Featured Concerning the Collection for the Saints

To get back to the op, I agree it is a one time thing. In Acts 11, at the end of the chapter, I think that is a very good account of gracious giving also. The Jewish Christians were facing a famine, so the church at Antioch, basically the first organized gentile church, gave to their Jewish brothers, who had hated them just a short period of time before. Even if these are one time events, they are great examples for our lives today in helping others.

 

... so that we can answer, But Lord, did we not give bread to the hungry? Did we not work miracles and healed the sick in your Name?

O you doers of good ... how well you stick to the meat and leave the bones to the hateful birds ...

iach, I am so happy I don't go to heaven ... to sit on with so many holy Christians ... iach!

 

GE:

In totality a multiple LIE!

But you and your Sunday brethren saintly make good for the fraud and hoax with helping those in need with loads of words and anathematizing your Christian enemies with no words at all. Because you anathematize them with a _day_.

 

GE:

No; here, this, "Question: Was this a command for a weekly laying by in store? or was it a one-time event? Was 'the week' in verse 2 meant to mean a succession of weeks? or just one week in particular?" already is the derailment of the Scripture itself.

1Corinthians 16:1,2 does not contain your alleged concept of "a weekly laying by in store". You have ALREADY corrupted the Word to serve your own interest, your dishonest "INTENDED PURPOSE" to derail the actual written text into your dream of a Sunday worshipping Church.

You BLUFFED all the way. Or tried to …

 

I'm asking you again, G. E. to do ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY:

STOP DERAILING THIS THREAD!!!


WHY? If you want to add your own UNRELATED REMARKS TO THE OP, THEN (for the umpteenth time I might add!!) S - T - A - R - T Y - O - U - R O - W - N T - H - R - E - A - D - ( - S - ) ! - ! - !

Feel Free to opine your merry own heart away.

Add as many of your views about whatever your merry own heart desires.

If not, then I consider it to be

MY DUTY TO REPORT YOU TO THE BB ADMINISTRATORS FOR OPENLY

AND BLANTLY V - I - O - L - A - T - I - N - G T - H - E B - B


R - U - L - E - S ! - ! - ! - !




Y - O - U H - A - V - E H - E - R - E - B - Y B - E - E - N W - A


- R - N - E - D G - E ! - ! - ! -!



The next step is up to you, G. E. my friend and fellow brother BB member!!!

 

Report me, please!

It is NOT _your_ thread.

I transgressed no 'RULES'.

I - the ONLY one who did - dealt with the "INTENDED PURPOSE" of this thread thoroughly.

And what is more, I got to the bottom and intents of hearts through my posts. Your reactions are the proof.

You report me!

NOW!

 

GE:

KTN, read here, http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=81489&page=2

 

GE:

Dear Fred, If you say with your topic, "Concerning the Collection for the Saints"

and I say with regard to your chosen topic for _this_, your own-started thread, that the very topic of your thread

derives from Paul's before-going argumentations concerning the resurrection as were he preaching 'live' to the Church of Christ in the assembling of the Church thoroughly conscious of the FACT his letter would be read to the Church of Christ in the assembling of the Church

and announcement would be made after FORMAL WORSHIP AND READING OF THE LETTER concerning scire licet the BURNING IMMEDIATE ISSUE of "saving up contributions" for to help in a case of a famine in the Jerusalem Congregations

and you say it "is not about worshiping on the SAbbath", then what is it about?

The first and most relevant and most indispensable relevancy the _Letter_ implies through Text and Context and historic background ... before we, start moralising about textually a totally irrelevant matter, charity, you deny …

so, What are your thread and OP about then?

Will you let know Paul to go somewhere else with his attempt at perspective of what he wrote himself ALSO IN BETWEEN WHERE MAN with (necessary) chapter and verse numbers CREATED DIVISION AND VOID so comfortably IGNORED by self-proclaimed expositors?

I will not go somewhere else.

 

http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-7th-day-sabbath-buried-in-christs-grave/#comment-6317
http://reformedreader.wordpress.com...sabbath-buried-in-christs-grave/#comment-6319

Check the cowards’ cowardice --- gone! No trace of it left … Hypocrites!

