Using the Internet on The Sabbath

I've noticed a few example of Torah observing Christians saying they don't go on The Internet on The Sabbath.  I find that strange.

Any argument that going on the Internet qualifies as servile work would be as absurd as the Rabbis saying it would violate the Sabbath to push the button on an Elevator.

The Sabbath is also a day of Assembly, part of it's purpose is for God's People to come together.  In the modern world The Internet is a vital part of how we do that.  If you know other believers in your area you should feel free to consider communing with them more important.

But we should never neglect using part of The Sabbath Day to check whatever online groups and communities we are members of.  And so on.  Cause some of us lack local like minded Believers we can fellowship with in person.

Sabbath posts

The Sabbath is considered a morality dispute to many Christians.  But for various reasons I tend to wind up discussing it on my Prophecy Blog, because anything about The Calendar is potentially Prophetic.  So I figured I'd share some posts here.

In which I argue against the notion that The New Testament calls for Sunday Worship.

In which I address the SDA desire to connect it to The Mark.

In which I argue against those saying Jesus rose on The Sabbath not Sunday.

In which I address the Lunar Sabbath theory.

In which I revisit my view on The Sabbath's role in the Passion narrative.

In which I discus The Sabbath's connection to The Manna.

The last half of those I made within the last week.  They may be subject to some editing in the near future.

Update October 28th 2016:  And now I have made on on this Blog.

 Using The Interne ton The Sabbath.

Update April 2016: And I did a follow up on the Lunar Sabbath issue.

Update June 2024: As that Prophecy Blog is Retired now I'm gonna need to redo the more important of those, mostly on this Blog probably rather then Materialist Eschatology.

I've changed The Lord's Day is The Sabbath not Sunday quite a bit, abandoning tangents I don't feel like supporting anymore and adding some new material.

Using The Cross as a symbol of our Faith

There are lots of Christians out there today who want to reject it.  Not all advocating for some other symbol in it's place, many arguing that using Symbols is itself inherently Occult and so not something Christians should do.

The thing about Occult Symbolism is, it involves a belief the symbol itself has Magical power.  I have said firmly that things like the mere sight of a Cross repelling Vampires is an inherently pagan philosophy, so I find it funny when I see Christians complain about the Cross losing it's power in much modern Vampire fiction.

And the thing with Secret Societies who may not always take the supernatural seriously.  Is that the symbols are meant to conceal not reveal, only those in the know should recognize it.  What The Cross means to a Christian is not hidden, we seek to make it common knowledge.

A Christian wearing a Cross is just a way to communicate that we're Christians as soon as we're seen.

Symbolism can be used in a purely text format.  And Paul does use The Cross as a symbol of the Gospel in passages like 1 Corinthians 1:17-18.

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

And Galatians 5:11 and 6:12-14.

"As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.  For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.  But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

And Ephesians 2:16.

And Philippians 2:8 and 3:18-19.

"For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."

And Colossians 1:20 and 2:14.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

Hebrews 12:2 is arguably being literal not Symbolic.

And all that is why I favor The Cross over the other two symbols that are sufficiently Ancient, The Chi-Rho Sign and the Ichys Fish.  Because Paul himself used it as a symbol of the Gospel he preached repeatedly.

But what about the question of if we depict The Cross accurately?  Regardless of if The Cross Jesus was on actually looked like the common symbol we use (The argument that it looked more like an X is compelling), that that shape resembles the original Paleo-Hebrew design of the Tav, the last letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, I consider a valid Judeo-Christian basis for it.  In a Paleo-Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 three Tavs appear, the middle one being the untranslated Aleth-Tav in the exact middle of the verse.

Then there is the theory that the Israelites encampment in The Wilderness would have had a similar shape.

I sometimes hear from Torah Observant Christians, "Why would I use a symbol of suffering and death?"  That happens to resemble how Muslims and sometimes Mormons criticize The Gospel.  And frankly that attitude is exactly what 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 is directed against.  Now when we talk about The Cross we should never fail to stress that The Resurrection comes next.

Like many things certain groups don't like, there is a desire to blame it on Constantine.  Constantine didn't use it however, he used the Chi-Rho sign, that's what he saw in his supposed vision.   As far as state sponsored Christianity goes the first King to put Crosses on their coins was King Ezana of the Kingdom of Aksum in Africa, the same people who claim to have The Ark, makes you wonder doesn't it?

Carvings of Crosses go back before that however.

None of this is an argument you HAVE to go around using The Cross as a symbol, I am not a Legalist.  This is simply saying symbolism isn't bad, and refuting those who would go around shaming Christians for using a Cross.

What does being Worldly actually mean?

In the Christians community today we love to quote verses like 1 John 2:15.

"If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

2 Timothy 4:10

"For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world"

And John 15:19

"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

But the perception seems to have become that these verses are primarily about enjoying Secular entertainment media, and such things.  While those can be a factor, they are not the point.

The word for World in the verses from John is Kosmos.  The Greek etymology of that word implies order, it has been taken to mean "the ordered system of the world".

This is the same word where Satan is called the Ruler of the World.  And when Jesus old Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this World.  These are about how Satan owns all the nations of the World.

