Saturday, 6 July 2024

Sam Shamoun isn’t contradicting Jesus. A quick response to Bassam Zawadi

 “ Sam Shamoun says... 

Indeed Mary is so highly blessed due to the reason that she was to conceive the greatest man who ever lived; the Son of the Most High, the Savior of the World, Jesus the Messiah. (Sam Shamoun, The Jewish Messiah And The Prophet of Islam, Source)


Sam Shamoun here is basically saying that Jesus is the greatest man who ever lived. However, this contradicts what Jesus himself said...


Matthew 11:11

11I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.


Here Jesus is saying that no one born of a woman (Jesus was born of Mary as Shamoun indicated) has risen and was greater than John the Baptist. This surely includes Jesus. So Jesus is not the greatest man who ever lived according to him. 

So if Shamoun truly loves Jesus he should stop contradicting him. 


”

That is a bogus misrepresentation of Jesus’ words. Sam Shamoun’s point is not contradicted by Jesus.

Jesus is speaking of others, not himself. It also ignores what John the Baptist himself said of Jesus in the very same gospel that Zawadi appealed to.

Matthew 3:11 I baptise you with water for repentance, but he who is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

John the Baptist himself confirms in that same chapter that Jesus is greater than he, even going as far later on to say to Jesus. “I should be baptised by you, why are you coming to me?”

Hope this article has helped.

Answering Judaism.

Friday, 5 July 2024

What of Jeremiah 10:11? A response to Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal.

There is an article written that I am going to take a look at and provide some points. I hope the responses I supply are satisfactory or in the very least of interest.

The original article by Rabbi Blumenthal I have linked to here: https://judaismresources.net/2011/05/17/tell-them-jeremiah-1011/

Take a look and judge both of our words. Firstly, let’s read the introduction.

"Trinitarian Christians believe that it is entirely appropriate for a person to direct absolute religious devotion towards one Jesus of Nazareth.

Throughout history the Jewish people have proclaimed, often at the cost of their life, that this aforementioned belief is idolatry.

The Jewish position is quite easy to understand. After all, Jesus looked like a man, walked like a man, breathed like a man – as the common adage about a certain water-fowl goes – he was a man!"

A fair point, more to comment on later.

"A common Christian reaction to any insinuation that their belief is idolatrous is to launch an offensive, as if those who don’t worship Jesus are the ones who are lacking in their faith in God. “Don’t you believe that God could do anything?” the Christian challenges. “If God wants to make Himself into a man – who are you to tell Him that He can’t?”

There are several ways to respond to this “challenge”.

First, it should be pointed out that such arguments could be used, have been used and are being used to justify worship of any idol. “Who are you to tell God that He can’t become a graven image? or a cat? or a holy cow?”

Second, try asking the missionary if God could commit suicide? Or if He could get appendicitis or a hernia? Could he get lost, confused or disoriented? How about losing his mind – could God do that to Himself?" 

The argument presented does showcase a flaw in the Christians who do present this point. It’s to me a case of not thinking through the point or the implications of said point, much like how some people carelessly say “Jesus fulfilled all 613 commandments.” even though there are commands in the Torah that only men were obligated to keep and that only women are able to keep, especially when it comes bodily discharges as found in Leviticus 15. Of course God himself would never take the form of an idol or a cow. Even if it were in the realm of possibility, it’s not a decision God would undertake.

There are limits on what God could do even when not in an incarnation, such telling a lie, breaking a promise and having an impure thought as some examples of things he cannot do.* If he were to take a human incarnation (which the New Testament thrusts upon me), aside from sin, the main thing is that the body would be subject to certain ailments, even the common cold.

These are of course hypothetical scenarios of course as the New Testament doesn’t elaborate on that.

As for confusion, That depends on the type of confusion. I cannot offer a definitive answer for that. A lack of food and drink can bring exhaustion and disorientation but the likely hood of dementia or some other disease as another form of confusion like it would be unlikely. Again, this is hypothetical.

“Could God make Himself “not God”?”

No, but he can lay aside his divine prerogatives and take the form of a slave, if one takes the Trinity takes into account. Though the Trinity is it’s own topic which is quite lengthy.

