Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: GeeMail on January 27, 2015, 04:09:55 PM
-
I have noticed that every Sunday, a sermon is posted here ending with a line like 'have a happy Lord's Day.' But what is the Lord's Day? The assumption is that the Lord's Day is Sunday, and that Sunday is the Sabbath day of worship.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Sunday is neither the Sabbath nor the Lord's Day. Next time somebody comes here to post happy Lord's Day, let him or her know that the truth lies elsewhere. Read more here. http://www.truthontheweb.org/cthlcmrr.htm
-
Am glad you Worship on Sunday 8)
I have noticed that every Sunday, a sermon is posted here ending with a line like 'have a happy Lord's Day.' But what is the Lord's Day? The assumption is that the Lord's Day is Sunday, and that Sunday is the Sabbath day of worship.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Sunday is neither the Sabbath nor the Lord's Day. Next time somebody comes here to post happy Lord's Day, let him or her know that the truth lies elsewhere. Read more here. http://www.truthontheweb.org/cthlcmrr.htm
-
Excerpts.
"Numerically considered, the Seventh-day Adventists form an insignificant portion of the Protestant population of the earth, but, as the question is not one of numbers, but of truth, fact, and right, a strict sense of justice forbids the condemnation of this little sect without a calm and unbiased investigation: this is none of our funeral."
"Let the Bible decide whether Saturday or Sunday be the day enjoined by God. One of the two bodies must be wrong, and , whereas a false position on this all-important question involves terrible penalties, threatened by God Himself, against the transgressor of this "perpetual covenant," we shall enter on the discussion of the merits of the arguments wielded by both sides. Neither is the discussion of this paramount subject above the capacity of ordinary minds, nor does it involve extraordinary study. It resolves itself into a few plain questions easy of solution:
1st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2nd. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God
by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? and if not, why not?
To the above three questions, we pledge ourselves to furnish as many intelligent answers, which cannot fail to vindicate the truth and uphold the deformity of error."
-
The Lord's Day is the First day of the Week
Your assignment for the week is to study the use of this phrase in the entire scriptures (hint: it is used ONCE) and outside for the first 500 years of Christendom. If it has EVER been used to refer to ANY other day apart from Sunday, I will leave this place for good 8)
You can start here;
http://m.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/the-lords-day.html
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1469-lords-day-the
https://www.gci.org/law/sabbath/hanson
Excerpts.
"Numerically considered, the Seventh-day Adventists form an insignificant portion of the Protestant population of the earth, but, as the question is not one of numbers, but of truth, fact, and right, a strict sense of justice forbids the condemnation of this little sect without a calm and unbiased investigation: this is none of our funeral."
"Let the Bible decide whether Saturday or Sunday be the day enjoined by God. One of the two bodies must be wrong, and , whereas a false position on this all-important question involves terrible penalties, threatened by God Himself, against the transgressor of this "perpetual covenant," we shall enter on the discussion of the merits of the arguments wielded by both sides. Neither is the discussion of this paramount subject above the capacity of ordinary minds, nor does it involve extraordinary study. It resolves itself into a few plain questions easy of solution:
1st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2nd. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God
by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? and if not, why not?
To the above three questions, we pledge ourselves to furnish as many intelligent answers, which cannot fail to vindicate the truth and uphold the deformity of error."
-
If you're referring to Rev 1:10, you had better sign a will on your way out. But you need not do so, just accept that your belief is mistaken. Show from scripture that Sunday is indeed the Lord's Day. Then show how that means it is the Sabbath.
In Rome's challenge, Catholics have rightly shown that from Genesis to Revelation there is an express command followed by Jesus, the disciples and the early church to keep the Sabbath holy. The Sabbath never changed from Saturday. Only they changed it to Sunday with no biblical basis. Read the document (ordinary minds can comprehend the argument). It says if you are protestant and claim to follow the Bible, become Seventh day Adventist or simply quit and become Catholic.
-
More excerpts from Rome's challenge (these guys were thorough).
"Examining the New Testament from cover to cover, critically, we find the Sabbath referred to sixty-one times. We find, too, that the Saviour invariably selected the Sabbath (Saturday) to teach in the synagogues and work miracles. The four Gospels refer to the Sabbath (Saturday) fifty-one times.
In one instance the Redeemer refers to Himself as "the Lord of the Sabbath," as mentioned by Matthew and Luke, but during the whole record of His life, whilst invariably keeping and utilizing the day (Saturday). He never once hinted at a desire to change it. His apostles and personal friends afford to us a striking instance of their scrupulous observance of it after His death, and, whilst His body was yet in the tomb, Luke (23:56) informs us: "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments and rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment." "But on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came, bringing the spices they had prepared Good Friday evening, because the Sabbath drew near." Verse 54. This action on the part of the personal friends of the Saviour, proves beyond contradiction that after His death they kept "holy" the Saturday and regarded the Sunday as any other day of the week. Can anything, therefore, be more conclusive than that the apostles and the holy women never knew any Sabbath but Saturday, up to the day of Christ's death?"
-
Sunday is not Saturday, hallo
Sunday is Lord's Day.
We can shift the burden till Investigative Judgement is over. Prove it is NOT
If you're referring to Rev 1:10, you had better sign a will on your way out. But you need not do so, just accept that your belief is mistaken. Show from scripture that Sunday is indeed the Lord's Day. Then show how that means it is the Sabbath.
In Rome's challenge, Catholics have rightly shown that from Genesis to Revelation there is an express command followed by Jesus, the disciples and the early church to keep the Sabbath holy. The Sabbath never changed from Saturday. Only they changed it to Sunday with no biblical basis. Read the document (ordinary minds can comprehend the argument). It says if you are protestant and claim to follow the Bible, become Seventh day Adventist or simply quit and become Catholic.
-
Saturday is and has always been Saturday whereas Sunday has always remained Sunday. Who said that Saturday changed to Sunday?
Sabbath was observed on Saturday. Why should it be observed on any other day ?
More excerpts from Rome's challenge (these guys were thorough).
"Examining the New Testament from cover to cover, critically, we find the Sabbath referred to sixty-one times. We find, too, that the Saviour invariably selected the Sabbath (Saturday) to teach in the synagogues and work miracles. The four Gospels refer to the Sabbath (Saturday) fifty-one times.
In one instance the Redeemer refers to Himself as "the Lord of the Sabbath," as mentioned by Matthew and Luke, but during the whole record of His life, whilst invariably keeping and utilizing the day (Saturday). He never once hinted at a desire to change it. His apostles and personal friends afford to us a striking instance of their scrupulous observance of it after His death, and, whilst His body was yet in the tomb, Luke (23:56) informs us: "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments and rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment." "But on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came, bringing the spices they had prepared Good Friday evening, because the Sabbath drew near." Verse 54. This action on the part of the personal friends of the Saviour, proves beyond contradiction that after His death they kept "holy" the Saturday and regarded the Sunday as any other day of the week. Can anything, therefore, be more conclusive than that the apostles and the holy women never knew any Sabbath but Saturday, up to the day of Christ's death?"
-
Please show from scripture how Sunday became the Lord's day and where scripture tells believers to observe Sunday. Do you want to make a suicidal argument?
Further excerpt.
"Having disposed of every text to be found in the New Testament referring to the Sabbath (Saturday), and to the first day of the week (Sunday); and having shown conclusively from these texts, that, so far, not a shadow of pretext can be found in the Sacred Volume for the Biblical substitution of Sunday for Saturday; it only remains for us to investigate the meaning of the expressions "Lord's Day," and "day of the Lord," to be found in the New Testament, which we propose to do in our next article, and conclude with apposite remarks on the incongruities of a system of religion which we shall have proved to be indefensible, self-contradictory, and suicidal."
-
Further excerpting (these Catholics were serious!)
"The eighth text, 2 Peter 3:12; "Waiting for and hastening unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire, shall be dissolved." etc. This day of the Lord is the same referred to in the previous text, the application of both of which to Sunday next would have left the Christian world sleepless the next Saturday night.
We have presented to our readers eight of the nine texts relied on to bolster up by text of Scripture the sacrilegious effort to palm off the "Lord's day" for Sunday, and with what result? Each furnishes prima facie evidence of the last day, referring to it directly, absolutely, and unequivocally.
The ninth text wherein we meet the expression "the Lord's day," is the last to be found in the apostolic writings. The Apocalypse, or Revelation, chapter 1:10, furnishes it in the following words of St. John: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;" but it will afford no more comfort to our Biblical friends than its predecessors of the same series. Has St. John used the expression previously in his Gospel or Epistles?--Emphatically, No. Has he had occasion to refer to Sunday hitherto?--Yes, twice. How did he designate Sunday on these occasions? Easter Sunday was called by him (John 20:1) "The first day of the week."
-
Sunday is the Lord's Day. Prove it is not or prove what OTHER day has ever been referred to by that. We be juggling burden of proof till White resurrects to her damnation
What do you mean by 'observe Sunday'?
Please show from scripture how Sunday became the Lord's day and where scripture tells believers to observe Sunday. Do you want to make a suicidal argument?
Further excerpt.
"Having disposed of every text to be found in the New Testament referring to the Sabbath (Saturday), and to the first day of the week (Sunday); and having shown conclusively from these texts, that, so far, not a shadow of pretext can be found in the Sacred Volume for the Biblical substitution of Sunday for Saturday; it only remains for us to investigate the meaning of the expressions "Lord's Day," and "day of the Lord," to be found in the New Testament, which we propose to do in our next article, and conclude with apposite remarks on the incongruities of a system of religion which we shall have proved to be indefensible, self-contradictory, and suicidal."
-
Confusion galore
Revelation 1:10 (KJV)
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet
Can we therefore conclude that the DAY OF THE LORD happened in ~96AD?
Further excerpting (these Catholics were serious!)
"The eighth text, 2 Peter 3:12; "Waiting for and hastening unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire, shall be dissolved." etc. This day of the Lord is the same referred to in the previous text, the application of both of which to Sunday next would have left the Christian world sleepless the next Saturday night.
We have presented to our readers eight of the nine texts relied on to bolster up by text of Scripture the sacrilegious effort to palm off the "Lord's day" for Sunday, and with what result? Each furnishes prima facie evidence of the last day, referring to it directly, absolutely, and unequivocally.
The ninth text wherein we meet the expression "the Lord's day," is the last to be found in the apostolic writings. The Apocalypse, or Revelation, chapter 1:10, furnishes it in the following words of St. John: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;" but it will afford no more comfort to our Biblical friends than its predecessors of the same series. Has St. John used the expression previously in his Gospel or Epistles?--Emphatically, No. Has he had occasion to refer to Sunday hitherto?--Yes, twice. How did he designate Sunday on these occasions? Easter Sunday was called by him (John 20:1) "The first day of the week."
-
Further excerpting.
"Nor are the strongest intrinsic grounds wanting to prove that this like its sister texts, contains the same meaning, St. John (Rev. 1:10) says: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;" but he furnishes us the key to this expression, chapter four, first and second verses; "After this I looked and behold a door was opened in heaven." A voice said to him; "Come up hither, and I will show you the things which must be hereafter," Let us ascend in spirit with John. Whither?--through that "door in heaven," to heaven. a And what shall we see?--"The things that must be hereafter," Chapter four, first verse. He ascended in spirit to heaven. He was ordered to write, in full, his vision of what is to take place antecedent to and concomitantly with, "the Lord's day," or the day of judgment; the expression "Lords day" being confined in Scripture to the day of judgment, exclusively."
Broken down. John was in the spirit on the Lord's day (no indication of it being Sunday as alleged by 'Protestants' today). In Rev 4, we see him taken before the throne of judgment. So, following the script, believers appear before the judgment throne every Sunday (assuming it was indeed the day John was taken up)?
Where is your proof that Sunday is the Lord's day referred to here? You deride Catholics, but here they provide solid proof that Sunday is not that day. I'll slowly watch as you shift your suicidal argument.
-
Lord's Day=Day of the Lord=96AD....Lord Have Mercy
Unless no until you wriggle out of that, I have no more Wisdom for you
Further excerpting.
"Nor are the strongest intrinsic grounds wanting to prove that this like its sister texts, contains the same meaning, St. John (Rev. 1:10) says: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day;" but he furnishes us the key to this expression, chapter four, first and second verses; "After this I looked and behold a door was opened in heaven." A voice said to him; "Come up hither, and I will show you the things which must be hereafter," Let us ascend in spirit with John. Whither?--through that "door in heaven," to heaven. a And what shall we see?--"The things that must be hereafter," Chapter four, first verse. He ascended in spirit to heaven. He was ordered to write, in full, his vision of what is to take pla
-
Most Christians worship on Sunday, every Sunday, thinking it is the scriptural Sabbath (or to stretch the argument, the Lord's day). No scriptural basis whatsoever. To argue that the Lord's Day refers to Sunday because the expression has not been used to refer to any other day is a cyclical argument in a vacuum. The argument is suicidal considering that the Bible has ample proof that the Sabbath is Saturday, from OT to NT.
Rome's challenge is a big threat to Protestantism as we know it today from two major arguments. First, protestants argue that the Bible is their only basis for doctrine. The popular doctrine of Sunday worship has no scriptural basis. None, nada.
Second, the proponent of the challenge is the Catholic church. Not only has the Catholic church changed the numbering of the commandments (the Sabbath commandment is third in their arrangement) but they have authoritatively and unequivocally claimed the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and clearly saying they have done it without scriptural backing. To observe Sunday like they do is to accept papal or Catholic authority over the church, hence no basis for claiming to be protestant. Stating it from their own words, it is extremely hypocritical to worship on Sunday while pretending to protest against the Catholic church. For consistency, either become Catholic or Adventist.
-
@Daily Bread, I have no interest in this debate but I registered this latest handle just to clarify something. I confess to not having read all your excerpts but am I right in thinking that you are claimimng that the Catholic Church says/teaches that Sunday is NOT the Lord's day, the one referred to in Revelation? That would be news to me since that is exactly what I was taught (Sunday is "the Lord's day" of Revelation). Please refer to this encyclical by the late Pope John Paul II: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html Note: The title itself (Dies Domini) is latin for "the Lord's day" and refers to Sunday in that letter. I also found the same information in the official Catholic Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm ), the online Encyclopedia from 1911 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13287b.htm AND http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm ) and EWTN too.
So I am quite shocked by this claim that the Catholic Church supports the Adventist denial of the Lord's day being Sunday. When did this convergence of opinion occur? That article you site is supposed to be from the late 19th century and its tone is highly polemical and not academic at all, not to mention it's an article presumably by one person on a newspaper, hardly authoritative by any means, assuming it is what it claims to be, that is, (an article by a Catholic and not an Adventist apologist arguing against Protestants who dont do the saturday thing)...Who is its author, for example?
By all indications, Sunday was called "the Lord's day" in the earliest Christian centuries on account of Christ having risen on that day. There is also no confusion of the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian "Lord's day" which is the day of the resurrection. They are understood as marking different truths/events. The sabbath celebrates God's first great work (creation) while Sunday celebrates the second (redemption of that creation after it was fallen).
The history of how early Jewish Christians came to stop attending Synagogue on Saturday is long, but in summary, they were excommunicated for blasphemy (claiming Jesus is God and Messiah) by their fellow Jews sometime in the late first century and stopped attending Synagogue with them. There ended Christianity's formal marking of the Sabbath. Before then, ONLY Christian Jews (not Christian gentiles) had gone to Synagogue on Saturday with the other non-Christian Jews, just like they had always done since before they became Christian. On Sunday, they met with other Christians, a chunk of whom were not Jewish and who never ever went to Synagogue on Saturday like their Jewish brethren.
Having clarified that, and given links, I will take my leave.
-
Ka-Bella, that article in the Catholic Mirror is authentic. There are numerous sources of "Rome's Challenge" all over the web and none challenge its authenticity. Indeed, the references made in the article are historical events (like the boycott of the World's Fair that led to it's publication). Gibbons (1834-1921) referred to also existed as a Catholic official at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gibbons.
It is not surprising that you are shocked by what the articles say. Catholic doctrine on the Sabbath has shifted with time. At the time of writing the article (they are three of them in Rome's Challenge), the Catholic church spoke with certainty that the Sabbath was changed. The church no longer referred to Saturday as the Sabbath but to Sunday. Pope John Paul II referred to Sunday as the Sabbath numerous times in his encyclicals. Popes after him do the same. Trace the change from the Nicene Council (320s) and the Roman emperor who joined Christians at that time.
So what was the point of writing the article in the 1830s? It was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the protestants who reject papal authority while imbibing in its Sunday doctrine. The Catholic church clearly says that without scriptural authority, it transferred solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. The point was that the Catholic church has authority to change God's law (erroneous of course), and sola scriptura is a strawman because Protestants accept Sunday worship which is nowhere mandated in the Bible. The Catholic Mirror shows that contrarywise, Saturday is the Sabbath and has remained so over the course of time, as demonstrated by the unbroken link of Jewish Sabbath keeping.
Many Catholics do not know that their church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Many protestants are also in ignorance of that fact.
As to what the early church fathers believed or practiced, a lot can be said. Apostles kept Saturday as the Sabbath (the Catholic Mirror articles state as much, and they quote several verses). The popular adoption of Sunday as the Lord's Day was at first a reference to the resurrection and then to John's vision (which again the Catholic Mirror rightly shows is erroneous). Those who oppose the keeping of the Sabbath commandment have drawn all sorts of defenses but the Catholic Mirror article shows the folly with solid scriptural backing.
If you follow the posts here, no scriptural backing for Sunday worship is offered except the spurious claim that the Lord's Day is Sunday. The Catholic Mirror thoroughly debunks that claim. There is simply no scriptural backing.
In effect, having changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, the Catholic church popularized Sunday worship. At some point in history, people worshiped on Saturday and Sunday. Afterwards, they shifted the debate and started calling Sunday the Sabbath. That is the position that retains to date.
The articles in the Catholic Mirror show there was no confusion about what the true Sabbath was. It refutes your argument in the last para about Jews and the formal marking of the Sabbath.
Adventists have ample proof of the sanctity of the Sabbath (Saturday) and the falsity of Sunday worship. We quote Catholic documents like the Catholic Mirror to avoid unnecessary controversy over sources and authenticity.
Google "Who Changed the Sabbath Day" for more answers. One of them is here.
http://www.sabbathtruth.com/free-resources/article-library/id/916/catholic-church-admits-they-made-the-change
In the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, we read:
Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (AD 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday….
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her!
—Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., (1946), p. 50.
-
Having made the point about the origin of Sunday worship and that majority of Christians have no idea, I want to say that knowing which is the true Sabbath is not enough. You must make a choice. Many Sabbath keepers may still miss the heavenly kingdom just like the Sabbath-keeping Pharisees rejected Christ. In the same manner, many Sunday keepers may be in heaven because they obeyed God in the light they had.
Luke 12
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
God calls us to faithful obedience with the light that we have. Now that you know which is the true Sabbath, the choice is yours to make. Either follow the traditions and suppositions of men, or what the Lord says.
-
@Daily Bread,
Its being "authentic" still means very little as far as your claim that "the Catholic Church" taught. What is your authority for such a claim? I assure you the Catholic church does not teach through newspapers or debates or apologia. The tone of that article is highly polemical, showing that it was an article by a catholic apologist (polemicist) at best intended to donothing more than chide Protestants. To state from that "the Catholic Church" taught whatever is to be seriously misled. You want to know what the catholic church taught "at that time" you dont look forrandom writings of lay apologists trying to score a point against their protestant rivals on informal sources. Please observe debates AMONG catholics (against each other) to know what exactlly it means to make such claims (that the Church has taught something). You want to know what the Church has taught at any time, look for catechisms, encyclicals, and documents of ecumenical councils, even SOME writings of Bishops and doctors of the church (fathers too, of course) are a much better source (where there is unanimity). For example, you say "it's authentic", but who is its author? That may mean little to you but to a catholic it's the difference between a rumour of the broken telephone game and an established fact. You realize that article is no more than a 19th century version of a nipate debate between you and myself?