You cannot play that trick on me on BaptistBoard.

 

Exactly what "trick" is BaptistBoard playing on you, G.E.?
As a matter of fact, I (ktN4eg), have already asked you to discontinue what you have already done, not only to this thread, but also to various other BB threads, namely to STOP TRYING TO DERAIL THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE OP!!!
If you wish to opine on some topic(s), go ahead, G.E., BUT START YOUR OWN THREAD(S)!!!!
I (ktN4eg) as well as many others here on BB (whether or not they've come right out & told you, G.E., but stop derailing threads (which, BTW, is a direct, open & BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE BB RULES, something that YOU, G.E., have been for years been guilty of doing, and, thereby have CONTINIOUSLY FLAUNTED AND DISRESPECTED AND VIOLATED TIME AFTER TIME!!

If YOU, G.E., persist in CONTINOUSLY FLAUNTING THE BB "RULES," I, AS A MEMBER OF BB FOR 4-5 YEARS, CONSIDER IT TO BE MY DUTY TO REPORT THIS BLATANT, OPEN, & CONTINOUS VIOLATION OF THE BB "RULES" that YOU, G.E., have, for over a period of several years now, have persisted in doing!!

YOU, G.E., HAVE NOW BEEN WARNED!!!
The next step is UP TO YOU, G.E.!!!

 

GE:

I do not say BaptistBoard plays or tries to play a trick on me. That is what you are trying to do right now, but BaptistBoard won't allow you to do ...

Go straight on, report me, please.

 

GE:

This is your UNTRUTH: "... It does not say anything about the Sabbath whatsoever."
"It" -- the text" does not whatsoever say anything about your, "week" / "weekly".
It undeniably IMPLIES the Sabbath though,
One, per se mentioning "the First Day of the week";
Two, through using the implying adverbial Connective, "But ..." 'de'; and
Three, through using the REFERRING Preposition, 'peri', "concerning".

All three things IMPLY -- whether you hate the idea that it does or not -- that Paul bases his Letter on his fixed pattern of having proclaimed the Gospel while the Jerusalem famine lasted, to preach his usual sermon, and after to touch upon the practical issues NOT part of the sermon and NOT done on the day he preached or his letter would be read – while the Sabbath Day -- "BUT, CONCERNING the saving up: At home every person by himself, every First Day of the week put aside".

Goodness, can _you_ give a more pertinent, direct, to the point, un-embellished ANSWER to Fred’s REQUEST, “I merely asked if it was a one time offering, or a succession of offerings. Simple answer.. one time or more.”?!

--- an answer impossible without taking into consideration the Text; the Context, and, the WHOLE, Historical background.

 

Now just suppose, Fred's request, “I merely asked if it was a one time offering, or a succession of offerings. Simple answer.. one time or more”, was simply answered, "Yes", or "No", WHAT OUTSTANDING THREAD AND DISCUSSION OF WORTH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN!

 

As you, G.E., wish.

You have been reported.

Have a nice, Holy Spirit-filled day.

 

Here is the OP:

Note: There is not one word about the Sabbath in the OP:

Here is the Title of the thread:
"Concerning the collection for the saints..."
Note: There is not one word about the Sabbath in the title of the thread.

Please stick to the OP and avoid discussing the Sabbath on this thread.

 

GE:


Notice the advantage the before-going quasi debate gained: Two participants increased to four --- a 100% improvement thanks to Gerhard Ebersoehn!

And since the fourth is our formidable indefatigable respected moderator DHK one can be sure the readership of this thread will be increased by at least 1000%.

Thank you, DHK, for bringing new life to this thread.

Since I have said everything I might be able to have 'contributed', all that remains for me to do, is to thank the two gentlemen Fred and No.4. Sincerely - as a Christian without imposture, yes, because without this now finished skirmish, definite insights would NOT have emerged for me ... insights of great value to me in my very sinful absolutely dependent upon the forgiving grace of both God and man, state and plight.

God bless you all. You have what I was enabled to add to a dry as Gilboa's sand grits for heart's food conversation.

Signed,
GE