"The basis of our worship of God is that He is the Creator of all. By definition, any created being – is “not God”. For God to turn Himself into a created being – and to then go and demand the worship that is coming to Him as Creator is like saying – light turned into darkness and it still provides illumination.

Finally – you could tell the missionary that God taught us everything we need to know about worshipping Him at Sinai (Deuteronomy4:35) – if He would have wanted us to worship Jesus – we would have seen Jesus at Sinai.

Chances are that you will not convince the missionary – but at least he or she will not use that argument in your presence anymore."

This goes into the issue of truth claims. If Jesus was a fraud, then the charge of idolatry from the Jews would be justified and Christians will be a people to be most pitied. If he was true, then clearly the Trinity is something to be embraced and not rejected, as the concept of the Trinity is a preventive measure against idolatry, something that many cults can’t deal with.

As for Deuteronomy 4. The argument presented by the Rabbi though an interesting argument presumes (I hope I am understanding correctly) that Jesus must be revealed there on Sinai or he is not to be accepted.

This really isn’t the point of Deuteronomy 4 as it doesn’t preclude the idea of God appearing in visible shapes, be it Moses beholding the image of God or as found in Isaiah 6 when God is seated on the throne. The warning against idolatry still stands but the command doesn’t stop God appearing in a visible shape albeit temporarily, as he did that in Genesis 18 and Exodus 24.

The people of Israel would not have needed Jesus to be explicitly seen at Mt Sinai in order for the Christian position to be valid, the main criteria for that would be if Jesus himself told the truth and his claims of himself were accurate, especially the claims he made that no creature could make, which would be blasphemy if Jesus was a mere creature. 

Not to mention, John 1:18 says the following: "No one has ever seen God; the only God(or rather only begotten Son, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. ESV."

Putting aside recent consensus on whether it says unique or begotten, what is the point of John? His claim that Jesus is the one who makes God (Here referring to the Father) known. To see God here is to perceive or understand him and it is through the Son we can do that. If Jesus' claims were true, which I believe they are, then this wouldn't violate Deuteronomy 4. If however they are false claims, then Deuteronomy 4 gives ample justification for a rejection of Jesus and Christianity by extension.

As the late Dr Immanuel Schochet once said in his debate with Michael L Brown. “The onus of proof is on the one who claims that Jesus or anybody else, Shabbatai Tsvi or Bar Kochba, or David Koresh or Jimmy Jones or I don’t care who that they are the Messiah. It’s up to them to offer proof.”

Judge both of our words and see where the truth lies.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum: Suicide would not be on God’s mind to commit for that would be murder. A human can lay down their life for others but they cannot kill themselves.

*Some corrections have been made above on what God cannot do as I didn’t proof read properly.

Wednesday, 3 July 2024

A quick reply to MrTardis

It is this year I have become a fan of Doctor Who. I have liked Day of the Doctor in particular though it has been a while since I have watched it.

Despite mostly listening to the work done by Big Finish, an audio play organisation, most of what I have listened to has had compelling narratives and stories. Whether or not a Christian can watch Doctor Who or not is the same attitude I have with Star Trek. If you can’t watch it with a clear conscience, don’t. If you can, go ahead but be wary and exercise good judgment.

However there is an issue worth addressing here and I am not going to attack MrTardis on a personal level, I don’t know the man. I don’t see eye to eye on everything he says and have made some comments here and there on his videos but recently, the former actor for one of the incarnations of the villain called the Master, James Dreyfus has said the following:

"Anyway @TrilbeeReviews

You've got until midday to delete your defamatory tweet, which also encourages others to discriminate.

It's as simple as that.

Check your email, William.

I'm not mucking around about with you lot anymore." https://x.com/DreyfusJames/status/1808078356648210724

Dreyfus (himself gay) was let go from playing the Master for this reason and I will quote him here.

The transcript I copied from express.co.uk which you can read here: https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1507832/Doctor-Who-James-Dreyfus-cancel-culture-GB-News

“Well, I was working for an audio company playing rather a significant part in it and I signed a letter in support of JK Rowling and the horrendous abuse that she had been subjected to, and still is. 

And I also signed a letter asking Stonewall for a respectful debate on these matters.