-
Also, you say no scriptural backing exists for sunday worship when the New Testament records Christians meeting daily for Eucharist and on Sunday too when they are told to collect money for the poor. Moreover, St. Paul whom you cite blatantly rubishes the fixation with keeping those feasts and explicilty mentions sabbath. In his travels, in Acts, St. Paul only went to the Synagogue in every new city (mission) to present the Gospel. When they refused, he stopped going and concentrated on the gentiles who didnt care for the Jewish sabbath. That shows clearly his sole interest in going to the synagogue on saturday was to convert Jews, not attending the Sabbath, just like when he went to the Temple later on and circumcised Timothy.
You also say there was no explicit order to change it from Saturday in scripture, but when was it ESTABLISHED for Christians in scripture in the first place, in order for it to be switched, as you claim? When were Christians commanded to worship like the Jews? The Apostles sat down in a council whose proceedings are summarily recorded in Acts 15, discussing the whole matter of which aspects of Jewish law were required to be kept by Gentiles who became Christians. They came up with no more than four rules for Gentile Christians to follow as a must...nothing there about going to church on Saturday, something which gentiles would have certainly required explicit instruction in, seeing as it was not at all their custom but a Jewish custom, just like circmcision? Later, the Apostles give them further instruction (and even contradicted some of these rules of the Jerusalem council) on christian life, morals and worship through epistles and oral teachings, nothing there at all about a duty of Christians to worship on Saturday, either. How come?
-
Sabbath is as BINDING as Passover, it remains on Saturday and it has ZERO significance in the life of a Christian. The real choice is whether to circumcise because Jesus and the apostles were all circumcised or ignore the same seeing it AVAILETH nothing
Nuff Sed,
Can you regale us on when you last observed the Feast of Weeks
Having made the point about the origin of Sunday worship and that majority of Christians have no idea, I want to say that knowing which is the true Sabbath is not enough. You must make a choice. Many Sabbath keepers may still miss the heavenly kingdom just like the Sabbath-keeping Pharisees rejected Christ. In the same manner, many Sunday keepers may be in heaven because they obeyed God in the light they had.
Luke 12
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
God calls us to faithful obedience with the light that we have. Now that you know which is the true Sabbath, the choice is yours to make. Either follow the traditions and suppositions of men, or what the Lord says.
-
Also, I hadnt seen your reference to that American cardinal, so apologies. I dont know what says he authored that article, but even if he did, his singular article intended as a retort to religious rivals has no authority whatsover, especially on a matter such as this for which the authorities are so numerous and consistent, spanning 2,000 years. The myth that Sunday became the Christian day of worship after Constantine is pure fiction. The Didache, dating from 80 AD and numerous other early Christian writings from the 1st through the 3rd centuries show clearly that Christians met on the day of Christ's resurrection, which they called 'the Lord's day', not on the Jewish sabbath, especially GENTILE Christians. You also misrespresent John Paul II who has painstakingly distinguished the Jewish sabbath from the Christian day of worship, plaese read his encyclical before simplifying his viewsin such a misleading manner.
-
kadame,
Nuff Sed is clearly being dishonest in regurgitating that garbage that Catholicism invented 'Sunday worship'. In ALL the links I shared, it is very clear that Sunday meetings are as old as Christianity.
1 Cor 16:2 (ESV)
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
Study this verse closely.
It tells us that Paul instructed collection for the poor saints on EVERY Sunday. The question is why Sunday and not Thursday? more importantly, why would the saints who were meeting on Sabbath as Nuff Sed imagines be instructed to collect the next day? Was it 'unlawful' to collect it on Saturday?
The answer is simple, they regularly met on Sunday. This is the CLEAREST scriptural proof of regular weekly fellowship on Sunday and not Saturday else the instruction would have been to collect the offering during the Sabbath meetings. Here is what went down during the meetings;
Acts 20:7 (ESV)
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
Now, part of the early church especially the Jewish branch maintained some Jewishness; this explains why Peter went to the temple to pray at specific hours (Acts 3:1), Paul observed Jewish annual feasts (Acts 18:21), Paul kept the Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18), and many such WITHOUT imposing the same on the Gentiles. This is why it is very dishonest of Adventists to selectively flaunt Sabbath keeping by the Jewish Christians as validation of their sect while ignoring the other Jewishness aspects
Also, I hadnt seen your reference to that American cardinal, so apologies. I dont know what says he authored that article, but even if he did, his singular article intended as a retort to religious rivals has no authority whatsover, especially on a matter such as this for which the authorities are so numerous and consistent, spanning 2,000 years. The myth that Sunday became the Christian day of worship after Constantine is pure fiction. The Didache, dating from 80 AD and numerous other early Christian writings from the 1st through the 3rd centuries show clearly that Christians met on the day of Christ's resurrection, which they called 'the Lord's day', not on the Jewish sabbath, especially GENTILE Christians. You also misrespresent John Paul II who has painstakingly distinguished the Jewish sabbath from the Christian day of worship, plaese read his encyclical before simplifying his viewsin such a misleading manner.
-
1 Cor 16:2 (ESV)
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
Acts 20:7 (ESV)
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
It's a pity when a believer deliberately misleads others. How do these verses endorse Sunday worship or abrogate the Sabbath? Have you not read that the apostles broke bread daily? The verse about collecting offerings leaves the question of worship. Keeping the Sabbath is more than collecting offerings.
Acts 2
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
To compare the Sabbath to the Passover is to be disingenuous. One is the fourth commandment, while the other is part of ceremonial law. Would you say not committing adultery is as biding as keeping the feast of weeks? In any case, Christians celebrate Passover regularly, hence if some ceremonial laws are so well kept, what about the commandments? The Ten Commandments have never been abrogated, and the sanctity of the Sabbath remains. When you get a scriptural abrogation of the Sabbath commandment, the debate can progress. Let me repeat the questions asked by the author of the Catholic Mirror articles.
1st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2nd. Had the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? And if not, why not?
By the third question, the Catholic Mirror opens up that only up to the 16th Century, Christians kept the Sabbath (some kept both Saturday and Sunday). It was only up to the 16th Century that the Reformation picked up and unveiled her nakedness (tradition over the word of God).
Let me recap some of the arguments that have been brought up in response to Rome's Challenge (here and elsewhere).
1. Sunday is the Lord's Day. This has been thoroughly discredited. All references in the bible about "the day of the Lord" are about the day of judgment. The Catholic Mirror shows it better than I ever could.
2. The Catholic church transferred solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. This is the brutal, honest truth. The church purported to change the law of God.
3. Paul met Christians on the first day of the week to collect offerings. This is no command to overturn the fourth commandment.
4. Jesus rose on Sunday, so we worship on that day. Nowhere do you see Christ asking the church to mark the day, nor does scripture record the apostles keeping Sunday in this manner. The same deception brought about Christmas, a pagan holiday adopted by apostate Christianity. Christ never marked his own birthday.
5. We have lost track of time, so you cannot tell which is the Sabbath. Jews exist for a good reason. They have never lost track of the weekly cycle. In any case, Sunday keepers never bring up this question when they worship Sunday after Sunday like clockwork.
6. The Sabbath is not binding today, it was nailed to the cross. A preposterous claim. Were the commandments to honor father and mother, not commit adultery, not to steal etc also nailed to the cross? Christians have no problem with the Ten commandments, but when you ask them about the fourth commandment, they begin to google in the sand.
7. We do not worship the Sabbath, every day is the same. Another hollow argument, considering that the Sunday worshipers keep Sunday faithfully.
8. Anybody can choose his own day to worship. That would be fine for idol worship or those who worship themselves. Nobody makes such excuses for other commandments. The Sabbath is commanded by God and not man.
-
Ka-Bella your civility is truly Christian. I appreciate it.
You seem to question the authority of the Catholic Mirror articles. Note that they were editorials, not ordinary stories by small time reporters. An editorial is the voice of the publisher. If you want to know what Aga Khan thinks, see what Nation writes in its editorials. Again, the Catholic church has many other publications. If, let's assume, the Mirror was rogue, we'd have read other Catholic publications denouncing it. Have you read such a denouncement?
I'm aware of the Didache. It cannot be cited as an authority on this matter. You know its authorship and contents have been questioned.
About when Christians first kept Sunday, the historical records trace it to Constantine's conversion. Regardless, believers rightly question any doctrines originating from without the bible. Even if the early believers (outside the Bible) called Sunday the Lord's day, it does not make it the Sabbath. It's like saying Christians should celebrate October because believers in Germany called it Oktoberfest. I would have been glad to entertain verses believers rely on for Sunday worship like the other poster attempted but alas! They only make for a suicidal argument (to borrow the words of the Catholic Mirror).
-
Also, I hadnt seen your reference to that American cardinal, so apologies. I dont know what says he authored that article, but even if he did, his singular article intended as a retort to religious rivals has no authority whatsover, especially on a matter such as this for which the authorities are so numerous and consistent, spanning 2,000 years. The myth that Sunday became the Christian day of worship after Constantine is pure fiction. The Didache, dating from 80 AD and numerous other early Christian writings from the 1st through the 3rd centuries show clearly that Christians met on the day of Christ's resurrection, which they called 'the Lord's day', not on the Jewish sabbath, especially GENTILE Christians. You also misrespresent John Paul II who has painstakingly distinguished the Jewish sabbath from the Christian day of worship, plaese read his encyclical before simplifying his viewsin such a misleading manner.
Ka-Bella,
I have done some research on your question of when the Catholic church started referring to Sunday as the Sabbath, or whether early Christians observed Sabbath on Sunday, and whether the change of the Sabbath can be attributed to Constantine.
Encyclopedia Brittanica
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/573790/Sunday
Sunday, first day of the week; in Christianity, the Lord’s Day, the weekly memorial of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection from the dead. The practice of Christians gathering together for worship on Sunday dates back to apostolic times, but details of the actual development of the custom are not clear. Before the end of the 1st century ad, the author of Revelation gave the first day its name of the “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10). Saint Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 165), philosopher and defender of the Christian faith, in his writings described the Christians gathered together for worship on the Lord’s Day: the gospels or the Old Testament was read, the presiding minister preached a sermon, and the group prayed together and celebrated the Lord’s Supper.
The emperor Constantine (d. 337), a convert to Christianity, introduced the first civil legislation concerning Sunday in 321, when he decreed that all work should cease on Sunday, except that farmers could work if necessary. This law, aimed at providing time for worship, was followed later in the same century and in subsequent centuries by further restrictions on Sunday activities.
Wikipedia (not a reliable source but let's use it for now).
"The ancient Romans traditionally used the eight-day nundinal cycle, a market week, but in the time of Augustus in the 1st century AD, a seven-day week also came into use.
On 7 March 321, Constantine I, Rome's first Christian Emperor (see Constantine I and Christianity), decreed that Sunday would be observed as the Roman day of rest:[5]
On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.[6]
Despite the official adoption of Sunday as a day of rest by Constantine, the two days continued to be used side-by-side until at least the Calendar of 354 and probably later.[7]
In 363, Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea prohibited observance of the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday), and encouraged Christians to work on the Saturday and rest on the Lord's Day (Sunday).[8] The fact that the canon had to be issued at all is an indication that adoption of Constantine's decree of 321 was still not universal, not even among Christians. It also indicates that Jews were observing the Sabbath on the Saturday."
So while the custom may not have originated with Constantine, it was he who enforced Sunday worship by decree. This is one of the first cases of the unholy unity of the church and state which we believe will happen again to enforce unscriptural decrees. In the end times, the unity will be a trinity of church, state and spiritualism (Satan and his forces behind the scenes).
You notice that the Council of Laodecia knew clearly that the Sabbath was Saturday (even adding the word Jewish). Many centuries later, the Catholic church now called Sunday the Sabbath and even wants it kept Jewish style (Pope John Paul II's encyclicals called for avoidance of sports, worship and rest on Sunday) and the world follows the deceptive change.
-
Ka-Bella,
More for you on the change of tack by the Catholic church demonstrating what it did with the Sabbath commandment and his rebuke to protestants (sola scriptura).
From the Reverend John A. O'Brien of the Catholic church:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Faith-Millions-John-OBrien/dp/B009V71HXM
... the Bible does not contain all the teachings of the Christian religion, nor does it: formulate all the duties of its members. Take, for example, the matter of Sunday observance, the attendance at divine services and the abstention from unnecessary servile work on that day, a matter upon which our Protestant neighbors have for many years laid great emphasis. Let me address myself in a friendly spirit to my dear Protestant reader: You believe that the Bible alone is a safe guide in religious matters. You also believe that one of the fundamental duties enjoined upon you by your Christian faith is that of Sunday observance. But where does the Bible speak of such an obligation? I have read the Bible from the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of Revelations, and have found no reference to the duty of sanctifying the Sunday. The day mentioned in the Bible is not the Sunday, the first day of the week, but the Saturday, the last day of the week. It was the Apostolic Church which, acting by virtue of that authority conferred upon her by Christ, changed the observance to the Sunday in honor of the day on which Christ rose from the dead, and to signify that now we are no longer under the Old Law of the Jews, but under the New Law of Christ. In observing the Sunday as you do, is it not apparent that you are really acknowledging the insufficiency of the Bible alone as a rule of faith and religious conduct, and proclaiming the need of a divinely established teaching authority which in theory you deny?
Source: The Faith of Millions, by the Reverend John A. O'Brien, PH. D., 4th Edition, copyright 1938, published by Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Ind., page 147.
-
Nuff Sed,
You are running away from 1 Cor 16:2
These are the relevant questions;
1. Why would Paul require Corinthians and Galatians and we may presume everywhere else he preached to collect an offering for the poor saints on the day AFTER they was meeting?
One confused White follower has claimed that They were collecting fruits and it would have violated Sabbath carrying these to church. So the idea was to collect foodstuff weekly awaiting Paul.
Another has claimed that it is unlawful to carry money to church on Sabbath,something that even the Pharisee never considered unlawful.
Yet another claims that the setting apart happened privately so there was no meeting. But the reason for setting apart is clear; so there would be no collection when Paul visited unannounced. So if they had set apart at home, they would still have needed to collect when Paul visited
2. Are these instructions binding on you Nuff Sed?
1 Cor 16:2 (ESV)
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
Acts 20:7 (ESV)
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
It's a pity when a believer deliberately misleads others. How do these verses endorse Sunday worship or abrogate the Sabbath? Have you not read that the apostles broke bread daily? The verse about collecting offerings leaves the question of worship. Keeping the Sabbath is more than collecting offerings.
Acts 2
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
To compare the Sabbath to the Passover is to be disingenuous. One is the fourth commandment, while the other is part of ceremonial law. Would you say not committing adultery is as biding as keeping the feast of weeks? In any case, Christians celebrate Passover regularly, hence if some ceremonial laws are so well kept, what about the commandments? The Ten Commandments have never been abrogated, and the sanctity of the Sabbath remains. When you get a scriptural abrogation of the Sabbath commandment, the debate can progress. Let me repeat the questions asked by the author of the Catholic Mirror articles.
1st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2nd. Had the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? And if not, why not?
By the third question, the Catholic Mirror opens up that only up to the 16th Century, Christians kept the Sabbath (some kept both Saturday and Sunday). It was only up to the 16th Century that the Reformation picked up and unveiled her nakedness (tradition over the word of God).
Let me recap some of the arguments that have been brought up in response to Rome's Challenge (here and elsewhere).
1. Sunday is the Lord's Day. This has been thoroughly discredited. All references in the bible about "the day of the Lord" are about the day of judgment. The Catholic Mirror shows it better than I ever could.
2. The Catholic church transferred solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. This is the brutal, honest truth. The church purported to change the law of God.
3. Paul met Christians on the first day of the week to collect offerings. This is no command to overturn the fourth commandment.
4. Jesus rose on Sunday, so we worship on that day. Nowhere do you see Christ asking the church to mark the day, nor does scripture record the apostles keeping Sunday in this manner. The same deception brought about Christmas, a pagan holiday adopted by apostate Christianity. Christ never marked his own birthday.
5. We have lost track of time, so you cannot tell which is the Sabbath. Jews exist for a good reason. They have never lost track of the weekly cycle. In any case, Sunday keepers never bring up this question when they worship Sunday after Sunday like clockwork.
6. The Sabbath is not binding today, it was nailed to the cross. A preposterous claim. Were the commandments to honor father and mother, not commit adultery, not to steal etc also nailed to the cross? Christians have no problem with the Ten commandments, but when you ask them about the fourth commandment, they begin to google in the sand.
7. We do not worship the Sabbath, every day is the same. Another hollow argument, considering that the Sunday worshipers keep Sunday faithfully.
8. Anybody can choose his own day to worship. That would be fine for idol worship or those who worship themselves. Nobody makes such excuses for other commandments. The Sabbath is commanded by God and not man.
-
Nuff Sed,
I have noted that you have some respect for authorities; let's consult them
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA: Sunday, first day of the week; in Christianity, the Lord's Day, the weekly memorial of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. The practice of Christians gathering together for worship on Sunday dates back to apostolic times, but details of the actual development of the custom are not clear. Before the end of the 1st Century AD, the author of Revelation gave the first day its name of the "Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). Saint Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), philosopher and defender of the Christian faith, in his writings described the Christians gathered together for worship on the Lord's Day: the gospels or the Old Testament was read, the presiding minister preached a sermon, and the group prayed together and celebrated the Lord's Supper. The emperor Constantine (d. 337), a convert to Christianity, introduced the first civil legislation concerning Sunday in 321, when he decreed that all work should cease on Sunday, except that farmers could work if necessary. This law, aimed at providing time for worship, was followed later in the same century and in subsequent centuries by further restrictions on Sunday activities. (15th edition, vol. 11, pg. 392)
ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA: From the apostolic era to the present it has been customary for Christians to assemble for communal Sunday services... Civil laws requiring the observance of Sunday date back at least to Emperor Constantine the Great, who designated Sunday as a legal day of rest and worship in 321. This law, however was not specifically Christian, since Sunday was the day of the sun-god for pagans as well as the Lord's day for Christians. While Constantine thus managed to please the two major religious groups in the Roman empire, numerous later law regulating behavior on Sunday have been avowedly Christian. (Sunday, 1988, pg. 21)
COLLIER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA: The New Testament contains clear evidence that from a very early period the first day of the week was observed by Christians as a day of assembly for "the breaking of bread" and perhaps for the collection of freewill offerings. (Acts xx:7 and 1 Corinth xvi:2). Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century describes how "on the day called Sunday" all town and country Christians assembled for instructions in holy writings, for prayer distribution of bread and wine, and the collection of alms. Tertullian declared that the Christians "made Sunday a day of joy, but for other reasons that to adore the sun which was not part of their religion. (Sunday, , 1985, pg. 632-633)
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: The celebration of the Lord's Day in memory of the resurrection of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious observance in the churches of the second century. There is no dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of the earliest post-apostolic writers, as Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. (Philip Schaff, , vol. 1, pg. 201-202)
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: Hence, the first day was already in the apostolic age honorably designated as "the Lord's Day." ...it appears, therefore, from the New Testament itself, that Sunday was observed as a day of worship, and in special commemoration of the Resurrection, whereby the work of redemption was finished. The universal and uncontradicted Sunday observance in the second century can only be explained by the fact that it has its roots in apostolic practice. (Philip Schaff, , vol. 1, pg. 478-479)
NEW SCHAFF HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA: The earliest traces of the observance of the first day of the week in remembrance of Christ's resurrection is found in the Pauline period of the Apostolic Age... Sunday was first regulated by civil authority in 321, under Constantine, directing that the day be hallowed and observed appropriately. (Sunday, pg. 145)
I know you are another Auntie Hubris conspiracy theorist except your conspiracies are restricted to blaming the Catholic Church for all ills around you but let's go through these references
1. Constantine legislated Sunday rest in 321AD
2. Sunday worship predates Constantine and it stretches to apostolic age
3. Constantine/Catholic church NEVER 'changed sabbath' from Saturday to Sunday
These are MODERN authorities and if you are still debating inside you whether to believe them or not, I can quote traditional authorities as well
An intelligent person like you should be seeking authorities from which White among other Sabbaterians derived their authority from
-
1 Cor 16:2 (ESV)
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
This verse does not serve the Sunday cause. A little basic English. "Each of you" refers to individuals, which means they would do so at home (which is where stores were). The latter part (no collecting when I come) means when Paul gets there, they will not collect any offerings because it will have been done already. Nothing in the verse indicates that Paul would be getting there on Sunday, or that collecting offering would mean believers congregating for worship. In any case, this applied to Corinthians, and Paul would not be visiting the m every Sunday. His custom was to worship on Sabbath. If this verse changed the Sabbath, there is no reasonable cause why Paul did not state so expressly.
