" consulted "books" (for evidence) in his arguments against the Manichaens, even as Andreas Carlstadt points out in the debate at Leipzig with John Eck. Other so called ECF (easily confused fellows) do the same in their rebuttals, citing many scriptures and examples.

As I wrote, I'm not going to respond to the dumping.

Of course you won't. You cannot. You have not evidence for your position. What you have is aprioric "you".

I'll respond to your main idea.

You haven't even done that. All you have done is sown to the wind.

 

[coconut theology]

Pulling "the Lord....day" out of a verse doesn't qualify as the verse saying "the Lord's day." sorry ...

You forgot the highlighted (as underlined) word "of", which means possession, ownership, and thus it is not merely "the LORD ... day", but in context, the 7th day the sabbath is "the LORD's (the 's coming from the "of") day", as it is in all the verses cited in evidence.

For instance, in Isaiah 58:13, in many 'modern' translations, the phrase "the LORD's holy day" appear - Isaiah 58:13 - Bible Gateway

"Holy" is merely the adjective.

It always speaks of the 7th day the sabbath of the LORD, His holy day.

John, as a real Jew who followed Christ Jesus, knew the OT scriptures. He wasn't making up something new, but always took from that which is old:

Mat_13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

1Jn_2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As I said, your speech gives you away, for I know you are not a Jew practicisng Judaism, for no Jew would ever say such a thing as you have said, for they know the origin of the name itself:

Oh of course Jacobs name was changed to Israel. Duh. Thats where the name of the People comes from. What I was saying is that you can't pull out a Tom, Dick, or Harry and say that that individual is Israel. In the same way, you can't say that Jesus (alone) is Israel. He was part of Israel, just as all Jews are part of Israel.

Knock off your quest to prove I'm not a Jew. You are wrong. I am halakhically Jewish, which means Jewish law recognizes me as a Jew -- you can't get more Jewish than that. Do I practice Judaism? Yes, emphatically yes. And you know what? I don't even have to prove myself to you. You have no evidence to the contrary. You are being incredibly insulting. It's basically a personal attack. Please stop or I will consider it harrassment.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

See previous links. And I do not accept 'scholars' that accept the forged letters, as other scholars do not accept them, as cited to you. You are clearly a Roman Catholic, masquerading.

LOL I am not Roman Catholic. I am familiar with Roman Catholicism to a certain extent. I have studied in detail the period of time when Rabbinical Judaism came into being, and how Christianity and Judaism differentiated from each other. I am also concerned about the history of anti-semitism, and so I read "When Jesus became God" by Rabbi Rubenstein, since antisemitism went up a huge notch when Christianity invented Trinitarianism and Jews suddenly became guilty of deicide. At any rate, I definitely am more familiar with Chrisitanity than the average Jew, just as I am more familiar with Taoism, Lakota Spirituality, and Islam (though I've forgotten a lot I learned about Islam through lack of use). Im definitely a comparative religion sort of person, which is unusual in any religion.

But trust me, I am NOT Roman Catholic. Jesus is not God, not the messiah, and the "gospel" is not good news. Did you know that Eichmann, the Nazi monster who was tried and executed in Israel, converted to Christianity shortly before his death? According to the "gospel" if his conversion was sincere he went straight to heaven. And all his unbaptized victims went straight to hell. Doesn't that seem atrociously backwards to you? Its a perversion. And you think that's what I believe? ROTFL

Enough of your harrassment

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Trent (council of Jesuits) is current Canon Law (which as a former Roman Catholic of 30 years, I have studied deeply), of which I may cite to you verbatim from the English or Latin.

I know nothing of canon law. I'll leave that for you to discuss with the actual roman catholics. I just know that Trent was in teh 16th century. a wee bit late to serve your purposes as an argument.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You forgot the highlighted (as underlined) word "of", which means possession, ownership, and thus it is not merely "the LORD ... day", but in context, the 7th day the sabbath is "the LORD's (the 's coming from the "of") day", as it is in all the verses cited in evidence.

For instance, in Isaiah 58:13, in many 'modern' translations, the phrase "the LORD's holy day" appear - Isaiah 58:13 - Bible Gateway

"Holy" is merely the adjective.

It always speaks of the 7th day the sabbath of the LORD, His holy day.