And then I got a raft of abuse from the fans of this particular programme, I mean a really shocking amount. At some point, you know, I thought I’m going to respond in kind and I told several of them where to go. 

I then sent a tweet out to this company saying, ‘forgive my response to these people but I’m not going to sit here and be accused of something I’m not’.

“And then they put out a statement saying, ‘we do not support transphobia in any way shape or form’, thus sort of saying about me, ‘we think he’s transphobic’.

Based on the two letters I signed - and then I was erased from the artwork on the CDs and then my name kept disappearing and I called my agent and said, ‘can you just find out what’s going on? Why is my name being erased?’

“Three phone calls over a period of time, (with them saying), ‘Oh no, we’re just doing this, that and the other’. I finally caught up with them and said you’ve got to do something about this, something weird is going on.

And they released a CD of all the people who’d played the part I played and there were quite a lot of them [The Master], and I was left off it.

It didn’t really matter, I didn’t know anything about (Doctor Who) and it wasn’t a high-paced job but it was fun. 

“What astonished me was not one phone call, not one letter, not one email and I just thought the cowardice to do this.

I just felt stabbed in the back.”

This was from an interview from 2021 and this year, MrTardis said the following on X:
“I’m sorry, but whose idea was it to cast insane anti-trans actor James Dreyfus in ‘House of the Dragon’ when you have a non-binary actor?

That should be a basic duty-of-care thing. You don’t cast someone in a show who wishes harm on their other cast members.” https://x.com/TrilbeeReviews/status/1807874484117836183

It was after this that Dreyfus said what he said in his tweet, the next day followed with this tweet:

"Anyhooo, it's now well past midday, @TrilbeeReviews & your defamatory lies about me still remain up."

"We'll meet again soon, I'm sure." https://x.com/DreyfusJames/status/1808102248293052819

MrTardis, what did Mr Dreyfus say that was remotely harmful or disrespectful? Not only that, Dreyfus himself has tweeted to you a warning to take your tweet down.

While one could argue legal action is merely done as a threat to silence criticism, this isn’t one of those times.

Whatever your view of Dreyfus is, Calling him transphobic was unwarranted and the phrase itself is utterly meaningless courtesy of overuse.

Of his tweets I have seen, nothing he has said remotely comes across as hateful.

I would say to you to reconsider what you said.

Answering Judaism.

Monday, 24 June 2024

No Holy Koolaid, This Verse does not Secretly Undermine All of Christianity

There are cases of individuals who do not read the Bible with any semblance of fairness or proper representation.

A video by Holy Koolaid claims there is one verse in the Bible that undermines Christianity, the video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTnQydJ4O4k&t=358s

Firstly, Let's deal with a few things.

First, the Word Faith preachers do not represent the Bible or Christianity. Their false teachings comes from the theosophists of the 19th Century that gave rise to the New Age Movement.

Former apologist Keith Thompson demonstrates the falsehoods of this movement in two documentaries that he did.

Word of Faith Teachers Origins & Errors of Their Teaching Full Film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku_UGovwkkM

Joel Osteen_ Origins and Errors of His Teaching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne34FMXm2XY

It also ignores the fact that there are teachers in the Christian Church who have opposed the garbage put forward by the word of faith movement. Such lions in Jesus Christ who have opposed this movement include but are not limited to Justin Peters, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham Jr, the late R.C Sproul and Conrad Mbewe.

The Bible not only allows us to question the Word of Faith movement and other heresies, it tells us to shun them. John even goes so far as to say not to welcome a false teacher into your home lest you partake in their wicked works. (2 John 1:11)

Second, Jesus' sacrifice isn't repudiated by his forgiving of the paralytic nor is it repudiated when he forgives the thief. Jesus forgives the paralytic to show that he as God has the authority to forgive sins. In the former case, the Mosaic Law is in operation as is the temple in Jerusalem and thus the sacrifices were still present and at the time of Jesus' death, his sacrifice would cover the sins of the thief on the cross. There is no reason to think Jesus undermines his own teaching by simply granting forgiveness or even the Christian teaching.

This was not a fabrication done as a result of a supposed Messiah who was supposed to conquer the Romans and usher in a golden age and failing, the Messiah had come to earth but not in a manner that the Jews expected.