-
Very smart of you to discover that EACH means individuals
Whatever they were collecting, they was instructed to set it aside EVERY SUNDAY. Setting it aside EVERY SUNDAY would spare them collecting when Paul got there. If they were setting aside and keeping it at home, they would still have been required to collect it together once he visited which is what he was avoiding.
The other question is WHY Sunday and not any other day?
Supposing they were setting aside dry grains and fruits. You don't harvest EVERY week. It must have been cash, and even Bachiochi can't wriggle out of this one...it was cash, the most intelligent way to support poor saints in Jerusalem. Why set aside cash every Sunday and not Tuesday?
Wresting scriptures leads to dumb conclusions
1 Cor 16:2 (ESV)
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
This verse does not serve the Sunday cause. A little basic English. "Each of you" refers to individuals, which means they would do so at home (which is where stores were). The latter part (no collecting when I come) means when Paul gets there, they will not collect any offerings because it will have been done already. Nothing in the verse indicates that Paul would be getting there on Sunday, or that collecting offering would mean believers congregating for worship. In any case, this applied to Corinthians, and Paul would not be visiting the m every Sunday. His custom was to worship on Sabbath. If this verse changed the Sabbath, there is no reasonable cause why Paul did not have stated so expressly.
-
I respect authority. For doctrine, my only authority is the Bible. None of the encyclopedia you quote offer a single verse abrogating the fourth commandment. Contra, the Bible has several verses showing Jesus and the apostles kept the Sabbath (Acts 17 even records Paul keeping the Sabbath "as his custom was" just like Matthew and Mark record Jesus and the disciples).
Protestant Sunday keepers quote Paul in error. In effect, just like in the wine thread, they accuse Paul of preaching water and drinking wine.
Acts 17 King James Version (KJV)
1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was,went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,,
For doctrine, I as a believer do not rely on secular sources and traditions of men. Protestants protested against the Catholic church for relying on traditions rather than the Bible. Anything could be sneaked in and attributed to "apostolic times and traditions." Are you still protestant?
-
Typical circular arguments; when history does not support White,it is WRONG,when it does,it vindicates her....look at how you cleverly avoided the Britannica section I have quoted :)
I did not quote any of those to derive a doctrine but to demonstrate that Sunday Worship is apostolic and the fact that it was NEVER contested means Sabbath keeping among Gentiles of the church is and was as valid as Passover or animal sacrifices. Think hard before regurgitating that nonsense thT Constantine and Catholicism 'changed Sabbbath'
Whenever you teach about Catholicism being the Beast, do you not quote historical extra biblical sources to justify your stance?
Adventists are notoriously dishonest or ignorant.
Paul observed the Sabbath but he also took the Nazarite vow and shaved his hair. He also kept the Jewish feasts none of which SDAs keep. By the way, he offered an animal sacrifice!
Acts 21:26 (ESV)
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them
That's the Nazarite vow of Numbers 6:9-12. I would like to see undertaking it,Nuff Sed clean shaven :D
Why do you stop at Sabbath and ignore ALL of these?
One can't be intelligent,logical and consistent and remain an Adventist
http://www.ukapologetics.net/sabbath.html
I respect authority. For doctrine, my only authority is the Bible. None of the encyclopedia you quote offer a single verse abrogating the fourth commandment. Contra, the Bible has several verses showing Jesus and the apostles kept the Sabbath (Acts 17 even records Paul keeping the Sabbath "as his custom was" just like Matthew and Mark record Jesus and the disciples).
Protestant Sunday keepers quote Paul in error. In effect, just like in the wine thread, they accuse Paul of preaching water and drinking wine.
Acts 17 King James Version (KJV)
1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was,went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,,
For doctrine, I as a believer do not rely on secular sources and traditions of men. Protestants protested against the Catholic church for relying on traditions rather than the Bible. Anything could be sneaked in and attributed to "apostolic times and traditions." Are you still protestant?
-
@Daily Bread, I have several things to say.
First, you are mixing issues. Constantine's edict means nothing as far as the Christian custom is concerned. All it shows is that Constantine was making Christian customs the law of the land. That's basic history. Christianity was illegal for the first 300 years. By Constantine's day, Christians had grown to such a large number that he, being a shrewd politician could see very well that to fight it was silly. He therefore decided to use it as a means of unifying Rome and gradually made it tolerable, then finally, the state religion. That bit referred to is just one more thing he did in this endeavor. Constantine made non-Christians respect Sunday. What has that to do with Christians who already did so without his edict?
Secondly, please respond to vooke on the verses about collecting. If Paul wanted people to "set aside" a portion, how would this help him since he did not want anyone to "collect" on the day he was to meet them? Wouldn't these people still have to put their "stored up" collections together at some point? It is clear that what Paul does NOT want is for the congregation to start collecting money when he is around. He is therefore telling them to do it (put the money together, not individually) before he gets there. Your interpretations make little sense, since it's not clear how everyone putting their money aside at home would help Paul avoid collections on the day he arrived. It's also unclear why Paul would care at all that each person put money aside on a SPECIFIC day, if they were to do it individually in their own homes. Wouldn't he just tell them to each put something aside? Why on the first day for all of them if they were not to do it together?
Thirdly, your statement on the Didache is also based on bad premises. I am not asking you to say that it is scripture or part of revelation. That says absolutely nothing of its import as a historical document. This is not a matter of faith but simple academic fact. The Didache is a HIGHLY reliable historical text dating from between the 70 to 80 AD. If you are claiming that its veracity as a historical document is in doubt, I will ask you to point to academic sources that state as much. The Didache records Christian practices from that time, a very simple document in fact.
Fourthly, you just don't get the thing about that article your quote. The "catholic mirror" "the catholic register" "zenit" whatever....NEITHER of these are pronouncements on catholic teaching. I have told you where to find it if you are looking for it, in catechisms, encyclicals and ecumenical council documents. You keep talking as if those gazettes are some kind of of publication of the church, which quite honestly, to a catholic just sounds like nonsense and like I am talking to someone who hasn't the faintest idea what the catholic church is and how it functions. For starters, find me a catholic who cites the "catholic mirror" as some kind of authority before treating it as this grand church statement.
Fifthly, there is a great deal more than the Didache for you to jump over. I haven't the strength or time to go through the online catalogue of writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers over at ccel, so I will make use of this simple list drawn up by others in response to Adventists and others who make these Sabbath arguments. Please note both the dates and the writers being quoted before you reply. :) If your reply is to cast doubt on the authenticity of the actual quotations, I will ask you to do a search for the ones you doubt, and find out for yourself that each is the verified quotation of the referenced father.
The Didache
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
Tertullian
"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).
-
More
The Didascalia
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).
Origen
"Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection" (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229]).
Victorinus
"The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished" (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things" (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 312]).
"[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality" (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).
Athanasius
"The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation" (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean" (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).
Council of Laodicea
"Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians" (Canon 29 [A.D. 360]).
John Chrysostom
"[W]hen he [God] said, ‘You shall not kill’ . . . he did not add, ‘because murder is a wicked thing.’ The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath— ‘On the seventh day you shall do no work’—he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? ‘Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make’ [Ex. 20:10-11]. . . . For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: ‘You shall not kill. . . . You shall not commit adultery. . . . You shall not steal.’ On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition" (Homilies on the Statutes 12:9 [A.D. 387]).
"You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?" (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).
"The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, forasmuch as the law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath" (Homilies on Philippians 10 [A.D. 402]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
"And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food" (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).
Augustine
"Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian. . . . Which of these commandments would anyone say that the Christian ought not to keep? It is possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle [Paul] describes as ‘the letter that kills’ [2 Cor. 3:6], but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished" (The Spirit and the Letter 24 [A.D. 412]).
-
I saved this for last because of your persistent claim that the Catholic Church has EVER taught that the Lord's day is not Sunday or that Christians have a duty to observe the Jewish Sabbath (a claim which you support only by quoting people claiming it but who cannot SHOW these supposedly contrary church teachings on the Sabbath. This, Daily Bread, is what we Lawyers call "hearsay" evidence, or in layman's tongue "rumours", not facts).
This is the teaching of a Pope in the 6th century:
Pope Gregory I
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’ [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing’ [Gal. 5:2]" (Letters 13:1 [A.D. 597]).
I will find you COUNCIL documents that teach the same. So, pray tell, where are these teachings that claim that Saturday was to be kept? Do you have contrary quotations from early Christians or even from Popes or Councils that reject the quotes I have cited above and teach that Christians have a duty to observe Saturday? Please share. In other words, I am asking you to share the actual church teachings or sayings of the early church that claim that either 1) Christians observed the Jewish Sabbath or 2) That Christians had a duty to observe the Jewish Sabbath.
-
Kadame,
It is already Sabbath so don't expect Nuff Sed to respond since that will be working on Sabbath.
Adventists never hesitate to point you to history to 'prove' that Constantine 'changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday'. When out of the same history it is proven that Sabbath observation among the Gentiles has no precedence, they quickly retreat and insist that scripture is their sole authority...PLAIN DISHONEST
Next we delve into scriptures and the first argument is Jesus kept,Peter did,Paul observed....they conveniently overlook all other Jewish laws kept by these.....PLAIN DISHONEST/INCONSISTENCY
Then we have the most blatant fallacy of equivocation; they will flip definition of the LAW severally, arbitrally divide Law between, ceremonial,civil, eternal,universal.....
And all this backed by tons of circular arguments; 'show me where Sabbath was abrogated' among others quoted above
As I said, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any intelligent,logical and consistent truth seeker to remain an adventist
-
Ka-Bella,
The confusion is slowly emerging.
The comparison between Sabbath and circumcision is obfuscation at best. Circumcision is not in the Ten Commandments and is clearly spoken against by Paul in response to the Jerusalem council. Not so with the Sabbath.
The quotes you have given are useful (copied and pasted from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/sabbath-or-sunday). Notice that at various times different popes have called different days the Sabbath directly or by implication when convenient. Pope Gregory in your quote refers to Saturday as the Sabbath (...who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work).
The net has many documents in which the Catholic church admits changing the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday, like the one below:
THE CATHOLIC EXTENSION MAGAZINE
180 Wabash Ave., Chicago, Illinois
(Under the Blessing of Pop Pius XII)
Dear sir:
Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the
Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
(1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith
and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath.
The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe Sunday, stultifies
them in the eyes of every thinking man.
(2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith.
Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church,
as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church instituted by Christ, to teach
and guide men through life, has the right to change the Ceremonial laws of
the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday.
We frankly say, “yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she
made many other laws, for instance, the Friday Abstinence, the unmarried
priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic
marriages, and a thousand other laws.
(3) We also say that of all Protestants, the Seventh-day Adventists are
the only group that reason correctly and are consistent with their
teachings. It is always somewhat laughable to see the Protestant Churches,
in pulpit and legislature, demand the observance of Sundays of which there
is nothing in the Bible.
With best wishes
Peter R. Tramer, Editor
But there are many other documents in which the Catholic church refers to Sunday as the Sabbath. Quoting Pope John Paul II's Dies Domini:
"It is the duty of Christians therefore to remember that, although the practices of the Jewish Sabbath are gone, surpassed as they are by the 'fulfillment' which Sunday brings, the underlying reasons for keeping 'the Lord's Day' holy-inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments- remain valid , though they need to be reinterpreted in the light of the theology and spirituality of Sunday.... Jesus, as 'Lord of the Sabbath' (Mk. 2:28), restores to the Sabbath observance its liberating character, carefully safeguarding the rights of God and the rights of man. This is why Christians, called as they are to proclaim the liberation won by the blood of Christ, felt that they had the authority to transfer the meaning of the Sabbath to the day of the Resurrection .... For several centuries, Christians observed Sunday simply as a day of worship, without being able to give it the specific meaning of a Sabbath rest. Only in the fourth century did the civil law of the Roman Empire recognize the weekly occurrence, determining that on 'the day of the sun' the judges, the people of the cities and the various trade corporations would not work" (op. Cit. pages. 22-23, emphasis added throughout).
Notice that Dies Domini goes against the Laodecia Council which condemns Judaizers (for simple resting on the Sabbath) by calling for Sabbath rest on Sunday. He doesn't even say when and how he revoked the Lodecia council decree. In other words, the deception has come full circle.
Notice the obfuscation employed by the current pope Francis.
"In the recent book “Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words,” two journalists in Argentina asked the man who was then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, “Do we need to rediscover the meaning of leisure?” Pope Francis replied:
“Together with a culture of work, there must be a culture of leisure as gratification. To put it another way: people who work must take the time to relax, to be with their families, to enjoy themselves, read, listen to music, play a sport. But this is being destroyed, in large part, by the elimination of the Sabbath rest day. More and more people work on Sundays as a consequence of the competitiveness imposed by a consumer society.” In such cases, he concludes, “work ends up dehumanizing people.”
Notice how he implies that Sunday is the Sabbath rest day.
See another document in which a reverend refers to Sunday as the Sabbath.
http://loveandtruth.net/sunday-sabbath.html (notice the ridiculous claims he makes about the apostles being Sunday worshipers).
It began with claims that Sunday was celebrated because it was the day Christ rose from the grave, that Paul called for offerings on Sunday etc.
Then keeping the Sabbath (Saturday) by not doing secular work was anathema because it amounted to Judaizing (Laodecia council).
Then Sunday is now variously referred to as the Sabbath (Dies Domini claims the early church transferred the solemnity from Saturday), eighth day, Lord's day etc. At least the link above acknowledges Sunday was dedicated to sun worship.
Then "protestant churches" join the chorus calling for Sunday to be kept instead of Saturday (claims it was nailed to the cross etc).
Then Pope John Paul II now calls for Christians to rest on Sunday (avoid sports etc).
Will the Catholic church tell us which they want us to believe as the Sabbath between Sunday and Saturday?
-
Nuff Sed,
Is beastiality 'included' in the Ten Commandment?
Next,
It don't matter who/what calls Sunday Sabbath, Sunday remains Sunday and Saturday remains Saturday....the habit of Gentiles meeting regularly was borrowed from the Jews habit of meeting at synagogues (do I recall God commanding synagogues?) on Sabbath.
The MOST relevant day for Christians from the earliest was Sunday since Jesus resurrected on Sunday. Observing days is so irrelevant that it could not bother Paul, it is left to individuals
Colossians 2:16 (KJV)
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Romans 14:5-6 (KJV)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks
And here we have literate people totally blind to this that they won't fire a microwave on Sunday because that is 'work'
Am sure in your groups you constantly seek affirmation that you are the 'remnant church' in a world full of apostasy
Ka-Bella,
The confusion is slowly emerging.
The comparison between Sabbath and circumcision is obfuscation at best. Circumcision is not in the Ten Commandments and is clearly spoken against by Paul in response to the Jerusalem council. Not so with the Sabbath.
The quotes you have given are useful (copied and pasted from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/sabbath-or-sunday). Notice that at various times different popes have called different days the Sabbath directly or by implication when convenient. Pope Gregory in your quote refers to Saturday as the Sabbath (...who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work).
The net has many documents in which the Catholic church admits changing the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday, like the one below:
THE CATHOLIC EXTENSION MAGAZINE
180 Wabash Ave., Chicago, Illinois
(Under the Blessing of Pop Pius XII)
Dear sir:
Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the
Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
(1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith
and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath.
The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe Sunday, stultifies
them in the eyes of every thinking man.
(2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith.
Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church,
as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church instituted by Christ, to teach
and guide men through life, has the right to change the Ceremonial laws of
the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday.
We frankly say, “yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she
made many other laws, for instance, the Friday Abstinence, the unmarried
priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic
marriages, and a thousand other laws.
(3) We also say that of all Protestants, the Seventh-day Adventists are
the only group that reason correctly and are consistent with their
teachings. It is always somewhat laughable to see the Protestant Churches,
in pulpit and legislature, demand the observance of Sundays of which there
is nothing in the Bible.
With best wishes
Peter R. Tramer, Editor
But there are many other documents in which the Catholic church refers to Sunday as the Sabbath. Quoting Pope John Paul II's Dies Domini:
"It is the duty of Christians therefore to remember that, although the practices of the Jewish Sabbath are gone, surpassed as they are by the 'fulfillment' which Sunday brings, the underlying reasons for keeping 'the Lord's Day' holy-inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments- remain valid , though they need to be reinterpreted in the light of the theology and spirituality of Sunday.... Jesus, as 'Lord of the Sabbath' (Mk. 2:28), restores to the Sabbath observance its liberating character, carefully safeguarding the rights of God and the rights of man. This is why Christians, called as they are to proclaim the liberation won by the blood of Christ, felt that they had the authority to transfer the meaning of the Sabbath to the day of the Resurrection .... For several centuries, Christians observed Sunday simply as a day of worship, without being able to give it the specific meaning of a Sabbath rest. Only in the fourth century did the civil law of the Roman Empire recognize the weekly occurrence, determining that on 'the day of the sun' the judges, the people of the cities and the various trade corporations would not work" (op. Cit. pages. 22-23, emphasis added throughout).
Notice that Dies Domini goes against the Laodecia Council which condemns Judaizers (for simple resting on the Sabbath) by calling for Sabbath rest on Sunday. He doesn't even say when and how he revoked the Lodecia council decree. In other words, the deception has come full circle.
Notice the obfuscation employed by the current pope Francis.
"In the recent book “Pope Francis: His Life in His Own Words,” two journalists in Argentina asked the man who was then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, “Do we need to rediscover the meaning of leisure?” Pope Francis replied:
“Together with a culture of work, there must be a culture of leisure as gratification. To put it another way: people who work must take the time to relax, to be with their families, to enjoy themselves, read, listen to music, play a sport. But this is being destroyed, in large part, by the elimination of the Sabbath rest day. More and more people work on Sundays as a consequence of the competitiveness imposed by a consumer society.” In such cases, he concludes, “work ends up dehumanizing people.”
Notice how he implies that Sunday is the Sabbath rest day.
See another document in which a reverend refers to Sunday as the Sabbath.
http://loveandtruth.net/sunday-sabbath.html (notice the ridiculous claims he makes about the apostles being Sunday worshipers).
It began with claims that Sunday was celebrated because it was the day Christ rose from the grave, that Paul called for offerings on Sunday etc.
Then keeping the Sabbath (Saturday) by not doing secular work was anathema because it amounted to Judaizing (Laodecia council).