So when you read "Love not the World" remember that The United States of America is part of that world.

For more elaboration read my earlier posts.  Patriotic Idolatry and Standing for The National Anthem is Idolatry.

Believes are not Citizens of The World or any Earthly Nation, but of The Kingdom that is NOT of This World.

Standing for the National Anthem is Idolatry.

This whole outrage over Kaepernick just further proves the point I was trying to make in my Patriotic Idolatry post.

Regardless of Kapernick's political motivation to protest it (which I am very sympathetic towards, I support Black Lives Matter).   The very fact that so many supposed Christians are so offended by the idea of someone not doing it is what proves the Flag is an Idol to them.

So NO, I will NEVER again stand for the National Anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance or do any other such acts of worship that makes the Nation State itself a god.

And when someone tries to guilt you about how it's disrespectful to Solders or 9/11 victims, you should ask them if they're Catholic and think we're supposed to pray for the dead?  Because that's literally the same superstitious thinking they're using.  None of these rituals can bring the dead back.

I feel guilty about all the election related posts I made this year.  I got suckered in again when the truth is for a while now I've felt that Christians should not even think of themselves as citizens of any Earthly Nation.  That the Anabaptists had it right, we should obey the law so long as it doesn't conflict with following our Faith, but should also always remember that all Nations are ruled by Satan till the Second Coming, without exception.

We're supposed to be Citizens of God's Kingdom which is currently not of this world.  So being Patriotic and being a good Bible Believing Christian are mutually exclusive.  We should never Pledge Allegiance to any piece of cloth.

And we love to cite Biblical commands against swearing oaths when we talk about Freemasonry, but forget that being an elected official, or a Solider, or testifying in Court also requires swearing an Oath.  I think maybe we should consider those things just as wrong for a Christian to do as Freemasonry.

Paul said there is neither Male nor Female in The Church

Galatians 3:28.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I've mentioned this verse before discussing The Bible on Traditional Gender Roles.  And maybe this post risks retreading that same ground.

But I want to rant on how I'm tired of "Traditionalists" saying this is only about how anyone can get Saved.  No, it's not, the context of verses 25-27 are clear, this is about after we're Saved.  He's saying these distinctions don't exist within in the Church, not that they're irrelevant to getting in.

But the hypocrisy is that this isn't how anyone applies the references in the same verse to "Jew nor Greek(Gentile)" or "Bond nor Free".

Dispensationists like Chuck Missler are all about how The Church is a new entity and when you're in it you're neither Jew or Gentile, and so no one regardless of ancestry has to follow The Law.  While Hebrew Roots style Christians like Rob Skiba are all about how Gentiles are grafted into Israel and so everyone regardless of ancestry has to follow The Torah.

Neither supports saying believers can be distinguished between Jew and Gentile.  I don't fully fit into either of those camps but sympathize with aspects of both.  But plenty in both of those camps want to cling to separate laws for men and women regarding how to dress and so on.

Likewise with "Bond nor Free", when Christians are pointing out how many of the Abolitionists were driven by their Faith, this is among the Bible Verses they cited to support abolishing Slavery.  And yet the same modern Christians who think those Abolitionists were so right about Slavery will go 'how dare you think we should abolish gender'.

It is interesting that Chapter 4 keeps using the word "Son" and male pronouns, in-spite of just making clear females are included.  But remember the last verse of chapter 3 is about how we are all made spiritually Abraham's Seed, like what Roman 9-11 is about.

Yes the world into which they (and us still) were born was a patriarchal one.  And those norms influenced the Hebrew Bible, but in Hebrews Paul calls The Law of Moses imperfect and says The Law is now written on our Hearts.  And I've talked before about how gender issues show those imperfections.

So just as Gentiles can now have the Blessings promised to Abraham (which was always the plan in Genesis 12), so now has Christ allowed Women the Freedoms that only Men could have before.  Now also for both of those one could argue that comes with increased responsibilities, but that's for a separate debate about The Law under The New Covenant.

 I've also talked about how the marriage of Genesis 2 was equal unlike Genesis 3.

There are New Testament verses that get used to support patriarchal norms also, how do I address those?

A lot of what's said about Marriage is in the context of discussing The Bride of Christ doctrine, using an Old Testament custom as an illustration of a New Testament doctrine.  Others may be there just because they were living in a world that is still patriarchal.  And we also need to remember that there are words translated "Man" that are meant to be gender neutral.

I believe The Bible is consistent with itself, and Galatians 3:28 is the most unambiguous statement on this issue.  And I think it ties in with how there were no separate courts for Women or Gentiles in Ezekiel's Temple.  The context of the verses around it, 26-29, are basically saying we've not any of these other classes because we are now all in Christ and thus all Sons of God like Christ.

Others have also blogged on this subject, the details often differing from my views but the gist being the same.  Here is one example, and another from the same blog.  And I read this interesting post on naming conventions.

Update October 2018: I have written this follow up post going more into passages not addressed here.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/07/neither-male-or-female-in-churhc-follow.html

The Libertarian Party seems to be the only third party making any effort to do more then just Presidential election

[Update: I'm not a Libertarian anymore.]