For that matter, What scholars say that the New Testament was not written by Jesus' apostles? They were by his apostles. Once again Keith Thompson has written article on this subject: https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/gospel_authorship.html

And funnily enough, his article provides scholars and commentators that deal with this issue. 

While geared towards Muslim apologists, it adequately deals with the ideas presented by liberals, atheists and agnostics who wish to deny their authorship. 

If Koolaid wants to say one cannot use the Bible in this way. Thompson says the following regarding the Bible.

"Some Muslims may object and assert that one can not use the Bible to prove Paul. However, such a surface level objection is based on ignorance since, again, the New Testament is a collection of valuable early historical documents, many of which speak directly to this issue. To discard the 1st century documents that are in the Bible and not include them in our study would be to neglect the earliest sources we have concerning this issue. That method would essentially be to irresponsibly throw away important data, which no serious historian or researcher would ever do. If historical sources don’t count then we can’t know anything about history." https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html

Though his article is geared mainly to Paul, it nevertheless is applicable to the Gospels and other writings found in the Bible.

Third, the other issues of feminism and homosexuality I write on here though fuller points on homosexuality have been addressed elsewhere: https://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2017/11/social-justice-warriors-destruction-of.html

It is however unfair to lump those who oppose homosexuality and feminism for biblical reasons (not hate or misogyny which have been overused deflections that say nothing) with flat earthers, word of faith preachers and theocratic nationalists. It also ignores the atheistic misuse of the Bible to justify anything and everything. 

Miley Cyrus even misused the Bible in this way: https://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/01/center-of-controversy-response-to-miley.html

Fourth, God the Father allowing his Son Jesus Christ to be killed by "filthy apes like us." was necessary to deal with our sin. No mental gymnastics involved. It's either Jesus Christ takes your place as a substitute or you pay for your sins eternally. It was planned in eternity past by the divine wisdom of the Holy Triune God, YHWH of scripture.

It is disrespectful and even blasphemous to suggest that God was getting some kink over the torture of his Son’s death.

Lastly, Jesus did not go to hell, he went to Sheol or Hades, the waiting room of the dead, specifically to the section referred by theologians as Abraham's bosom. Jesus went to the underworld or Sheol when he died and he didn't cease to exist, He was full conscious and communicating which can be found 1 Peter 3:19. Jesus, as the God Man, DIED, but he didn't cease to exist. 

Furthermore, After the resurrection, the saints in Abraham's bosom To heaven. Thus they were still alive, even in Sheol. Lazarus went to Sheol as well and Christ raised him.

The late Robert Morey wrote an excellent book I recommend called "Death and the Afterlife."

Answering Judaism

Saturday, 15 June 2024

Sacrificial Ignorance: A response to William Hall

Time to look at a ridiculous comment:

First of all, provide a reference for this claim that if a sacrifice comes back to life, it’s not a real sacrifice. 

Second, the comment made by Stuart Federow of “Jesus gave up his life for a weekend.” is a silly and ignorant comment. Jesus talked about giving his life as a ransom in addition to pointing out he came to suffer, die and rise again.

The resurrection doesn’t cancel out a sacrifice, the New Testament writers would not have conceived of such an absurdity.

This is just mockery with no real argumentation. Do better next time.

Answering Judaism

The Lamb of God 2: Response to The Counter Missionary Voice

 There is a post I have come across which I like to provide a response to the Counter Missionary Voice. It was written by Yehuda Yisrael. Let us take a look. (italics mine)

~The "lamb" of G-d~

It's that time of year again! What's more, Pesach and Easter happened to coincide with each other this year. Many Christians look to these verses in Genesis to justify their faith that Jesus is their "Passover lamb":

Genesis 22:7 And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and he said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And they both went together.

The Christians assert that this reference to a "lamb" must refer to Jesus, since Abraham sacrifices a ram and not a lamb, later in the chapter. Never mind the fact that Jesus was not sacrificed as a burnt offering on a fire, as Isaac inquires. And never mind the fact that the Israelites sacrificed literal lambs in Exodus chapter 12 and roasted them over a fire, literally a burnt offering!

This misses the point of New Testament Typology arguments. 