Then Sunday is now variously referred to as the Sabbath (Dies Domini claims the early church transferred the solemnity from Saturday), eighth day, Lord's day etc. At least the link above acknowledges Sunday was dedicated to sun worship.
Then "protestant churches" join the chorus calling for Sunday to be kept instead of Saturday (claims it was nailed to the cross etc).
Then Pope John Paul II now calls for Christians to rest on Sunday (avoid sports etc).
Will the Catholic church tell us which they want us to believe as the Sabbath between Sunday and Saturday?
-
@DailyBread, I see vooke was right about you. You have nothing to sa yin response, no actual history to quote. The best you can do is find an article in a MAGAZINE authored by people who apparently quite dislike both Popes John Paul II and Francis. Did I not mention hearsay before? Please read the FACTs I cited to you earlier, and tell me where it is you are getting your own history. So far I gather you are getting it from select magazines, shall I share with you other catholic publications that totally rubbish the stuff you seem to eat up like it's gospel? Again, find me the history that says Catholics taught/believed that the Jewish sabbath is a divine ordinance to be kept except when the church "changes" it.
Secondly, the "meaning" of the sabbath as a special day of observance for the things of God is of course present in Sunday. The timeless aspect of the commandment is that we must give to God our time too, in a formal/solemn manner. Tis an act of worship. God decreed that this was to be done in acknowledging the rest from the work of creation, remembering that the Lord created all. But like Tertullian said in one of those quotes you ignored above, neither Adam, nor his sons, nor Noah, nor Abraham and the other patriarchs kept/cared about the sabbath or Saturday. If this was a universal law, why did not God ask it of them? From them we know it was still wrong to kill or steal or commit adultery or worship other gods, or fail to worship God (sacrifice was there right from Adam himself), but where was the sabbath? Of course it was not a timeless law like the others. What was timeless about it was the duty to worship God both privately and in community, by setting aside our gifts of treasure, talent and time. But it does not have to be Saturday, my dear. For the Jews, God made it Saturday and about the rest from creation, for Christians, it became about the celebration of the new creation wrought by the redemption.
The "resting" that Catholics speak of is just a manner of speaking, somewhat copying the manner of the Jews. That does not mean Sunday is the Jewish sabbath. This idea of resting from work or making Sunday a holiday (a day you dont go to work) is understood to be an ecclessiastical law, a law MADE up by the church that can change and has changed and is ever changing. Why? Because God does not command it. Therefor, catholics dont have any strict laws about work on sunday either, apart from attending church and spending the day with your family (not the whole day in church from morning to evening) and avoiding workaholism. Rest for us does not mean not exerting effort, it means a change of activity, even vigorous activity squeezing sweat out of you is "rest" if spent in family bonding ways. Go have a barbecue, actually choma the meat yourself (and washa the moto!) Wrestle, hike! Have at it, just spend the day first with God and community/fellowship, including with your little church at home, which includes wife/husband and kiddos. Moreover, if you have no choice but to earn money on that day, then do so. Just make sure to make sometime to fellowship with others.My point? It is laughable to think that the Jewish Sabbath is what catholics are observing on Sunday. The only resemblance is that the day is set apart from the rest of the week, people gather together in fellowship and worship God in a more focused way than other days that are occuppied with lots of ordinary activity likeschool and work for most of the day.
Last, you say circumcision was not in the ten commandments. So? Was it not God who commanded it? Where was it written that onlythe ten commandments are divine commandments? Of course all laws in the Bible came from God. The question is: were they all timeless, binding Adam and the last human who will ever be borm at the end of time? Were they all universal, binding both Jews and Gentiles? Of course you dont believe so, because you dont obey all 600 + laws of the Torah. Don't worry, you're in good company. Neither did Abraham. The question is why you think Christians are bound to obey a law that only came up when God made a covenant with the Jews through Moses??? Are you a Jew, Daily Bread? Are you a party to that covenant? If Abraham did not rest on Saturday, why MUST I, a Gusii African woman without the slightest biological connection to Abrahams' offspring, except by my faith in Christ? Who did God command to rest on Saturday except the twelve tribes of Israel, are you among them?
I am a party to the New covenant of Jesus Christ, which I entered not by circumcision or birth from a Jewish parent, but by baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I am maintained there by belief in Jesus. Please show me where Sabbath was made a term of this new covenant.If I recall, Jesus summarized the terms of this New (and EVERLASTING) covenant thus: Believe me (Jesus) and be baptized in my name and my father's name, Love God and your neigbour, dont hate your enemy, dont seek vengeance, be quick to forgive, dont practice sexual immorality, be generous to the poor, trust God to provide all you need and approach him without fear but with the trust and simplicity of a child, try not to judge others, give your time and talent and treasure to building up God's kingdom on earth and also, fellowship with others instead of being individualist. Hizo zingine, you are citing the wrong contract, my dear. For the other one, you are consulting Moses instead of Jesus,when Moses' contract was a place holder for the real one that will never end, that is for all the offspring of Adam.
-
Kadame,
Nuff Sed is holding a debate with herself no you are interrupting. She draws immense satisfaction in demolishing her own arguments and she don't mind you watching her go about it..
She will ignore every point you are raising and continue debating with alter named 'kadame the Catholic'
-
@DailyBread, I see vooke was right about you. You have nothing to sa yin response, no actual history to quote. The best you can do is find an article in a MAGAZINE authored by people who apparently quite dislike both Popes John Paul II and Francis. Did I not mention hearsay before? Please read the FACTs I cited to you earlier, and tell me where it is you are getting your own history. So far I gather you are getting it from select magazines, shall I share with you other catholic publications that totally rubbish the stuff you seem to eat up like it's gospel? Again, find me the history that says Catholics taught/believed that the Jewish sabbath is a divine ordinance to be kept except when the church "changes" it.
Ka-Bella we can have a decent discussion without Voke's needless ad hominem. You have a problem with the issues raised because I have got them from sources you discount. However, even when I quote Dies Domini you still have a problem? The source doesn't matter since the facts remain. Sources can quote, re-quote and get re-quoted, all posted on various websites. That's the nature of the web. If you discount Catholic magazines that quote the Pope John Paul II's encyclicals, where else can I look? Are you discounting Rev O'Brien's Faith of Millions too?
There are many extrabiblical sources on the Sabbath and Sunday worship. It will take forever discussing the authenticity of each of them like the Didache. But that will again derail the discussion. The fundamental issues are whether Christian practice is consistent with what the Bible says. These fundamental questions were asked and answered in the Catholic Mirror. I have demonstrated in the previous post that the Catholic church has variously referred to Sunday as the Sabbath while acknowledging that the Sabbath of the Bible is Saturday. Of importance to this discussion is that the Catholic Church has never denounced the magazines and books that document the same facts issuing from the Catholic Mirror, Rev John O'Brien's assertions, Pope John Paul II's Dies Domini, or Pope Francis about the church regarding Saturday as the Sabbath and Sunday as the change instituted by the Catholic Church.
Let me repost the Catholic Mirror questions to get back on track.
http://www.cbcg.org/romes_challenge.htm
1. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? And if not, why not?
Notice that the Catholic Mirror then proceeds to answer the questions with thorough scriptural backing to question the sincerity of the protestants. I'm not clear why you dispute the answers.
-
Nuff Sed,
You won't engage vooke because you have NOTHING sensible to respond with. So the wisest thing you can conjure is hominem and play dumb.
Look at the first question.
1. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
Isn't that leading? An unbiased question would be,
1. DOES THE BIBLE ENJOIN ME TO KEEP ANY DAY HOLY?
2. IF YES, WHICH DAYS ARE THESE AND HOW SHOULD I KEEP IT/THEM HOLY?
By including 'week' in the question, you and your ilk cleverly sidestep EVERY feast ordained by God and limit holy days to weekly Sabbath.
Let me repost the Catholic Mirror questions to get back on track.
http://www.cbcg.org/romes_challenge.htm
1. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? And if not, why not?
Notice that the Catholic Mirror then proceeds to answer the questions with thorough scriptural backing to question the sincerity of the protestants. I'm not clear why you dispute the answers.
-
Ka-Bella we can have a decent discussion without Voke's needless ad hominem. You have a problem with the issues raised because I have got them from sources you discount. However, even when I quote Dies Domini you still have a problem? The source doesn't matter since the facts remain. Sources can quote, re-quote and get re-quoted, all posted on various websites. That's the nature of the web. If you discount Catholic magazines that quote the Pope John Paul II's encyclicals, where else can I look? Are you discounting Rev O'Brien's Faith of Millions too?
Daily Bread, you think just because a catholic or a person claiming to be one writes something in a magazine that other Catholics automatically take it to be true? Clearly you have next to zero exposure on Catholicism, probably because you get your info from Adventists rather than from Catholics. There are NUMEROUS catholic books/publications online and offline, of more variety than you can ever imagine in a 1 billion plus group, and they are not all of similar quality obviously. You might want to google "national catholic reporter" sometime, for example: a magazine that faithful Catholics have dubbed "fishwrap" for its rubbish, yet it claims to be an authority for all things catholic, even while it insists that gay marriage and abortion are very catholic while celibacy and a male-only priesthood are not. :D There are traditionalist magazines that claim that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis are all anti-popes and that the Church as currently constituted is apostate or lacking a pope, that the last true Pope was Pius XII. There are those obsessed with eschatology and prophecy on the future and Apocalypse just like Adventists, they attack the church for supposedly ignoring apparitions they believe are true. One of their priests even tried to stab John Paul II with a knife in the back in Portugal, back in the 80s.
And here you are, an Adventist insisting to me, that ALL you need to do for me to just take your word for it that the church taught the Jewish Sabbath is for you to cite an unreferenced and highly unacademic so-called catholic magazine :shock: Is it because the actual church teachings in the actual church documents by the actual church authorities somehow don't exist on the internet or anywhere that you think a magazine that simply makes claims is all you need? I am sorry, but to be taken seriously when you go about claiming that the Catholic CHURCH teaches/has taught something, you will have to do better than "Look! There is a catholic that agrees with Adventists! It's even in a magazine, and everything! Look, they even know how to type quotation marks next to a Pope's words!"
That so-called "Catholic" magazine you are presenting as some sort of authority is criticizing a papal encyclical because the author disagrees with the pope, and making a blatantly false claim that the Pope's encyclical, Dies Domini, contradicts the ancient Council that made it church law that nobody should keep the Jewish Sabbath. Of course, it does not say just which part of that council the Pope has contradicted, because the claim is rubbish. The pope is merely repeating what the council taught, but without the "rules". He is focusing on the theology that lead the church to Sunday rather than Saturday. And unlike this author of this magazine that you seem to think is a catholic Bible, the Pope is actually relying on authorities from scripture and the church's long tradition that Sunday is indeed an APOSTOLIC tradition, meaning it comes to the church right from the Apostles themselves. Apparently you think that a magazine simply by virtue of being a magazine is a more authoritative spokesman for Catholicism that the Pope in a public letter to all the Bishops of the church...lol! A magazine that has neither academic integrity nor basic respect for the pope is what you're thrusting in my face as some authoritative speaker for the church. With due respect, Daily Bread, that's actually funny.
-
There are many extrabiblical sources on the Sabbath and Sunday worship. It will take forever discussing the authenticity of each of them like the Didache. But that will again derail the discussion. The fundamental issues are whether Christian practice is consistent with what the Bible says. These fundamental questions were asked and answered in the Catholic Mirror. I have demonstrated in the previous post that the Catholic church has variously referred to Sunday as the Sabbath while acknowledging that the Sabbath of the Bible is Saturday. Of importance to this discussion is that the Catholic Church has never denounced the magazines and books that document the same facts issuing from the Catholic Mirror, Rev John O'Brien's assertions, Pope John Paul II's Dies Domini, or Pope Francis about the church regarding Saturday as the Sabbath and Sunday as the change instituted by the Catholic Church.
There are numerous extra-biblical authorities but you have not a SINGLE one in support of your assertions? I'm sorry, but you are attempting a cop-out, Daily Bread.
vooke earlier pointed out that you feel quite free to make references to "history" when you think it supports your position but quickly jump to "bible only" when actual history is brought up in response. History is an easily verifiable fact in today's world of information. Instead, you rely on a "history" that comes to you from Ellen G. White's 19th century visions regarding happenings from 1800 years before she existed. A bit like how in some circles, the Muslim Prophet's 6th/7th century revelations on what REALLY happened to Jesus 600 years before will take precedence over much earlier Christian and non-Christian writings on the same. The actual documents from early centuries unfortunately tell a different story than that narrated by Mrs. White, this is why you cant find anything from actual history to claim that Christians first observed the Jewish Sabbath before the church just decided to change it for God-knows-what reason. Where are you getting the history you were narrating here before? If not Mrs White's visions, then which historical documents taught you to think that Christians observed Saturday before the Catholic Church convinced them to observe Sunday?
You are also wrong in your claims about those popes you mention and what they teach. Dies Domini distinguishes the Jewish Sabbath from Sunday, even while it says that the two are linked, which is obvious. No amount of paraphrasing of the popes will make them say that "We as the catholic church acknowledge that God commanded us to observe the Jewish sabbath but by our God-given authority, we have moved the Sabbath to Sunday." This would help you make your point, but unfortunately it is not what they say at all. I think what you don't understand is, when the church speaks of "the church" replacing that ancient day of worship with Sunday for Christians, what she means by "church" includes the Apostles themselves. This is why Pope John Paul II starts immediately by stating that Sunday is apostolic. It was established by the apostles, not anybody else. So any references in the encyclical to a "change" by the church must not be separated from the references to the Apostolic authority, nor from what the church means by "change", that is, Not a change OF the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but from one day of observance to another. Nor was it a change for Christians in the sense that Christians changed their day of observance (they never had a duty for Saturday) but a change in general following from the new covenant coming out of the old.
Let me repost the Catholic Mirror questions to get back on track.
http://www.cbcg.org/romes_challenge.htm
1. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? And if not, why not?
Notice that the Catholic Mirror then proceeds to answer the questions with thorough scriptural backing to question the sincerity of the protestants. I'm not clear why you dispute the answers.
I don't care one whit what the Catholic Mirror thinks, says or does. You made a claim of FACT. You stated that Christians respected the Jewish Sabbath before the Church tricked them into going after Sunday instead. I would like you to substantiate your claims with facts, not opinions you borrow from others. Upon which facts is the mirror article based? Having the label "catholic" is not a substitute for facts, I'm sorry.
As to your questions, I asked you earlier a question you ignored. Now that you've come back to it, I will repeat it. WHERE and WHEN was the Sabbath established for CHRISTIANS in the Bible? I know what God commanded the Jews. Since you are no Jew and neither I nor vooke is, I am not interested in what God told the Jews to do except as history and foreshadowing for me. What I am interested in, when did God decide that Christians had a duty to rest on Sartuday and go to Church then? What do you suppose got into Paul when he dismissed any significance to keeping the Sabbath in Colossians? Answer that then we can talk about who changed this divine command and why.
-
Nuff Sed,
You won't engage vooke because you have NOTHING sensible to respond with. So the wisest thing you can conjure is hominem and play dumb.
Look at the first question.
1. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
Isn't that leading? An unbiased question would be,
1. DOES THE BIBLE ENJOIN ME TO KEEP ANY DAY HOLY?
2. IF YES, WHICH DAYS ARE THESE AND HOW SHOULD I KEEP IT/THEM HOLY?
By including 'week' in the question, you and your ilk cleverly sidestep EVERY feast ordained by God and limit holy days to weekly Sabbath.
Let me repost the Catholic Mirror questions to get back on track.
http://www.cbcg.org/romes_challenge.htm
1. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? And if not, why not?
Notice that the Catholic Mirror then proceeds to answer the questions with thorough scriptural backing to question the sincerity of the protestants. I'm not clear why you dispute the answers.
Nuff Sed,
You won't engage vooke because you have NOTHING sensible to respond with. So the wisest thing you can conjure is hominem and play dumb.
Look at the first question.
1. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
Isn't that leading? An unbiased question would be,
1. DOES THE BIBLE ENJOIN ME TO KEEP ANY DAY HOLY?
2. IF YES, WHICH DAYS ARE THESE AND HOW SHOULD I KEEP IT/THEM HOLY?
By including 'week' in the question, you and your ilk cleverly sidestep EVERY feast ordained by God and limit holy days to weekly Sabbath.
Let me repost the Catholic Mirror questions to get back on track.
http://www.cbcg.org/romes_challenge.htm
1. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? And if not, why not?
Notice that the Catholic Mirror then proceeds to answer the questions with thorough scriptural backing to question the sincerity of the protestants. I'm not clear why you dispute the answers.
Ad hominem, ad infinitum noted. On your rephrasing of the question, I say it is not up to man to rephrase God's commands or modify them as may be convenient. The fourth commandment is plain as can be. The inclusion of "six days" and reference to creation brings in the week that you have a problem with. The reference to six days makes it a literal week completed with the Sabbath day thus also ruling out the theistic evolution theory (it doesn't make sense for God to command man to labour for millions of years and hope to rest in another million).
The reference to creation is of importance to those who claim the fourth commandment was for the Jews. When first instituted in Eden (hence the word "remember"), there was no Jew. It was for all mankind (Adam means mankind, whose sin all "negroes" inherit, and Christ Jesus is the second Adam whose death and resurrection paid the price for all "negroes"). Why do Protestant "negroes" attach Jewish connotations to commandments when the Sabbath question is brought up? Are disrespect to parents, adultery or theft Jewish? All churches in Christianity keep at least eight. Most keep nine and have a problem with the commandments only when you get to the fourth.
It's contradictory for Protestant Christians, so quick to appropriate all the blessings to the Jews (like in Psalms 23) and rightly so because Paul writes that Gentiles have "been grafted in" but to quickly denounce as "Judaizing" when it comes to hard work like keeping the fourth commandment. The Sabbath day is a perpetual covenant to be observed throughout all generations.
Exodus 20
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
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:
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.
Exodus 31
12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
2. IF YES, WHICH DAYS ARE THESE AND HOW SHOULD I KEEP IT/THEM HOLY?
By including 'week' in the question, you and your ilk cleverly sidestep EVERY feast ordained by God and limit holy days to weekly Sabbath.
First, I've looked all over me and not found an ilk. :D
The question of feasts ordained by God is pertinent in this discussion. The Bible indeed makes an important distinction between the ceremonial law or the law of Moses including the feasts you mention, for example, and the Ten Commandments (the law of God). Notice these verses:
God gave Moses His law, written with His own finger (see Ex 31:18 quoted above) a second time after Moses broke the first tablets.
Deut 10.
1 At that time the Lord said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.
2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.
Then Moses wrote other laws also given him by God in a book. This is the ceremonial law.
Exodus 24
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Was this distinction known to the congregation? Yes. Notice who wrote it and where it was kept (the law of god was kept in the ark of the covenant).
Deut 31
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel....
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Three important distinctions.
1. God's (moral) law was written with His own finger; Moses' law (ceremonial) was writen by Moses (although also coming from God).
2. God's law was written on tablets of stone (first time and second time); Moses' law was given in a book (containing ceremonies, circumcision, sacrifices and feasts, some of which were called sabbaths and not sabbath days like what Paul referred to in Col 2:16).
3. God's moral law was kept in the ark of the covenant; Moses law was kept on the side of the ark.
Point 2 is what makes for an excuse for those teaching the breaking of the fourth commandment. Ceremonial laws pointed to Christ's sacrifice and were performed by Jews. Killing of lambs for sin (for the Jews and for an example to all the world a demonstration of Christ's sacrifice yet to come). These were all nailed to the cross when Jesus fulfilled them by coming to the world and dying for us (John 1:29 Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world). This was also clearly demonstrated when Jesus died and the thick veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom (Luke 23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.)