John, as a real Jew who followed Christ Jesus, knew the OT scriptures. He wasn't making up something new, but always took from that which is old:

Mat_13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

1Jn_2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.​

The Day of the Lord is not the Lord's day. The two phrases mean entirely different things.

The rest of what you are saying is simply an attempt to logically argue your point. I have no need to use logic. I have documents on my side. Documents that state the Lords day refers to the eight day.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Jew", practicing "Judaism"?, not a chance.

As it is written:

"... Surely thou also art one of them [RC]; for thy speech bewrayeth thee."

I had to google this. It is someone accusing Peter of being a follower of Jesus. If that isn't pulling a verse out of context, I don't know what is.

 

[coconut theology]

The Day of the Lord is not the Lord's day. ...

As I said from the beginning and even repeated for you [Link], "I never said it (that the "Lord's day" is "the Day of the LORD") was."

You are continually pointing to a Strawman of your own making. You are not arguing against anything I have said, but what you say I said, which are two incongruent things.

See the image I presented:

Please notice that "the Lord's day", aka the 7 day of the week, the Sabbath of the LORD thy God, is not the same as the "Day of the LORD", which is the 7th 1000 year of the Great Cosmic Week, days "with the LORD". Microcosm vs macrocosm.

God has told us the "end from the beginning" - Isaiah 46:9-10, see also Matthew 13:35. Thus Genesis 1-2 shows us not merely the 6 and the 7th days of Creation, but the entire history of mankind (6,000 and final 1,000 = 7000 years) in a nutshell.

You can see that represented here by many others throughout history:

Age of the Earth

The Redemption of the Creation – 7000 Years And The Everlasting Gospel (Powerpoint)

7000 Year Plan Of The Everlasting Gospel – Bible & Historical Quotations (PDF)

 

[coconut theology]

I had to google this. It is someone accusing Peter of being a follower of Jesus. If that isn't pulling a verse out of context, I don't know what is.

I am using the saying, as cited, as a true saying. The speech of a person gives them away, as their speech reveals the hidden man of the heart, no matter their exterior appearance. It also deals with the mannerisms, etc.

 

[coconut theology]

I know nothing of canon law. ...

I do. 'Trent' is very much current theology. Since you are so fond of 'google', you ought do so.

 

[coconut theology]

But trust me, I am NOT Roman Catholic.

As I said, I do not believe you (just as you do not have to believe me). Not for a moment. SJ's are allowed to say that as they say, 'ad maiorem Dei gloriam'', as well as 'the ends justifies the means'.

 

[coconut theology]

Oh of course Jacobs name was changed to Israel. ...

Thank you for proving my point. You just agreed that the name Israel was given to an individual, which is what I said.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As I said from the beginning and even repeated for you [Link], "I never said it (that the "Lord's day" is "the Day of the LORD") was."

You are continually pointing to a Strawman of your own making. You are not arguing against anything I have said, but what you say I said, which are two incongruent things.

See the image I presented:

View attachment 36850

Please notice that "the Lord's day", aka the 7 day of the week, the Sabbath of the LORD thy God, is not the same as the "Day of the LORD", which is the 7th 1000 year of the Great Cosmic Week, days "with the LORD". Microcosm vs macrocosm.

God has told us the "end from the beginning" - Isaiah 46:9-10, see also Matthew 13:35. Thus Genesis 1-2 shows us not merely the 6 and the 7th days of Creation, but the entire history of mankind (6,000 and final 1,000 = 7000 years) in a nutshell.

You can see that represented here by many others throughout history:

Age of the Earth

The Redemption of the Creation – 7000 Years And The Everlasting Gospel (Powerpoint)

7000 Year Plan Of The Everlasting Gospel – Bible & Historical Quotations (PDF)

You are actually doing worse than claiming the Day of the Lord is the Lord's day. You are splicing together words strung out in various places in verses which STILL do not say "The Lord's Day." Like I said, there is only one place in your Bible where it says the Lord's Day, and it doesn't say which day of the week it is. You are forced to go to the Apostolic Father for that info, and they say it is the eighth day.

Enough said, I'm not going to repeat this over and over. My argument is irrefutable. It trumps all of your so called logic, all of your manipulations of your Bible. End of story.

The conversation is over.