Obviously Christ wasn't burned, but what was the connection that was made by Christians between Christ and the binding of Isaac? Abraham saw a ram with it's head caught in a thorn bush. A ram was provided in the place of Isaac, just as Christ was a substitute for us, to cleanse us from transgression. The subject of the method of sacrificing is not an issue that Christians think about, it's what the lamb's sacrifice was pointing to, a righteous substitute. Another thing is the hill that Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac on the altar on the very mountain that Jesus was crucified. The one who raises the point about Christ not being a burnt offering as an argument miss the entire point that Christians make regarding this point.

The Christian doesn't care to let the Torah speak to itself. This "lamb" must refer to Jesus!

What's even more incredulous about the Christian obsession with "the lamb of G-d" is that the Christians have the chutzpah to literally elevate this "lamb" to the status of a god! The ironic thing is, the Christians weren't the first to do this. The Egyptians beat them to the punch!:

Exodus 8:22 But Moses said, "It is improper to do that, for we will sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to God our Lord. Will we sacrifice the deity of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not stone us?

Indeed, the Egyptians worshiped the lamb as a deity, just as the Christians do today, albeit in a roundabout way. The "lamb of G-d" was never meant to be elevated to the status of G-d, but rather to be transformed into an act of service to G-d. The Christians have reverted back to the ways of the Egyptians by deifying and worshiping the "lamb." May we all gain clarity and break free from the worship of "the lamb" and devote our worship to the One True G-d of Israel!

-Yehuda Yisrael

The "lamb of God obsession" from Christians has nothing to do with Egypt and even if Egypt did it first, there is literally no connection between the two and are different contexts.

On a side note from a previous article I wrote, The Lamb of God, There were other cases where Jesus is referred to as a lamb (which was raised to me by another Jew,) such as in Acts 8:32 and in 1 Peter 3:19. With respect to the point in Peter, I am aware that unblemished lamb in the Torah refers to blind lambs or crippled or any defect. This is a point I also address in my response to Eli Cohen:

"Leviticus 4:28 and the sin they have committed becomes known, they must bring as their offering for the sin they committed a female goat without defect.

Cohen rightly points out that a female goat doesn't mean the goat is sinless, but rather defects that the interviewer alludes to. I already know this, a defect in the lamb to me would of been something wrong with it's eyes, legs or any part of his body that is broken, bruised, or battered. I am already aware of this as are other informed Christians. He also goes onto say it doesn't have to be a rightous animal, just a wholesome animal. However, what Cohen doesn't realise is that the lamb is a picture or an antitype of Jesus being our vicarious atonement." (http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html)

Peter is making the point that due to Christ's sinlessness, his atonement satisfied the wrath of God. He is using the blemish of the lambs to illustrate his point.

Answering Judaism.

Wednesday, 13 March 2024

Sunday Worship? What is actually said?

 

You are probably thinking why I posted this here. Well it's simply to respond to it. Let us take a look.

Isaiah 1:13

The passage in question is not displeasure with the Sabbath in and of itself. It is talking about the observances of the law become detestable because of the unrepentant sin of Israel. None of the observances were bad, it was the heart of the people being far from YHWH himself:

10 Hear the word of the Lord,

    you rulers of Sodom!

Give ear to the teaching[b] of our God,

    you people of Gomorrah!

11 “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?

    says the Lord;

I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams

    and the fat of well-fed beasts;

I do not delight in the blood of bulls,

    or of lambs, or of goats.


12 “When you come to appear before me,

    who has required of you

    this trampling of my courts?

13 Bring no more vain offerings;

    incense is an abomination to me.

New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—

    I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.

14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts

    my soul hates;

they have become a burden to me;

    I am weary of bearing them.

15 When you spread out your hands,

    I will hide my eyes from you;

even though you make many prayers,

    I will not listen;

    your hands are full of blood.

16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;

    remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;

cease to do evil,

17     learn to do good;

seek justice,

    correct oppression;

bring justice to the fatherless,

    plead the widow's cause.


18 “Come now, let us reason[c] together, says the Lord:

though your sins are like scarlet,

    they shall be as white as snow;

though they are red like crimson,

    they shall become like wool.