Passover, and the day of atonement were ceremonial sabbaths which did not come on a particulate day of the week. They came on a date (passover was 14th day of the month of Habib and could fall on any day of the week). Orthodox Jews who never accept Christ still celebrate Yom Kippur (day of atonement) on various days of the week but on a particular date. It is a ceremonial sabbath (Col 2:16)m, not the Sabbath which is the seventh in the week and which Paul kept with the Jews and with Gentiles (Acts 17:2), so you can't accuse him of being confused about the Sabbath day and the feast days. Paul did not preach water and drink wine.
Acts 18
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks...
21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Now you know why circumcision (which Paul addresses without mincing words) and ceremonial sabbaths being distinct from the fourth commandment are not binding to Christians.
-
Ka-Bella, you misunderstood my statement on extrabiblical sources. While extrabiblical writings are be important historical sources, they are not for doctrine. This is a fundamental difference that divides protestantism and Catholicism.
I had cited them and avoided non-Catholic sources for the reason that some claim the facts come from persons opposed to the Catholic church. Quoting Catholic figures like Rev John A O'Brien and a pope's encyclical, I attempted to establish the origin of Sunday worship in the Catholic church from the horses mouth. Two such quotations came from popes living in our time.
But let's assume I have failed in that regard. Let's even say that the Catholic Mirror is not as Catholic as previously thought. Let's move from history to the present and what do we find? Christians all over the world follow a strict regime of keeping Sunday as the Sabbath (for whatever reason) instead of Saturday. Why? This is the central question of this discussion.
The origin of Sunday worship is traceable to the Catholic church and Constantine's conversion. In protestantism, it is traceable to the half-hearted protest against the Catholic church.
But let's even assume I Daily Bread have failed to empirically prove the origin of Sunday worship in authentic, infallible Catholic documents, present practice bears me out, that there is not a single verse in the Bible authorizing Sunday worship, not a single verse reversing the perpetual fourth commandment of the law of God, while present practice endorses the change.
On the other hand, I have the Bible that expressly commands obedience to the fourth commandment.
Appeals to "apostolic practice" do not make the point, neither do extrabiblical sources like Didache, Tertullian's writings and so on. In keeping with the call to consistency as Voke mentioned, the Bible is the only source of Christian doctrine. If extrabiblical writing is congruent with the Bible, well and good. But if they are not, as good as they may be, they are fiction at best. The claim that Sunday worship was instituted by the apostolic church hangs on a thin loose thread and to make the argument as a protestant is dishonest and suicidal.
-
Quoting Ka-Bella:
The pope is merely repeating what the council taught, but without the "rules". He is focusing on the theology that lead the church to Sunday rather than Saturday. And unlike this author of this magazine that you seem to think is a catholic Bible, the Pope is actually relying on authorities from scripture and the church's long tradition that Sunday is indeed an APOSTOLIC tradition, meaning it comes to the church right from the Apostles themselves.
This statement is pertinent in the discussion. Should Christians rely on "apostolic tradition" found only in extrabiblical sources or the Bible for doctrine? Not at all, for:
2 Tim 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
If Christians were to rely on extrabiblical sources, councils and popes, they would have a problem with theologies from sources like MacBees, Tobit and so on. Again, should Christ's coming delay, practices like raping of altar boys, demands for sowing 310 seeds, stealing offerings and so on which are done by self-proclaimed "apostles" will be cited as "apostolic practice" and church tradition. There will even be historical (but thankfully extrabiblical) sources to confirm. The principle is that deeds by today's apostles are tomorrow's "apostolic practices" and church tradition. Hence "sola scriptura."
Notice the cyclical argument.
Quoting Ka-Bella:
This is why Pope John Paul II starts immediately by stating that Sunday is apostolic.It was established by the apostles, not anybody else. So any references in the encyclical to a "change" by the church must not be separated from the references to the Apostolic authority, nor from what the church means by "change", that is, Not a change OF the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but from one day of observance to another. Nor was it a change for Christians in the sense that Christians changed their day of observance (they never had a duty for Saturday) but a change in general following from the new covenant coming out of the old.
Just because a pope or a council says so does not make Sunday apostolic. If you question my reference to historical documents, allow me to apply the same "wembe" to the pope's assertions too. Saying "it was established by the apostles and not by anybody else" does not suffice for doctrine. I'm afraid the reference to Paul's writing about offerings to the Corinthians (Paul is one apostle and the verse is misapplied) does not suffice for "apostolic practice" meaning all the apostles, much less for Christian doctrine. The Revelation of Christ to John (the Lord's day) is not a reference to any particular day of the week, it's not even a call to Sunday worship.
Consistent Sunday worship (in disobedience to the express commandment of God) sets up man's own law. This is the definition of sin. Here is what the apostles believed and I'll cite John the Revelator.
I John 2
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
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.
I John 3
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
Which law? The law of God. Does that include the fourth commandment?
But the question of Sunday worship is even more fundamental when you consider this biblical definition of sin. The reason Christianity is thus called is because persons who believe on Christ's saving grace are called by His name. If there is no sin, there is no savior. If there is no Savior Jesus Christ, there is no Christianity. The same argument applies to protestantism. If there is no distinct Catholic practice, Protestantism is dead. No wonder then that while official protestantism grovels to Catholicism, the arguments coming out of today's Protestants gel nicely with Catholicism. Arguments defending Sunday worship like we have been hearing are an example.
Not that Catholicism minds because it calls itself the mother church asking the daughters to return. It only becomes a problem when the daughters rebel like they did in the World Fair referred to in the Catholic Mirror (see what sparked the uproar in http://www.cbcg.org/romes_challenge.htm).
Here is apostolic practice:
Luke 4
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Mark 6
1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Mark 3
1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
[What a perfect opportunity, if Sunday law was scriptural, for Christ to dismiss his accusers and tell them Sabbath was no longer applicable). But He didn't, because Sabbath was and is still binding.
Mark 2
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
(If Sunday law was right, then Christ missed another opportunity to say so here).
Did Paul keep the Sabbath (Saturday)?
Acts 18
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks...
21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Acts 17
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
-
Nuff Sed,
Let me get this CLEAR.
1. Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are the ONLY 'moral' Laws while the rest are 'ceremonial'?
2.Would you prescribe ANY 'ceremonial' laws to a believer seeing the apostles are on record keeping some of them in Acts? Examples include Feasts,circumcision and Nazarite vow
4. Why were the apostles keeping ceremonial laws already nailed to the cross?
Ad hominem, ad infinitum noted. On your rephrasing of the question, I say it is not up to man to rephrase God's commands or modify them as may be convenient. The fourth commandment is plain as can be. The inclusion of "six days" and reference to creation brings in the week that you have a problem with. The reference to six days makes it a literal week completed with the Sabbath day thus also ruling out the theistic evolution theory (it doesn't make sense for God to command man to labour for millions of years and hope to rest in another million).
The reference to creation is of importance to those who claim the fourth commandment was for the Jews. When first instituted in Eden (hence the word "remember"), there was no Jew. It was for all mankind (Adam means mankind, whose sin all "negroes" inherit, and Christ Jesus is the second Adam whose death and resurrection paid the price for all "negroes"). Why do Protestant "negroes" attach Jewish connotations to commandments when the Sabbath question is brought up? Are disrespect to parents, adultery or theft Jewish? All churches in Christianity keep at least eight. Most keep nine and have a problem with the commandments only when you get to the fourth.
It's contradictory for Protestant Christians, so quick to appropriate all the blessings to the Jews (like in Psalms 23) and rightly so because Paul writes that Gentiles have "been grafted in" but to quickly denounce as "Judaizing" when it comes to hard work like keeping the fourth commandment. The Sabbath day is a perpetual covenant to be observed throughout all generations.
Exodus 20
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
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:
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.
Exodus 31
12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
2. IF YES, WHICH DAYS ARE THESE AND HOW SHOULD I KEEP IT/THEM HOLY?
By including 'week' in the question, you and your ilk cleverly sidestep EVERY feast ordained by God and limit holy days to weekly Sabbath.
First, I've looked all over me and not found an ilk. :D
The question of feasts ordained by God is pertinent in this discussion. The Bible indeed makes an important distinction between the ceremonial law or the law of Moses including the feasts you mention, for example, and the Ten Commandments (the law of God). Notice these verses:
God gave Moses His law, written with His own finger (see Ex 31:18 quoted above) a second time after Moses broke the first tablets.
Deut 10.
1 At that time the Lord said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.
2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.
Then Moses wrote other laws also given him by God in a book. This is the ceremonial law.
Exodus 24
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Was this distinction known to the congregation? Yes. Notice who wrote it and where it was kept (the law of god was kept in the ark of the covenant).
Deut 31
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel....
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Three important distinctions.
1. God's (moral) law was written with His own finger; Moses' law (ceremonial) was writen by Moses (although also coming from God).
2. God's law was written on tablets of stone (first time and second time); Moses' law was given in a book (containing ceremonies, circumcision, sacrifices and feasts, some of which were called sabbaths and not sabbath days like what Paul referred to in Col 2:16).
3. God's moral law was kept in the ark of the covenant; Moses law was kept on the side of the ark.
Point 2 is what makes for an excuse for those teaching the breaking of the fourth commandment. Ceremonial laws pointed to Christ's sacrifice and were performed by Jews. Killing of lambs for sin (for the Jews and for an example to all the world a demonstration of Christ's sacrifice yet to come). These were all nailed to the cross when Jesus fulfilled them by coming to the world and dying for us (John 1:29 Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world). This was also clearly demonstrated when Jesus died and the thick veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom (Luke 23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.)
Passover, and the day of atonement were ceremonial sabbaths which did not come on a particulate day of the week. They came on a date (passover was 14th day of the month of Habib and could fall on any day of the week). Orthodox Jews who never accept Christ still celebrate Yom Kippur (day of atonement) on various days of the week but on a particular date. It is a ceremonial sabbath (Col 2:16)m, not the Sabbath which is the seventh in the week and which Paul kept with the Jews and with Gentiles (Acts 17:2), so you can't accuse him of being confused about the Sabbath day and the feast days. Paul did not preach water and drink wine.
Acts 18
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks...
21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Now you know why circumcision (which Paul addresses without mincing words) and ceremonial sabbaths being distinct from the fourth commandment are not binding to Christians.
-
The origin of Sunday worship is traceable to the Catholic church and Constantine's conversion. In protestantism, it is traceable to the half-hearted protest against the Catholic church.
But let's even assume I Daily Bread have failed to empirically prove the origin of Sunday worship in authentic, infallible Catholic documents, present practice bears me out, that there is not a single verse in the Bible authorizing Sunday worship, not a single verse reversing the perpetual fourth commandment of the law of God, while present practice endorses the change.
On the other hand, I have the Bible that expressly commands obedience to the fourth commandment.
Appeals to "apostolic practice" do not make the point, neither do extrabiblical sources like Didache, Tertullian's writings and so on. In keeping with the call to consistency as Voke mentioned, the Bible is the only source of Christian doctrine. If extrabiblical writing is congruent with the Bible, well and good. But if they are not, as good as they may be, they are fiction at best. The claim that Sunday worship was instituted by the apostolic church hangs on a thin loose thread and to make the argument as a protestant is dishonest and suicidal.
Daily Bread, do you consider Colossians to be extra-biblical?
I as a Catholic consider the Catholic Church to be identical with the church of the apostles, so I don't disagree with your statement that "Sunday is traceable to the Catholic Church", but this is not an argument against Sunday-going protestants, since their denial is like yours that the early church was not the catholic church, but unlike you, they don't deny that Sunday is traceable to the early church. So the identity of the early church is in dispute here but not the origin of Sunday in the Apostolic church, which is only disputed by Adventists, some Baptists and a few others.
-
Daily Bread, about the Sabbath as a moral vs ceremonial law,
Exodus 31 (NIV)
The Sabbath
12 Then the Lord said to Moses, 13 “Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy.
14 “‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people. 15 For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”
18 When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.
Daily Bread, this is what God commanded Moses about the Sabbath before giving him the tablets you cited as a special thing (setting them apart from other laws not on the tablet). The Lord himself explains here that the Sabbath is a mark of the COVENANT between himself and Israelites! It is just like circumcision, a sign setting them apart and remind them of their special consecration to God. So I will ask you again, are Christians part of the Mosaic covenant? Why should we hold up a mark of God's covenant with Israelites in the Sabbath while discarding it in the circumcision?
As for the other commandments, we don't hold them just because they are "the ten commandments" but because they are God's law binding all, from Adam to the last baby who will ever be born. Proof? They were there before Israel's covenant, and they are there very explicitly in the Apostles letters to the churches and in Jesus' teachings recorded for us in the Gospels. They bind all and in fact most societies hold to them more or less because they are discoverable by human REASON alone. The only binding/timeless aspect about the Sabbath commandment is the duty to sacrifice time for public worship of our creator, not the duty of the Jews to do this in a specific manner (by remembering the rest after the creation every Saturday). The apostles in acts 15 stated that beyond those four laws, no one should burden gentiles with any of Israel's laws, and the apostles supplemented these four laws/rules with the rich teaching/instruction we find in the New Testament. There are no "ten commandments" in the New Testament church cited as such, but the whole content of the ten commandments is there plus more (except the Saturday business). Homosexuality and fornication are not specifically prohibited by the ten commandments but it would be funny if you were to tell a Christian that adultery is a bigger sin than homosexuality just because it is directly mentioned in the Decalogue while homosexuality is not....
-
Just for clarity, address me as Daily Bread if you want me to respond. I'll regard questions to Nuffsed are not meant for me although I may still respond like I do now.
Moral in the sense that they define what is right or wrong, sinful or not sinful. Moral laws generally apply to everyone in every age and are binding on Christians. As for being the ONLY moral laws, not my words. The law of Moses related to Jewish ceremonies hence the word ceremonial. I'll repeat what I said. The law of Moses was also from God and defined Jewish life.
I don't always agree with Billy Graham, but here is what he says on the Ten Commandments:
http://billygraham.org/answer/the-ten-commandments-are-still-very-relevant/
Yes, the Ten Commandments are still important! You’ll find them in the Old Testament (the part of the Bible that tells us what God did before Jesus Christ came into the world). You’ll find them in two places: Exodus, chapter 20, and Deuteronomy, chapter 5.
The Bible tells us God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, who led the ancient Israelites after they’d been freed from slavery and were headed toward the land God had promised them. The Ten Commandments were given so they would know how to live, and God promised that if they followed them, their lives would be blessed. Moses said, “Walk in obedience to all that the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days” (Deuteronomy 5:33).
Although they were given many centuries ago, the Ten Commandments are still valid, and our lives (and our world) would be far better if we followed them. The first ones deal with our responsibilities toward God — to put Him first in our lives, and not allow anything to take His rightful place. The latter ones deal with our responsibilities toward others — to avoid lying, stealing, murder, immorality, greed, and so forth.
But the Ten Commandments are important for another reason: they point to our need for God’s forgiveness and help. No one lives up to them perfectly, and that’s why we need Christ. Don’t let your past hold you back, but begin a new life today by asking Jesus to forgive and help you.
Nuff Sed,
Let me get this CLEAR.
2.Would you prescribe ANY 'ceremonial' laws to a believer seeing the apostles are on record keeping some of them in Acts? Examples include Feasts,circumcision and Nazarite vow
No. Ceremonial laws are not binding. The fact that Paul kept a ceremonial law does not make it binding on Christians. Paul was circumcised but he wrote to Apostles in Jerusalem asking them not to impose it on Gentile converts. The Sabbath is not a ceremonial law. As shown in the post, ceremonial sabbaths or feasts were different from the Sabbath day in that they fell on particular dates of the month rather than a particular day of the week.
At the same time, it's not my business to condemn somebody for just being who he is. Paul was circumcised like Jesus but could still afford to denounce the demand for circumcision on Jews. A circumcised Jew can still be saved just like Paul. To claim that keeping the Sabbath is "Judaizing" like the Catholic church did in the council of Laodecia is a question you should address given what Paul says in Rom 11:1.
4. Why were the apostles keeping ceremonial laws already nailed to the cross?
I've only read about Paul mentioning once in Acts his plan to visit Jerusalem during a feast. I do not have scriptural backing of other apostles keeping other feasts. If you have such verses, I may then comment.
-
Daily Bread, about the Sabbath as a moral vs ceremonial law,
Exodus 31 (NIV)
The Sabbath
12 Then the Lord said to Moses, 13 “Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy.
14 “‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people. 15 For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”
18 When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.
Daily Bread, this is what God commanded Moses about the Sabbath before giving him the tablets you cited as a special thing (setting them apart from other laws not on the tablet). The Lord himself explains here that the Sabbath is a mark of the COVENANT between himself and Israelites! It is just like circumcision, a sign setting them apart and remind them of their special consecration to God. So I will ask you again, are Christians part of the Mosaic covenant? Why should we hold the Sabbath while discarding the circumcision?
It's a good question indeed, because in the documents dismissing the Sabbath, circumcision is often mentioned as the reason we should not keep the fourth commandment. We should hold the Sabbath commandment because God commanded it just like the other nine in Exodus 20.
God did not command circumcision on all people and Paul makes that point clearly.
Jesus was Himself circumcised even though He is Lord of all people including Gentiles. (Luke 1:59). Paul condemned circumcision being forced on Gentiles but circumcised Timothy himself. The reason he did it is also given in scripture. Some writings of Paul on circumcision.
Galatians 2:3
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Gal 6
12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
14 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.
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
It is clear also with Timothy.
Acts 16
1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
By this, Paul places circumcision in its right context and shows how circumcised men could use it rightly in obedience to the old covenant, or abuse it under the new covenant. Because it was no longer binding, man could modify it without eternal consequences.
-
About Paul's Sabbath missions recorded in Acts, there's nothing there but a recording of Paul going to his fellow Jews to preach to them about Jesus. I forget the exact place but somewhere there it mentions him leaving the Jews alone and sticking to the gentiles of a particular city after the Jews rejected his efforts.
Also, I am waiting for your explanation on how Colossians is extra-biblical.
-
Ka-Bella, allow me to fragment my response.
Daily Bread, this is what God commanded Moses about the Sabbath before giving him the tablets you cited as a special thing (setting them apart from other laws not on the tablet). The Lord himself explains here that the Sabbath is a mark of the COVENANT between himself and Israelites! It is just like circumcision, a sign setting them apart and remind them of their special consecration to God. So I will ask you again, are Christians part of the Mosaic covenant? Why should we hold up a mark of God's covenant with Israelites in the Sabbath while discarding it in the circumcision?
Yes, the Sabbath day (fourth commandment) was a sign setting Israel apart. But it was not the only one. Even the ceremonial laws that were done away with separated Israel from the other communities. However, the ten commandments not only differentiated Israel but also defined their relationship with God but also with the promised messiah depicted in ceremonial laws and feasts.
Christians are part of God's covenant, not Mosaic covenant. Paul says we have been "grafted in".
Rom 11:
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches...
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Notice that Jews who were practicing circumcision like Paul were also accepted into the new covenant. The problem was not Jews being circumcised but their demand on Gentiles to be circumcised too. So off-handed condemnation of circumcision for Jews (or keeping ceremonial sabbaths feasts) does not help the Sunday law cause.
-
Colossians 2:16 is not extrabiblical for the simple fact that it is in the Bible. How it supports Sunday worship beats me because it refers to ceremonial sabbaths that were part of the law of Moses.
-
Daily Bread, you seem to think that the reason we don't kill, steal etc is because they were part of the Decalogue that God wrote for Moses and the Jews. To the contrary: God made those laws part of the covenant because they were already part of the universal moral law, written into our very nature when Adam was fashioned by God. That's why Cain knew that he had sinned without a tablet of stone informing him as much, unlike Adam and Eve who violated an explicit positive command. We know God hated envy and covetousness from those first two brothers. Similarly, God had no qualms raining fire on Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual immorality despite having "failed" to first give them a clear command not to do as much, and we know from the personal stories of Abraham and his sons that God did not look too kindly on people taking other people's wives or on theft...etc etc etc.
Bottom line, the Decalogue looks the way it looks because these "rules" are part of human nature/design, the law was inscribed when we were created, and it boils down to an innate and basic sense of justice and fairness which is necessary for co-existence or as Christ put it, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Sabbath is only part of this basic universal human law in as much as it reflects our impulse to give to God what is God's which means a part of everything that we have and follows on our "religious" nature that separates us from animals. But there's no such rule about ANY specific day. Not even Sunday or Saturday. These are simply specific ways of manifesting this natural human impulse to recognize our creator as the one to whom we owe all, including our very lives which unfolds as TIME, that we should offer back to God. The New Testament makes even more clear what this natural law requires from us, to love all, give to those in need etc, even more than the laws of old. So you are wrong, its not just that something "is in the ten commandments", it is whether a certain law is part of this universal law and for a Christian that is easy, just read the epistles and the four Gospels.
-
Colossians 2:16 is not extrabiblical for the simple fact that it is in the Bible. How it supports Sunday worship beats me because it refers to ceremonial sabbaths that were part of the law of Moses.
Where does the word "ceremonial" come in on that verse? How did you decide that the Saturday Sabbath was in fact NOT a Sabbath in a verse speaking generally of Sabbaths? Where does Paul exclude ANY Sabbath from his teaching there? Is it Paul excluding it or is it you?
-
Daily Bread, you seem to think that the reason we don't kill, steal etc is because they were part of the Decalogue that God wrote for Moses and the Jews. To the contrary: God made those laws part of the covenant because they were already part of the universal moral law, written into our very nature when Adam was fashioned by God. That's why Cain knew that he had sinned without a tablet of stone informing him as much, unlike Adam and Eve who violated an explicit positive command. We know God hated envy and covetousness from those two brothers. Similarly, God had no qualms raining fire on Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual immorality despite having "failed" to first give them a clear command not to do as much, and we know from the personal stories of Abraham and his sons that God did not look too kindly on people taking other people's wives or on theft...etc etc etc.
Bottom line, the Decalogue looks the way it looks because these "rules" are part of human nature/design, the law was inscribed when we were created, and it boils down to an innate and basic sense of justice and fairness which is necessary for co-existence or as Christ put it, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Sabbath is only part of this basic universal human law in as much as it reflects our impulse to give to God what is God's which means a part of everything that we have and follows on our "religious" nature that separates us from animals. But there's no such rule about ANY specific day. Not even Sunday or Saturday. These are simply specific ways of manifesting this natural human impulse to recognize our creator as the one to whom we owe all, including our very lives which unfolds as TIME, that we should offer back to God. The New Testament makes even more clear what this natural law requires from us, to love all, give to those in need etc, even more than the laws of old. So you are wrong, its not just that something "is in the ten commandments", it is whether a certain law is part of this universal law and for a Christian that is easy, just read the epistles and the four Gospels.
A true believer cannot moralize the Ten Commandments away. God is to be believed and to be obeyed. Every civilization with any connection to Israel even by colonialization traces its morals, norms, rules and regulations to the Ten Commandments. Laws just don't descend from nature, because to argue so would be justifying things like corruption in Kenya because it is completely natural to be corrupt in the country. Again, if you are Catholic, you only follow in the tradition of the church to take "apostolic practice" of Kenyans and become corrupt. Protestantism rightly rebelled against this Catholic principle of appropriating anything in the name of tradition and apostolic practice (of course, without scriptural backing).
Mine like the Catholic Mirror (subconsciously perhaps) is a call to return to true Protestantism or to join the mother church. Hii tabia ya nusu mkate will not do.
-
You can tell us if you are not Nuff Sed
I aksd a simple question;
You stated that the moral laws were kept inside the ark and the ceremonial laws outside. Does this mean that there are no moral laws outside the Ten Commandments?
There is no point in pasting the entire Graham article here
Just for clarity, address me as Daily Bread if you want me to respond. I'll regard questions to Nuffsed are not meant for me although I may still respond like I do now.
Moral in the sense that they define what is right or wrong, sinful or not sinful. Moral laws generally apply to everyone in every age and are binding on Christians. As for being the ONLY moral laws, not my words. The law of Moses related to Jewish ceremonies hence the word ceremonial. I'll repeat what I said. The law of Moses was also from God and defined Jewish life.
I don't always agree with Billy Graham, but here is what he says on the Ten Commandments:
http://billygraham.org/answer/the-ten-commandments-are-still-very-relevant/
Yes, the Ten Commandments are still important! You’ll find them in the Old Testament (the part of the Bible that tells us what God did before Jesus Christ came into the world). You’ll find them in two places: Exodus, chapter 20, and Deuteronomy, chapter 5.
The Bible tells us God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, who led the ancient Israelites after they’d been freed from slavery and were headed toward the land God had promised them. The Ten Commandments were given so they would know how to live, and God promised that if they followed them, their lives would be blessed. Moses said, “Walk in obedience to all that the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days” (Deuteronomy 5:33).
Although they were given many centuries ago, the Ten Commandments are still valid, and our lives (and our world) would be far better if we followed them. The first ones deal with our responsibilities toward God — to put Him first in our lives, and not allow anything to take His rightful place. The latter ones deal with our responsibilities toward others — to avoid lying, stealing, murder, immorality, greed, and so forth.
But the Ten Commandments are important for another reason: they point to our need for God’s forgiveness and help. No one lives up to them perfectly, and that’s why we need Christ. Don’t let your past hold you back, but begin a new life today by asking Jesus to forgive and help you.
Nuff Sed,
Let me get this CLEAR.
2.Would you prescribe ANY 'ceremonial' laws to a believer seeing the apostles are on record keeping some of them in Acts? Examples include Feasts,circumcision and Nazarite vow
No. Ceremonial laws are not binding. The fact that Paul kept a ceremonial law does not make it binding on Christians. Paul was circumcised but he wrote to Apostles in Jerusalem asking them not to impose it on Gentile converts. The Sabbath is not a ceremonial law. As shown in the post, ceremonial sabbaths or feasts were different from the Sabbath day in that they fell on particular dates of the month rather than a particular day of the week.
At the same time, it's not my business to condemn somebody for just being who he is. Paul was circumcised like Jesus but could still afford to denounce the demand for circumcision on Jews. A circumcised Jew can still be saved just like Paul. To claim that keeping the Sabbath is "Judaizing" like the Catholic church did in the council of Laodecia is a question you should address given what Paul says in Rom 11:1.
4. Why were the apostles keeping ceremonial laws already nailed to the cross?
I've only read about Paul mentioning once in Acts his plan to visit Jerusalem during a feast. I do not have scriptural backing of other apostles keeping other feasts. If you have such verses, I may then comment.
-
Ka-Bella, allow me to fragment my response.
Daily Bread, this is what God commanded Moses about the Sabbath before giving him the tablets you cited as a special thing (setting them apart from other laws not on the tablet). The Lord himself explains here that the Sabbath is a mark of the COVENANT between himself and Israelites! It is just like circumcision, a sign setting them apart and remind them of their special consecration to God. So I will ask you again, are Christians part of the Mosaic covenant? Why should we hold up a mark of God's covenant with Israelites in the Sabbath while discarding it in the circumcision?
Yes, the Sabbath day (fourth commandment) was a sign setting Israel apart. But it was not the only one. Even the ceremonial laws that were done away with separated Israel from the other communities. However, the ten commandments not only differentiated Israel but also defined their relationship with God but also with the promised messiah depicted in ceremonial laws and feasts.
Christians are part of God's covenant, not Mosaic covenant. Paul says we have been "grafted in".
Rom 11:
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches...
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Notice that Jews who were practicing circumcision like Paul were also accepted into the new covenant. The problem was not Jews being circumcised but their demand on Gentiles to be circumcised too. So off-handed condemnation of circumcision for Jews (or keeping ceremonial sabbaths feasts) does not help the Sunday law cause.
To which covenant have we been grafted in? The covenant God made with Abraham or the one he made with Moses (on behalf of the Jews)?
-
Daily Bread, you seem to think that the reason we don't kill, steal etc is because they were part of the Decalogue that God wrote for Moses and the Jews. To the contrary: God made those laws part of the covenant because they were already part of the universal moral law, written into our very nature when Adam was fashioned by God. That's why Cain knew that he had sinned without a tablet of stone informing him as much, unlike Adam and Eve who violated an explicit positive command. We know God hated envy and covetousness from those two brothers. Similarly, God had no qualms raining fire on Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual immorality despite having "failed" to first give them a clear command not to do as much, and we know from the personal stories of Abraham and his sons that God did not look too kindly on people taking other people's wives or on theft...etc etc etc.
Bottom line, the Decalogue looks the way it looks because these "rules" are part of human nature/design, the law was inscribed when we were created, and it boils down to an innate and basic sense of justice and fairness which is necessary for co-existence or as Christ put it, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Sabbath is only part of this basic universal human law in as much as it reflects our impulse to give to God what is God's which means a part of everything that we have and follows on our "religious" nature that separates us from animals. But there's no such rule about ANY specific day. Not even Sunday or Saturday. These are simply specific ways of manifesting this natural human impulse to recognize our creator as the one to whom we owe all, including our very lives which unfolds as TIME, that we should offer back to God. The New Testament makes even more clear what this natural law requires from us, to love all, give to those in need etc, even more than the laws of old. So you are wrong, its not just that something "is in the ten commandments", it is whether a certain law is part of this universal law and for a Christian that is easy, just read the epistles and the four Gospels.
A true believer cannot moralize the Ten Commandments away. God is to be believed and to be obeyed. Every civilization with any connection to Israel even by colonialization traces its morals, norms, rules and regulations to the Ten Commandments. Laws just don't descend from nature, because to argue so would be justifying things like corruption in Kenya because it is completely natural to be corrupt in the country. Again, if you are Catholic, you only follow in the tradition of the church to take "apostolic practice" of Kenyans and become corrupt. Protestantism rightly rebelled against this Catholic principle of appropriating anything in the name of tradition and apostolic practice (of course, without scriptural backing).
Mine like the Catholic Mirror (subconsciously perhaps) is a call to return to true Protestantism or to join the mother church. Hii tabia ya nusu mkate will not do.
This is what we call a straw man, Daily Bread. Who has "moralized away" the ten commandments? I simply explained to you what they mean to a Christian. If the only reason you don't kill is that it was written by God for the Jews on a piece of stone, then that is truly sad, because you are no Jew but an African gentile.
Thank goodness that we respect all those laws not because they were part of a foreign covenant but because they are part of God's rules for US, as humans, right from Adam. Yet of all the covenants that God made, including the one that Jews recognize as binding on gentiles (the Noahide covenant and laws) only the one he made with Jews includes a command to set apart one out of seven days and then one specific day.
-
Colossians 2:16 is not extrabiblical for the simple fact that it is in the Bible. How it supports Sunday worship beats me because it refers to ceremonial sabbaths that were part of the law of Moses.
Where does the word "ceremonial" come in on that verse? How did you decide that the Saturday Sabbath was in fact NOT a Sabbath in a verse speaking generally of Sabbaths? Where does Paul exclude ANY Sabbath from his teaching there? Is it Paul excluding it or is it you?
Ka-Bella, if you read Colossians 2 from the beginning it will be clear what kind of sabbaths Paul is referring to. He even mentions circumcision and that some people will try to deceive believers with vain philosophies.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
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;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward...
-
Nuff Sed,
My other question was, why would Paul practice abrogated Laws such as Nazirite Vow, circumcision and keeping the Feast? You have no answer except to claim that ONLY Paul observed the same.
The import of this is, Jews retaining Jewishness AFTER Pentecost is no commandment to Gentiles to undertake the same. So you should NEVER claim that you are keeping the Sabbath because there are records of the same among the early church. You may as well circumcise and take the Nazirite vows.
You should also never quote Jesus because he was born UNDER the Law to save us from the Law. He was NEVER guilty of breaking none of the 613 Laws. Comprende?
-
Reading the entire Colossians is healthy but it does not subtract from Paul.
He has ALREADY mentioned 'holy day, new moon'....these OBVIOUSLY are Jewish and they entail the Feasts,why would he mention the feasts twice? He is clearly instructing the church not to be bothered by ANY Jewish feasts including the weekly Sabbath. Note the progression from annual, monthly and finally weekly..all of these are shadows
Could you please share with us what are 'holy day,new moon'?
Ka-Bella, if you read Colossians 2 from the beginning it will be clear what kind of sabbaths Paul is referring to. He even mentions circumcision and that some people will try to deceive believers with vain philosophies.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
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;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward...
-
This is what we call a straw man, Daily Bread. Who has "moralized away" the ten commandments? I simply explained to you what they mean to a Christian. If the only reason you don't kill is that it was written by God for the Jews on a piece of stone, then that is truly sad, because you are no Jew but an African gentile.
Thank goodness that we respect all those laws not because they were part of a foreign covenant but because they are part of God's rules for US, as humans, right from Adam. Yet of all the covenants that God made, including the one that Jews recognize as binding on gentiles (the Noahide covenant and laws) only the one he made with Jews includes a command to set apart one out of seven days and then one specific day.
I'm sorry for using the word "moralize" inappropriately. I withdraw it. The question you raise was dealt with by Paul. Being a Pharisee, he did not know certain things about God. But he extends the reasoning beyond himself. Without God, we cannot know what is sin. Only by the law of God do we know what is right or wrong, no matter how proud we are of our natural feelings. I can imagine that some pedophiles rape altar boys in following their natural feelings. We live in a corrupted, sin-sick world so be careful when you rely on your feelings. It takes God to get us out of darkness into His marvelous light.
Romans 7
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
-
Nuff Sed,
My other question was, why would Paul practice abrogated Laws such as Nazirite Vow, circumcision and keeping the Feast? You have no answer except to claim that ONLY Paul observed the same.
The import of this is, Jews retaining Jewishness AFTER Pentecost is no commandment to Gentiles to undertake the same. So you should NEVER claim that you are keeping the Sabbath because there are records of the same among the early church. You may as well circumcise and take the Nazirite vows.
You should also never quote Jesus because he was born UNDER the Law to save us from the Law. He was NEVER guilty of breaking none of the 613 Laws. Comprende?
The question is not addressed to me but be careful before you cheapen Christ and warn me against quoting Him. By taking the place of the lamb of sacrifice and causing the veil in the temple to be torn apart, Christ "broke" almost all 613 ceremonial laws in one stroke. i used quotation marks deliberately because Christ fulfilled those laws that "were a shadow of things to come". Read Paul's warning in Col 2 again.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Paul did many things and some of his letters were lost. We see him circumcising Timothy grudgingly "for the sake of the Jews" and Titus does the same. What Paul did as a Jew does not make his deeds binding to Gentiles. However, what he did as a follower of Christ is by his example binding. The Sabbath precedes Jews by hundreds of years. This is the reason why if we accept we are sinful by virtue of being Adam's descendants, we should by the same token accept Christ's sacrifice because he is the second Adam. All the promises that apply to the Jews as God's people apply to Christians today because we are all God's children and have been "grafted in" the true vine. All the promises that applied to Adam who observed the first Sabbath in Eden, did not steal or commit adultery, did not covet or worship idols etc also apply to us by faith and will apply when Eden is restored at Christ's second coming.
Revelation 22 King James Version (KJV)
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
-
I see you can't answer the question.
I can address you by quoting your posts without necessarily calling you by your name which I don't even know.
You cheapen the cost of redemption and reduce Christianity to mindless subscription to an 18th century mad woman's garbage. You are not ashamed of claiming to be the 'remnant' and EVERYONE outside White's claws to be spiritually dead
Quote Jesus and Paul but pray tell us why you won't keep Passover yet BOTH kept it. Did nobody warn you against quoting Jesus? These are your legendary strawman
TNuff Sed,
My other question was, why would Paul practice abrogated Laws such as Nazirite Vow, circumcision and keeping the Feast? You have no answer except to claim that ONLY Paul observed the same.
The import of this is, Jews retaining Jewishness AFTER Pentecost is no commandment to Gentiles to undertake the same. So you should NEVER claim that you are keeping the Sabbath because there are records of the same among the early church. You may as well circumcise and take the Nazirite vows.
You should also never quote Jesus because he was born UNDER the Law to save us from the Law. He was NEVER guilty of breaking none of the 613 Laws. Comprende?
The question is not addressed to me but be careful before you cheapen Christ and warn me against quoting Him. Paul gives this warning in Col 2.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
-
.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward...
What has circumcision got to do with anything? Paul speaks of both! Not only does he mention Sabbaths, he mentions "an hoy day", is the Saturday Sabbath neither a Sabbath, nor a holy day? You can claim to be able to read Paul's mind but please show me in that passage what excludes the Sabbath besides your on presumption that it is untouchable?
This is what we call a straw man, Daily Bread. Who has "moralized away" the ten commandments? I simply explained to you what they mean to a Christian. If the only reason you don't kill is that it was written by God for the Jews on a piece of stone, then that is truly sad, because you are no Jew but an African gentile.
Thank goodness that we respect all those laws not because they were part of a foreign covenant but because they are part of God's rules for US, as humans, right from Adam. Yet of all the covenants that God made, including the one that Jews recognize as binding on gentiles (the Noahide covenant and laws) only the one he made with Jews includes a command to set apart one out of seven days and then one specific day.
I'm sorry for using the word "moralize" inappropriately. I withdraw it. The question you raise was dealt with by Paul. Being a Pharisee, he did not know certain things about God. But he extends the reasoning beyond himself. Without God, we cannot know what is sin. Only by the law of God do we know what is right or wrong, no matter how proud we are of our natural feelings. I can imagine that some pedophiles rape altar boys in following their natural feelings. We live in a corrupted, sin-sick world so be careful when you rely on your feelings. It takes God to get us out of darkness into His marvelous light.
Romans 7
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Of course, in all this you assume that only "commandments" qualify as law, yet Cain committed murder without such a commandment. Are you saying that Cain broke no divine law when he murdered his brother?
-
Reading the entire Colossians is healthy but it does not subtract from Paul.
He has ALREADY mentioned 'holy day, new moon'....these OBVIOUSLY are Jewish and they entail the Feasts,why would he mention the feasts twice? He is clearly instructing the church not to be bothered by ANY Jewish feasts including the weekly Sabbath. Note the progression from annual, monthly and finally weekly..all of these are shadows
Could you please share with us what are 'holy day,new moon'?
Ka-Bella, if you read Colossians 2 from the beginning it will be clear what kind of sabbaths Paul is referring to. He even mentions circumcision and that some people will try to deceive believers with vain philosophies.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
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;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward...
How readest thou? The Sabbath of the fourth commandment was not and is not a Jewish feast in the manner of holydays and circumcision as referred to in Col 2. Please read Col 2 again from verse 1.
-
You have told us that Sabbath was NOT a holy day nor new moon. This means you know what these are and they are not.
What is a 'holy day,new moon'?
How readest thou? The Sabbath of the fourth commandment was not and is not a Jewish feast in the manner of holydays and circumcision as referred to in Col 2. Please read Col 2 again from verse 1.
-
.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward...
What has circumcision got to do with anything? Paul speaks of both! Not only does he mention Sabbaths, he mentions "an hoy day", is the Saturday Sabbath neither a Sabbath, nor a holy day? You can claim to be able to read Paul's mind but please show me in that passage what excludes the Sabbath besides your on presumption that it is untouchable?