19 If you are willing and obedient,

    you shall eat the good of the land;

20 but if you refuse and rebel,

    you shall be eaten by the sword;

    for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Once the people repented then the worship would be acceptable again, including the Sabbath.

Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2-9, Matthew 20:1-19

The verses in question I don't have much to say, Jesus did indeed rise on the first day of the week, as to whether or not one is obligated to celebrate that day is another issue.

Acts 20:7

Gathering together on the first week was not an obligation, it was a free choice in the early church. It is only later that it became imposed on the church and even to this day it is imposed on the individual. 

The context here simply explains what Paul was going to do:

7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. 9 And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, “Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.” 11 And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. 12 And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.

13 But going ahead to the ship, we set sail for Assos, intending to take Paul aboard there, for so he had arranged, intending himself to go by land. 14 And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and went to Mitylene. 15 And sailing from there we came the following day opposite Chios; the next day we touched at Samos; and[b] the day after that we went to Miletus. 16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

1 Corinthians 16:2

Paul is talking to the Corinthians about a collection they are to do. The context is plain and speaks for itself.

16 Now concerning[a] the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. 3 And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.

Colossians 2:16-17

This would also apply to Sunday service. A Christian is under no obligation to keep a special day, that is entirely the freedom of a Christ, If a congregation member chooses to observe Sunday as special or a Messianic Jew chooses to observe Saturday or both or neither, I am not to act as their judge in this matter.

The Sabbath is indeed a shadow and is not obligated to be kept though the person is free to observe it in honour of the Lord Jesus Christ, it's a matter of liberty and conscience.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities[b] and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.[c]

Let No One Disqualify You

16 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. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,[d] puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

The traditions here are the teachings of the apostles. It doesn't tell us to hold to "apostolic tradition." I say that because much of Rome holds to that idea. The litmus test now is, Does a teaching agree with the scriptures? 

Even the full context of the passages warns against letters that seem to come from the apostles but in the end do not:

2 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,[a] 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[b] is revealed, the son of destruction,[c] 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Stand Firm

13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits[d] to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.

Hebrews 4:8-9

Let us take a look at the context shall we:

4 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.[a] 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

“As I swore in my wrath,

‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this passage he said,

“They shall not enter my rest.”

6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

“Today, if you hear his voice,

do not harden your hearts.”

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God[b] would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Jesus the Great High Priest

14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

The Sabbath here in question is Jesus himself, He is the Sabbath rest for Christians, not Sunday, not Saturday, but He is our rest. As said before, the observance of a day is not an obligation upon Christians in and of itself. The principle however is that Christians must not forsake fellowship with other believers.

It doesn't matter what day it is, it matters if you are doing it or not. Such is found in Hebrews 10:

10:19 Therefore, brothers,[c] since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Hebrews 7:12

It boggles the mind how one could even read the biblical text in this way, It addresses nothing about the Sabbath, it's talking about the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus, especially because his sacrifice actually took away our sins, not merely covered it.

7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

4 See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! 5 And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers,[a] though these also are descended from Abraham. 6 But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. 9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

Jesus Compared to Melchizedek

11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him,

“You are a priest forever,

    after the order of Melchizedek.”

18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:

“The Lord has sworn

    and will not change his mind,

‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost[b] those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

Revelation 1:10

The observance of a day is not even a command here nor anything remotely to do with the Sabbath and the Rest in Jesus. John is talking about when he received the vision that the Holy Spirit gave him to write the Book of Revelation.

The interpretation given in the original post makes about as much sense as Steven Anderson burning non-KJV bibles through the usage of Acts 19. (Which was talking about burning witchcraft/occult material.)

9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”

12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. 19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Matthew 16:19,18:18

There is an article I have written many years ago which can read here:

https://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/11/more-roman-catholic-and-eastern_7.html

While Binding and Losing is referring to the rabbinic ruling of permitting (losing) and prohibiting (binding), it's within the parameters that God has set through the apostles. It does not give the church the right to impose any holiday or special on it's congregants, which I have already said it is a matter of personal conscience.

Communion has to be taken though the day doesn't matter, even Jesus didn't observe it on the first day of the week and that again is personal freedom. The Lord's Supper should be regularly celebrated nonetheless.

At the end of the day, check the scriptures for yourself.

Answering Judaism.