This is what we call a straw man, Daily Bread. Who has "moralized away" the ten commandments? I simply explained to you what they mean to a Christian. If the only reason you don't kill is that it was written by God for the Jews on a piece of stone, then that is truly sad, because you are no Jew but an African gentile.
Thank goodness that we respect all those laws not because they were part of a foreign covenant but because they are part of God's rules for US, as humans, right from Adam. Yet of all the covenants that God made, including the one that Jews recognize as binding on gentiles (the Noahide covenant and laws) only the one he made with Jews includes a command to set apart one out of seven days and then one specific day.
I'm sorry for using the word "moralize" inappropriately. I withdraw it. The question you raise was dealt with by Paul. Being a Pharisee, he did not know certain things about God. But he extends the reasoning beyond himself. Without God, we cannot know what is sin. Only by the law of God do we know what is right or wrong, no matter how proud we are of our natural feelings. I can imagine that some pedophiles rape altar boys in following their natural feelings. We live in a corrupted, sin-sick world so be careful when you rely on your feelings. It takes God to get us out of darkness into His marvelous light.
Romans 7
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Of course, in all this you assume that only "commandments" qualify as law, yet Cain committed murder without such a commandment. Are you saying that Cain broke no divine law when he murdered his brother?
I assume no such thing. Cain indeed broke divine law and reaped the whirlwind. Unwritten law is still law. The codification of unwritten law does not nullify their previous existence. Thus the Sabbath law was present in Eden and beyond (before Sinai) as unwritten law. That's one reason the fourth commandment begins with "Remember."
The codification of the Ten Commandments was necessitated by sin and not least by the corrupting influence of life under slavery in Egypt. Thanks for making my point though.
-
You have told us that Sabbath was NOT a holy day nor new moon. What is a 'holy day,new moon'?
If you want to know more about holydays, new moons and the feasts, go to Leviticus 23 which refers to the Sabbath day and other sabbaths too. Paul being a pharisee knew the difference and refers to holydays, new moons and sabbaths in that context in Col 2. To clarify, in Lev 23 God begins with the Sabbath commandment in order to avoid confusion with the feast/ceremonial sabbaths highlighted in that same chapter.
Leviticus 23 King James Version (KJV)
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.
-
I'm sorry for using the word "moralize" inappropriately. I withdraw it. The question you raise was dealt with by Paul. Being a Pharisee, he did not know certain things about God. But he extends the reasoning beyond himself. Without God, we cannot know what is sin. Only by the law of God do we know what is right or wrong, no matter how proud we are of our natural feelings. I can imagine that some pedophiles rape altar boys in following their natural feelings. We live in a corrupted, sin-sick world so be careful when you rely on your feelings. It takes God to get us out of darkness into His marvelous light.
Romans 7
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Also, you TOTALLY missed my point. I did NOT state that NATURE authors our law. I stated that GOD inscribed his laws into our very nature, otherwise we would all be psychopaths. But you know that even Africans knew not to steal, kill, commit adultery etc, looong before the white man brought the bible to our lands. Do you suppose the devil told them? Or perhaps it was God....by inscribing it in their conscience, which even St. Paul recognizes in the New Testament. Humans despite being fallen, are creatures of reason and reason discerns basic rules of fairness every day all over this planet. Not very well, of course, because Adam sinned and fell and transmitted to us his fallen human nature rather than the perfect human nature he received from his creator. Yet, even though fallen, it is not TOTALLY depraved (unless you believe Calvinists) but can still discern basic right from wrong.
To state that I am denying God as the author of the law by recognizing the universal moral law makes no sense, unless you believe human nature has a different creator other than the one Lord and creator who makes us all recognize, for example, that something is wrong with having sex with an animal, or a member of one's sex, or a sexually immature child. That doesn't mean that we always follow this good sense. We are weak and are often pulled into all sorts of sins, but that doesn't mean we are always blind about the fact that we are committing a moral evil when we do.
-
Why are you shooting yourself in the foot?
Don't that very verse call Weekly Sabbath a FEAST? :lolz: :lolz: :lolz:
You have told us that Sabbath was NOT a holy day nor new moon. What is a 'holy day,new moon'?
If you want to know more about holydays, new moons and the feasts, go to Leviticus 23 which refers to the Sabbath day and other sabbaths too. Paul being a pharisee knew the difference and refers to holydays, new moons and sabbaths in that context in Col 2. To clarify, in Lev 23 God begins with the Sabbath commandment in order to avoid confusion with the feast/ceremonial sabbaths highlighted in that same chapter.
Leviticus 23 King James Version (KJV)
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.
-
I'm sorry for using the word "moralize" inappropriately. I withdraw it. The question you raise was dealt with by Paul. Being a Pharisee, he did not know certain things about God. But he extends the reasoning beyond himself. Without God, we cannot know what is sin. Only by the law of God do we know what is right or wrong, no matter how proud we are of our natural feelings. I can imagine that some pedophiles rape altar boys in following their natural feelings. We live in a corrupted, sin-sick world so be careful when you rely on your feelings. It takes God to get us out of darkness into His marvelous light.
Romans 7
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Also, you TOTALLY missed my point. I did NOT state that NATURE authors our law. I stated that GOD inscribed his laws into our very nature, otherwise we would all be psychopaths. But you know that even Africans knew not to steal, kill, commit adultery etc, looong before the white man brought the bible to our lands. Do you suppose the devil told them? Or perhaps it was God....by inscribing it in their conscience, which even St. Paul recognizes in the New Testament. Humans despite being fallen, are creatures of reason and reason discerns basic rules of fairness every day all over this planet. Not very well, of course, because Adam sinned and fell and transmitted to us his fallen human nature rather than the perfect human nature he received from his creator. Yet, even though fallen, it is not TOTALLY depraved (unless you believe Calvinists) but can still discern basic right from wrong.
To state that I am denying God as the author of the law by recognizing the universal moral law makes no sense, unless you believe human nature has a different creator other than the one Lord and creator who makes us all recognize, for example, that something is wrong with having sex with an animal, or a member of one's sex, or a sexually immature child. That doesn't mean that we always follow this good sense. We are weak and are often pulled into all sorts of sins, but that doesn't mean we are always blind about the fact that we are committing a moral evil when we do.
Indeed. All humans having originated from God have not lost all moral direction. However, a look at the Bible and history shows that man is full of depravity sprinkled with occasional acts of good. By culture, practice and tradition, man consistently shows that he came from God but got lost somewhere (the entrance of sin and the presence of a tempting Devil). It took the hand of an external Man (Christ) to bring him back to his senses. The coming of Christ was meant to restore the full image of God in man. That is why Christ broke no commandment but fulfilled them. The Sabbath was one of them.
-
Why are you shooting yourself in the foot?
Don't that very verse call Weekly Sabbath a FEAST? :lolz: :lolz: :lolz:
You have told us that Sabbath was NOT a holy day nor new moon. What is a 'holy day,new moon'?
If you want to know more about holydays, new moons and the feasts, go to Leviticus 23 which refers to the Sabbath day and other sabbaths too. Paul being a pharisee knew the difference and refers to holydays, new moons and sabbaths in that context in Col 2. To clarify, in Lev 23 God begins with the Sabbath commandment in order to avoid confusion with the feast/ceremonial sabbaths highlighted in that same chapter.
Leviticus 23 King James Version (KJV)
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.
The first few verses of Leviticus 23 are a preamble. Knowing that there was a weekly Sabbath already decreed in His law written with His own finger, God separated the Sabbath commandment from the ceremonial sabbaths. To avoid confusion, He gives the Sabbath commandment first. Try reading slowly before coming to a conclusion.
-
I assume no such thing. Cain indeed broke divine law and reaped the whirlwind. Unwritten law is still law. The codification of unwritten law does not nullify their previous existence. Thus the Sabbath law was present in Eden and beyond (before Sinai) as unwritten law. That's one reason the fourth commandment begins with "Remember."
The codification of the Ten Commandments was necessitated by sin and not least by the corrupting influence of life under slavery in Egypt. Thanks for making my point though.
Sorry, no point of yours has been made. The point was that we don't simply obey the ten commandments just because "they are the ten commandments" and are "special" but only in as far as they represent the universal moral law which binds us by virtue of us being human. In as far as it includes rules that are not pat of this universal law, such as resting specifically on Saturday, for example, we don't obey it just because "it is in the ten commandments and God wrote them with his own finger!" like you seem to think. In that, we obey only what is universal (make time to worship your God!) and ignore the rest that has been addressed to the Israelites when we are Europeans, Africans, Asians etc etc
It is interesting that you brought up the connection between the Sabbath and the exodus, had nearly forgotten how God wanted the Israelites to keep the Sabbath in remembrance of their deliverance....reminds you of the Passover feast, no? When were you saved from bondage in Egypt, Daily Bread? Why do you think you or I need to constantly remember this by keeping Sabbath? To the contrary, I remember my deliverance from sin and death (baptism and conversion) every day and especially on Sunday, the Lord's day, when Christ definitively triumphed over death that Adam's sins (and mine) wrought.
-
Leviticus 23:1 (ESV)
?1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.
Kadame saidia hapa....'THESE ARE THE APPOINTED FEASTS.....but hey, this is a preamble'...
Nuff Sed, you are running around in circles. Where is the 'separation' of the Sabbath from sabbaths?
Which 'confusion' is he avoiding? Who to,d you he is 'avoiding confusion'?
Where does the preamble start and where does it end? Why are you adding to the Word of God?
He says THEY ARE THE APPOINTED FEASTS and Nuff Sed says, 'hell no, the first one is a preamble!'
The first few verses of Leviticus 23 are a preamble. Knowing that there was a weekly Sabbath already decreed in His law written with His own finger, God separated the Sabbath commandment from the ceremonial sabbaths. To avoid confusion, He gives the Sabbath commandment first. Try reading slowly before coming to a conclusion.
-
Leviticus 23:1 (ESV)
?1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the Lord that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.
Kadame saidia hapa....'THESE ARE THE APPOINTED FEASTS.....but hey, this is a preamble'...
Nuff Sed, you are running around in circles. Where is the 'separation' of the Sabbath from sabbaths?
Which 'confusion' is he avoiding? Who to,d you he is 'avoiding confusion'?
Where does the preamble start and where does it end? Why are you adding to the Word of God?
He says THEY ARE THE APPOINTED FEASTS and Nuff Sed says, 'hell no, the first one is a preamble!'
The first few verses of Leviticus 23 are a preamble. Knowing that there was a weekly Sabbath already decreed in His law written with His own finger, God separated the Sabbath commandment from the ceremonial sabbaths. To avoid confusion, He gives the Sabbath commandment first. Try reading slowly before coming to a conclusion.
Daily Bread has simply decided that the Sabbath is not a Sabbath or holy day/feast, not because Paul says so but because it is convenient to her positions. "These are the appointed feasts" is about as clear as one can get. Otherwise, what are "THESE" that the sentence refers to, besides the list that immediately follows? English.....
-
Brilliant kadame!
I once said that one needs to thaw their brains before subscribing to White. I was being kind.
Colossians has;
1. Holy day
2. New moon
3. Sabbath(s)
And Nuff Sed will not explain what these are except insist what they re not. She knows if she attempts to do such shed run into logical contradictions. So she obfuscates this by throwing Leviticus 23 which works against her
Daily Bread has simply decided that the Sabbath is not a Sabbath or holy day/feast, not because Paul says so but because it is convenient to her positions. "These are the appointed feasts" is about as clear as one can get. Otherwise, what are "THESE" that the sentence refers to, besides the list that immediately follows? English.....
-
I see you can't answer the question.
I can address you by quoting your posts without necessarily calling you by your name which I don't even know.
You cheapen the cost of redemption and reduce Christianity to mindless subscription to an 18th century mad woman's garbage. You are not ashamed of claiming to be the 'remnant' and EVERYONE outside White's claws to be spiritually dead
Quote Jesus and Paul but pray tell us why you won't keep Passover yet BOTH kept it. Did nobody warn you against quoting Jesus? These are your legendary strawman
TNuff Sed,
My other question was, why would Paul practice abrogated Laws such as Nazirite Vow, circumcision and keeping the Feast? You have no answer except to claim that ONLY Paul observed the same.
The import of this is, Jews retaining Jewishness AFTER Pentecost is no commandment to Gentiles to undertake the same. So you should NEVER claim that you are keeping the Sabbath because there are records of the same among the early church. You may as well circumcise and take the Nazirite vows.
You should also never quote Jesus because he was born UNDER the Law to save us from the Law. He was NEVER guilty of breaking none of the 613 Laws. Comprende?
The question is not addressed to me but be careful before you cheapen Christ and warn me against quoting Him. Paul gives this warning in Col 2.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
I fail to understand why you resort to ad hominem so naturally. Are you trying to exemplify Ka-Bella's assertion about humans' depravity sprinkled with occasional good deeds? Let me see if I understand you correctly. Jesus and Paul were circumcised. That does not stop Paul from expressly condemning Jews for relying on circumcision as a ticket to heaven. Are you saying that obedience to God's commandments is "mindless subscription to an 18th century mad woman's garbage?" Can we address one issue at a time please?
The issue is simple. By keeping the Sabbath, Adventists obey the word of God expressed in no uncertain terms numerously in the Bible. An example followed by Jesus and the apostles. If there is apostolic practice to be followed, here is one. This practice is recorded in the Bible for us.
On the other hand, Sunday-keeping Protestants believe they are obeying God by obeying traditions of men and unsubstantiated "apostolic practice". They do so while still claiming to protest Catholicism's reliance on traditions of men for doctrine. Little do they know that Catholicism (when it's convenient) boasts of changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by her "divine authority." Protestants faithfully worship on Sunday and keep it every week. No single verse to support the practice (or at worst, no single verse to support the supposed abrogation of the Sabbath on Saturday). You condemned tithing in another thread using the Bible and said it was not scriptural. Can you apply the same Nacet on Sunday worship? Si wembe ni ule ule ama?
-
It is interesting that you brought up the connection between the Sabbath and the exodus, had nearly forgotten how God wanted the Israelites to keep the Sabbath in remembrance of their deliverance....reminds you of the Passover feast, no? When were you saved from bondage in Egypt, Daily Bread? Why do you think you or I need to constantly remember this by keeping Sabbath? To the contrary, I remember my deliverance from sin and death (baptism and conversion) every day and especially on Sunday, the Lord's day, when Christ definitively triumphed over death that Adam's sins (and mine) wrought.
It's a good analogy because before we know Christ, we are considered to be in Egypt spiritually (or Babylon). The Sabbath is indeed also a mark of deliverance from sin and helps separate us from what we were before weknew Christ just like Israel was distinct from all the nations around them. They lost it when they were sold into slavery in Egypt. To restore their lost iheritance, God brought them out and gave them the Ten Commandments. God knew that we would forget who He is and His promises, that's why he said "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy". He knew that in later times wolves would come in sheepskin and try to deceive the flock with fluffy philosophies (Paul's warning in col 2). He also knew that one day people will come with things like theistic evolution. The Sabbath day is a commandment to remind us every week about God's creatorship. Jews exist today to preserve that history even if they rejected Christ. Thankfully some Jews (like Paul) accepted Christ and can give us a glimpse into the old and the new.
-
More circular arguments. By not keeping Sabbath we are just being Christians and not Jews and Jewish Laws have no bearing on us. Paul can't be more clear
Romans 14:5 (KJV)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Tell me, how do you distinguish a 'moral' law from a 'ceremonial' law?
I see you have AVOIDED the natural conclusion of your claim that moral law resided inside the ark while ceremonial law remained outside. This garbage I have read from White and of course it has no basis. You are hopelessly married to her illogic and MUST defend it at all costs, including running away from debates and ignoring questions that expose your vain doctrines
I fail to understand why you resort to ad hominem so naturally. Are you trying to exemplify Ka-Bella's assertion about humans' depravity sprinkled with occasional good deeds? Let me see if I understand you correctly. Jesus and Paul were circumcised. That does not stop Paul from expressly condemning Jews for relying on circumcision as a ticket to heaven. Are you saying that obedience to God's commandments is "mindless subscription to an 18th century mad woman's garbage?" Can we address one issue at a time please?
The issue is simple. By keeping the Sabbath, Adventists obey the word of God expressed in no uncertain terms numerously in the Bible. An example followed by Jesus and the apostles. If there is apostolic practice to be followed, here is one. This practice is recorded in the Bible for us.
On the other hand, Sunday-keeping Protestants believe they are obeying God by obeying traditions of men and unsubstantiated "apostolic practice". They do so while still claiming to protest Catholicism's reliance on traditions of men for doctrine. Little do they know that Catholicism (when it's convenient) boasts of changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by her "divine authority." Protestants faithfully worship on Sunday and keep it every week. No single verse to support the practice (or at worst, no single verse to support the supposed abrogation of the Sabbath on Saturday). You condemned tithing in another thread using the Bible and said it was not scriptural. Can you apply the same Nacet on Sunday worship? Si wembe ni ule ule ama?
-
Ad hominem naturalis. Let me help you by quoting Paul's very words. Hint: If you want to quote Paul, use the Bible.
Colossians 2 (King James Version)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
1. holyday
2. the new moon
3. sabbath days
have you never owned a book with a Preface? Or have you forgotten that you asked for an explanation of holydays and new moons?
Brilliant kadame!
I once said that one needs to thaw their brains before subscribing to White. I was being kind.
Colossians has;
1. Holy day
2. New moon
3. Sabbath(s)
And Nuff Sed will not explain what these are except insist what they re not. She knows if she attempts to do such shed run into logical contradictions. So she obfuscates this by throwing Leviticus 23 which works against her
Daily Bread has simply decided that the Sabbath is not a Sabbath or holy day/feast, not because Paul says so but because it is convenient to her positions. "These are the appointed feasts" is about as clear as one can get. Otherwise, what are "THESE" that the sentence refers to, besides the list that immediately follows? English.....
-
Wrong again, Daily Bread. "Catholicism" doesn't boast of "this" (by which I am guessing you mean the idea that some time in the 4th century, church men totally invented the notion of Sunday as a Christian day of worship) or you would have already found those teachings by now; rather some few Catholics too lazy to do their basic homework have made careless statements in the past in an attempt to score points in a debate. It is a temptation that apologists fall into, from time to time, called polemics. You engage in it yourself quite a bit, though you don't realize it (that darned fallen nature and what-have-you) We are all guilty of it at some point. Christians should try to avoid it as much as possible, I have heard that SOME muslims do it deliberately with some type of sanction in the Quran, but no rendering of Christian scriptures allows us to claim falsehoods.
-
Wrong again, Daily Bread. "Catholicism" doesn't boast of "this" (by which I am guessing you mean the idea that some time in the 4th century, church men totally invented the notion of Sunday as a Christian day of worship) or you would have already found those teachings by now; rather some few Catholics too lazy to do their basic homework have made careless statements in the past in an attempt to score points in a debate. It is a temptation that apologists fall into, from time to time, called polemics. You engage in it yourself quite a bit, though you don't realize it (that darned fallen nature and what-have-you) We are all guilty of it at some point. Christians should try to avoid it as much as possible, I have heard that SOME muslims do it deliberately with some type of sanction in the Quran, but no rendering of Christian scriptures allows us to claim falsehoods.
It's no falsehood. Catholicism claims an unbroken line of popes from St Peter (of course relying on tradition and apostolic practice). It was under these popes that the Sabbath change was made (4th Century you say?) even if it's now inconvenient and politically incorrect to say so. Being the only church around when the change happened, it would be a falsehood to attribute the change to Sunday worship to any other religious body. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
http://www.stpeterslist.com/10008/in-defense-of-the-papacy-9-reasons-true-christians-follow-the-pope/
-
The question was, what is a holy day, new moon?
You reckon it can't be the weekly sabbath and as proof, you send me to Leviticus 23 where sabbath is is called a feast.
You, without proof, claim that the portion mentioning weekly sabbath day is a preamble, a preface. And no part of the 'these'. I have no problem with existence of preface nor preamble but your rationale for concluding that the weekly sabbath is a 'preamble' and not a feast after it has just been called thus! You also claim sabbath was mentioned first to avoid confusion again without proof
When you start esteem img the Word of God above the Great Controvery and other trash, you will start living
Ad hominem naturalis. Let me help you by quoting Paul's very words. Hint: If you want to quote Paul, use the Bible.
Colossians 2 (King James Version)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
1. holyday
2. the new moon
3. sabbath days
have you never owned a book with a Preface? Or have you forgotten that you asked for an explanation of holydays and new moons?
-
More circular arguments. By not keeping Sabbath we are just being Christians and not Jews and Jewish Laws have no bearing on us. Paul can't be more clear
Romans 14:5 (KJV)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Tell me, how do you distinguish a 'moral' law from a 'ceremonial' law?
I see you have AVOIDED the natural conclusion of your claim that moral law resided inside the ark while ceremonial law remained outside. This garbage I have read from White and of course it has no basis. You are hopelessly married to her illogic and MUST defend it at all costs, including running away from debates and ignoring questions that expose your vain doctrines
I fail to understand why you resort to ad hominem so naturally. Are you trying to exemplify Ka-Bella's assertion about humans' depravity sprinkled with occasional good deeds? Let me see if I understand you correctly. Jesus and Paul were circumcised. That does not stop Paul from expressly condemning Jews for relying on circumcision as a ticket to heaven. Are you saying that obedience to God's commandments is "mindless subscription to an 18th century mad woman's garbage?" Can we address one issue at a time please?
The issue is simple. By keeping the Sabbath, Adventists obey the word of God expressed in no uncertain terms numerously in the Bible. An example followed by Jesus and the apostles. If there is apostolic practice to be followed, here is one. This practice is recorded in the Bible for us.
On the other hand, Sunday-keeping Protestants believe they are obeying God by obeying traditions of men and unsubstantiated "apostolic practice". They do so while still claiming to protest Catholicism's reliance on traditions of men for doctrine. Little do they know that Catholicism (when it's convenient) boasts of changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by her "divine authority." Protestants faithfully worship on Sunday and keep it every week. No single verse to support the practice (or at worst, no single verse to support the supposed abrogation of the Sabbath on Saturday). You condemned tithing in another thread using the Bible and said it was not scriptural. Can you apply the same Nacet on Sunday worship? Si wembe ni ule ule ama?
Read the chapter from the beginning. Paul is referring to feasts and not the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment. Hiyo Nacet inafanya kazi kweli ama inahitaji kun(y)olewa?
Romans 14 King James Version (KJV)
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
-
Nuff Sed,
When pointed to sabbath in Colossians, you advise us to read the entire book to see that it was NOT the weekly sabbath but other days/sabbaths. Now you insist we chew through Romans 14 to see it is NOT weekly sabbath but other days. It's quite clear that is your escape route. Read,read no re-read
Can you,assuming you have read Romns 14 more than all of us combined, demonstrate from whatever part of that chapter why it is NOT weekly sabbath but any other?
Do some exegesis why Paul must have been talking of other days and not weekly sabbath
Read the chapter from the beginning. Paul is referring to feasts and not the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment. Hiyo Nacet inafanya kazi kweli ama inahitaji kun(y)olewa?
Romans 14 King James Version (KJV)
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
-
Nuff Sed,
When pointed to sabbath in Colossians, you advise us to read the entire book to see that it was NOT the weekly sabbath but other days/sabbaths. Now you insist we chew through Romans 14 to see it is NOT weekly sabbath but other days.
Can you,assuming you have read, demonstrate from whatever part of that chapter why it is NOT weekly sabbath but any other?
Do some exegesis why Paul must have been talking of other days and not weekly sabbath
Read the chapter from the beginning. Paul is referring to feasts and not the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment. Hiyo Nacet inafanya kazi kweli ama inahitaji kun(y)olewa?
Romans 14 King James Version (KJV)
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
I don't see the need to demonstrate what it's not talking about when what it's talking about it so clear from the beginning.
-
Wrong again, Daily Bread. "Catholicism" doesn't boast of "this" (by which I am guessing you mean the idea that some time in the 4th century, church men totally invented the notion of Sunday as a Christian day of worship) or you would have already found those teachings by now; rather some few Catholics too lazy to do their basic homework have made careless statements in the past in an attempt to score points in a debate. It is a temptation that apologists fall into, from time to time, called polemics. You engage in it yourself quite a bit, though you don't realize it (that darned fallen nature and what-have-you) We are all guilty of it at some point. Christians should try to avoid it as much as possible, I have heard that SOME muslims do it deliberately with some type of sanction in the Quran, but no rendering of Christian scriptures allows us to claim falsehoods.
It's no falsehood. Catholicism claims an unbroken line of popes from St Peter (of course relying on tradition and apostolic practice). It was under these popes that the Sabbath change was made (4th Century you say?) even if it's now inconvenient and politically incorrect to say so. Being the only church around when the change happened, it would be a falsehood to attribute the change to Sunday worship to any other religious body. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
http://www.stpeterslist.com/10008/in-defense-of-the-papacy-9-reasons-true-christians-follow-the-pope/
I understand that (and all catholic beliefs, including where we differ with protestants of different sorts and with orthodox) but what you mean when you say "church" is not what catholics mean, which means that using that as a basis to attack non-catholics for not worshipping on Saturday is based on wrong premises. When catholics speak of "the church" instituting Sunday, they are speaking of the Apostles, just like when they speak of "the church" writing the scriptures (New Testament), they are not usually meaning your idea of a church beginning in the 4th century writing scriptures or instituting Sunday etc. My point is that Sunday-observing protestants will agree with Catholics on these things WITHOUT agreeing that the early church is the catholic church and vice versa. By bringing in the idea of catholic authority, you are hi-jacking one debate and transferring it in a backhanded fashion to another, which is what those catholic you were quoting were doing. They are trying to make arguments for authority by "stealing" the Adventist arguments (which are wrong arguments) instead of sticking to each debate. In fact, throughout this discussion with you, I have found catholic discussions heavily criticizing those very quotations you were citing. That's how I knew they were authentic (that is, by catholics) but everyone recognizes that they are wrong.
-
Then please demonstrate that Romans 14:5 is talking about non-weekly sabbaths or feasts . This should be easy since its 'all there' ama?
There are those people who when confronted with difficult and potentially embarrassing questions retort with 'obvious' implying there is no need to answer the question but in reality they are not-so-cleverly masking their ignorance &/ shame
I don't see the need to demonstrate what it's not talking about when what it's talking about it so clear from the beginning.
-
You can understand Rom 14:5 from the meaning of the verses around it. Paul, a Pharisee, knew about clean and unclean foods. Lev 11 must have been familiar to him as well as other regulations on holydays and new moons. The Sabbath commandment must have been familiar too, for he engages in Sabbath worship without equivocation in Acts 17.
I've done my part, now show me where you find Sabbath or Sunday worship in Rom 14:5.
-
Wrong again, Daily Bread. "Catholicism" doesn't boast of "this" (by which I am guessing you mean the idea that some time in the 4th century, church men totally invented the notion of Sunday as a Christian day of worship) or you would have already found those teachings by now; rather some few Catholics too lazy to do their basic homework have made careless statements in the past in an attempt to score points in a debate. It is a temptation that apologists fall into, from time to time, called polemics. You engage in it yourself quite a bit, though you don't realize it (that darned fallen nature and what-have-you) We are all guilty of it at some point. Christians should try to avoid it as much as possible, I have heard that SOME muslims do it deliberately with some type of sanction in the Quran, but no rendering of Christian scriptures allows us to claim falsehoods.
It's no falsehood. Catholicism claims an unbroken line of popes from St Peter (of course relying on tradition and apostolic practice). It was under these popes that the Sabbath change was made (4th Century you say?) even if it's now inconvenient and politically incorrect to say so. Being the only church around when the change happened, it would be a falsehood to attribute the change to Sunday worship to any other religious body. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
http://www.stpeterslist.com/10008/in-defense-of-the-papacy-9-reasons-true-christians-follow-the-pope/
I understand that (and all catholic beliefs, including where we differ with protestants of different sorts and with orthodox) but what you mean when you say "church" is not what catholics mean, which means that using that as a basis to attack non-catholics for not worshipping on Saturday is based on wrong premises. When catholics speak of "the church" instituting Sunday, they are speaking of the Apostles, just like when they speak of "the church" writing the scriptures (New Testament), they are not usually meaning your idea of a church beginning in the 4th century writing scriptures or instituting Sunday etc. My point is that Sunday-observing protestants will agree with Catholics on these things WITHOUT agreeing that the early church is the catholic church and vice versa. By bringing in the idea of catholic authority, you are hi-jacking one debate and transferring it in a backhanded fashion to another, which is what those catholic you were quoting were doing. They are trying to make arguments for authority by "stealing" the Adventist arguments (which are wrong arguments) instead of sticking to each debate. In fact, throughout this discussion with you, I have found catholic discussions heavily criticizing those very quotations you were citing. That's how I knew they were authentic (that is, by catholics) but everyone recognizes that they are wrong.
That explanation is helpful to me. I acknowledge I don't understand some things about the Catholic church. However, I do read some of their sources and they give me a good idea of where the church is coming from. Take this page for example.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
Excerpt: The Council of Elvira (300) decreed: "If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excommunicated for a short time so that he may be corrected" (xxi).
Howmany protestants are aware of such teachings?
-
You have not shown why that verse is talking about Jewish holy days EXCEPT weekly sabbath nor clean and unclean foods. That's your imagination overheating inspired by you know what.
Next, note I never said the verse 'proves' Sunday Worship, that's another strawman you are drawing
Now, here is how you study scriptures;
Romans 14:5 (KJV)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind
Paul tells us of diversity; some believers (not cows) 'esteem' some days ABOVE others while others. He also makes it clear that it is up to them to follow their convictions. So esteeming some above others or not is an individual decision not based on nothing external.
What is 'esteemeth'?
????? (krin?)
Strong: G2919
GK: G3212
pluperfect, ???????? (3 sg), pr. to separate; to make a distinction between; to exercise judgment upon; to estimate, Rom. 14:5; to judge, to assume censorial power over, to call to account, Mt. 7:1; Lk. 6:37; Rom. 2:1, 3; 14:3, 4, 10, 13; Col. 2:16; Jas. 4:11, 12; to bring under question, Rom. 14:22; to judge judicially, to try as a judge, Jn. 18:31; to bring to trial, Acts 13:27; to sentence, Lk. 19:22; Jn. 7:51; to resolve on, decree, Acts 16:4; Rev. 16:5; absol. to decide, determine, resolve, Acts 3:13; 15:19; 27:1; to deem, Acts 13:46; to form a judgment, pass judgment, Jn. 8:15; pass. to be brought to trial, Acts 25:10, 20; Rom. 3:4; to be brought to account, to incur arraignment, be arraigned, 1 Cor. 10:29; mid. to go to law, litigate, Mt. 5:40; in NT to judge, to visit judicially, Acts 7:7; 1 Cor. 11:31, 32; 1 Pet. 4:6; to judge, to right, to vindicate, Heb. 10:30; to administer government over, to govern, Mt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30
I'd go with the first meaning. Paul is talking of some people making a distinction between days and others not making. The context is quite clear that we should not judge those who esteem and those who don't .
The question,is the Jew who keeps the Passover esteeming it ABOVE other days? What about the Adventist and his Saturday? And what about the Catholic/Prostestant and his Sunday? And finally, what about those who esteem December 25th? above all other December days
All these esteem some days above others. Don't judge them
Paul by leaving the issue discretional relegates it to ALL religious observances to the least relevance in the life of a believer. This would be extremely careless and dangerous if eternity is pegged on esteeming one day above the others.
It is important to note that esteeming some days above others be it weekly sabbaths,new moons and holy days was ordained by God just like circumcision.
Paul circumcised and kept the days and yet spoke against the necessity for both. He circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) and he tells you it AVAILETH nothing (Gal 5:6).
Paul observing the sabbath is Paul being Jewish just as when he kept feasts which you have no doubt they was abrogated.
You can understand Rom 14:5 from the meaning of the verses around it. Paul, a Pharisee, knew about clean and unclean foods. Lev 11 must have been familiar to him as well as other regulations on holydays and new moons. The Sabbath commandment must have been familiar too, for he engages in Sabbath worship without equivocation in Acts 17.
I've done my part, now show me where you find Sabbath or Sunday worship in Rom 14:5.
-
You can go with whichever meaning suits you. However, it is disingenuous to claim there is an Adventist or Jewish Sabbath. The Sabbath is the Lord's, not for Jews or Adventists. A day that people choose to esteem for whatever reason is their own day. The Lord's day remains as commanded for worship.
The suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Sunday is not the Sabbath, to Sundaybeing a new Sabbath, to Sunday being an apostolic practice, to some people esteeming a day above the others. This thread is not for judging Protestants orCatholics. It is to bring to the attention of all the often missed unscriptural origins of Sunday worship. I didn't hear anybody accuse you of judging them when you brought up the tithing thread.
While esteeming Sunday above all others, don't forget the next verse.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
-
Romans 14:5 makes it very clear that esteeming whichever day above others or esteeming them equally is not a matter of eternity; it is not important. Life issues are not discretional, it is not left to your own conviction to fornicate,steal or blaspheme.
There are no multiple interpretations of Romans 14:5, but one which is, honoring and setting aside days is NOTHING. Paul cautioning against judging believers on the basis of days means this was rife at Rome. They probably tagged those least bothered by sabbath as sinners just like you!
The argument has not changed at all. It is your fickle attempt to LEAD it that has been seriously challenged by reason and Wisdom from scriptures.
It is not sin keeping sabbath and neither is it sin not keeping it. I have the option of following a deranged failed prophet or the Inspired Apostle. Choice is yours
-
I had asked a few questions and it appears Jesus will return before they are answered
1. How do you biblically tell a 'moral' law from a 'ceremonial' law?
2. Are the Ten Commandments 'moral' laws?
3. What is a 'moral' Law? And what is a 'ceremonial' law?
Kadame,Nuff Sed,Daily Bread, you want to help me with these?
-
It helps to note that in the ENTIRE NT, there are dire warnings against rebelling against God,against EACH of the Ten Commandments except one.
It's quite possible that nobody broke the sabbath and as such there was no need of reminding the church about it. But this is farfetched especially given the many other faults that afflicted the churches.
And finally you have zero instructions on sabbath in the NT. Paul goes as far as talking about sex but nothing on sabbath? Instead of leading the Gentile church to whom sabbath was totally strange,he tells them not to judge those who esteem some days above others or those who don't. And he'd have none of them condemned on the basis of nothing Jewish be it circumcision,weekly sabbath, monthly sacrifices and annual feasts
-
That explanation is helpful to me. I acknowledge I don't understand some things about the Catholic church. However, I do read some of their sources and they give me a good idea of where the church is coming from. Take this page for example.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
Excerpt: The Council of Elvira (300) decreed: "If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excommunicated for a short time so that he may be corrected" (xxi).
Howmany protestants are aware of such teachings?
Daily Bread, that is not a "teaching". That is a canon, yaani, a church law. Such things are mere regulations, they not only differ from church to church (you will find that eastern catholic canons are very different from the roman rite and other western and oriental rites) they also differ from time to time. For example, the present code of canon law for the Latin church does not have that regulation you cited at all, but you will find it still among many orthodox churches and Eastern Catholics who generally adhere to the ancient canons much more strictly than Latins. Instead, in the "West" (Church-speak for "the roman rite") which covers majority of catholics including in Kenya, the rule is that barring sickness or other such things, roman rite Catholics have an obligation to attend mass on Sundays (which includes Saturday evening) and a few other "holy days of obligation", and these days differ from church to church (the Kenyan days are different from the American ones, for example). These are not "teachings", they are what Catholics will call disciplines which is just a name for a church-imposed obligation/regulation/rule. Because they are imposed by the church's authority, they vary accordingly and are hardly ever universally binding. They also can be removed by the church unlike divine laws which the church has no authority to change (like your claim that the catholic church claims to be able to change divine law which the church denies she has any right to do).
The canons are very diverse and often reflect the different cultures that the church has been planted in. For example, in the Eastern cultures, kneeling and prostrating is a form of penance and signifies repentance for sin. But in the West, these acts only signify reverence, not necessarily penitential signs. Because of this, in the East, it is forbidden to kneel in church during Sunday liturgy because Sunday is supposed to be a celebration (Christ is risen!), but in lent or the days of fasting (Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday) they do them. You will not find such rules among Roman rite Catholics because for us, kneeling is a way of showing respect before God. So every mass on Sunday people will kneel, especially during the consecration when the words "this is my body/blood" are spoken and the long Eucharistic prayer to Christ/Trinity, the church kneels. I have actually seen loooooong debates that will put out nipate ones to shame in which Eastern Christians accuse Western/Latin rite Christians of poor form for behaving this way and yet Western rite Christians don't understand what is wrong with these Christians who have a problem with people showing reverence in prayer just because it is Sunday??? Similarly, in the bazungu countries, dancing in church is generally against the rules because those cultures associate silence and attention with reverence, but in Africa and Asian churches, there is liturgical dancing with drums and other traditional instruments because in these cultures, these acts were used religiously and not only in a "clubbing" sort of way: there was a song and dance for every occasion, sad or happy. Hence, the rules will differ depending on the cultural language in which the church is in, for the sake of order in that place.
So veeeery few aspects of all the church's canons over 2,000 years are truly universal. The bottom line is that Catholics should go to church Sundays unless they have a good reason not to go, but that's about it.
-
The suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Sunday is not the Sabbath, to Sundaybeing a new Sabbath, to Sunday being an apostolic practice, to some people esteeming a day above the others.
With due respect, that is simply false. I find it telling when a debating partner starts telling outright falsehoods, so I will hope you simply slipped. Daily Bread, where has this "suicidal" argument that I have underlined above been made here? If anything, it was made by YOU on behalf of the "opposition" and has been consistently denied. You have been informed that the Jewish Sabbath is NOT Sunday and that Sunday is distinct from it, so why make such statements?
-
As to the moral vs ceremonial law...Well, I certainly cannot speak for Daily bread but for me, the moral laws come down to those basic rules necessary for a happy human life both individually and communally according to God's design for humanity right from the beginning, which have been summarized by Jesus in the Gospels: Love God first and fellow man like yourself. Or How to treat God, ourselves and fellow man.
They concern:
-our duty to place God first in every aspect of our lives,
-to respect human life and dignity (which includes respecting other people's property),
-to give ordinate obedience to rightful authority (like parents or the government, for example) for the sake of order in society,
-the rightful use of human sexuality which has the power to create another human being but also to make us debase and objectify others,
-and lack of interior malice even if it doesn't manifest in external actions.
Basically, the ideal of a peaceful human heart (interior) and a peaceful human society (others/exterior) and the necessary attitudes and behaviors that make it possible. This is because God did not make any of us "alone" in the garden but created us "male and female'' (a society) with a command to become many. He made us a social creature that needs not only its God but also its fellow creatures in order to be well.
In fact, most of the commandments are more or less present in many human societies because they represent the irreducible minimum for making human social life possible. In fact, you can pretty much decide whether or not a human society is "savage" depending on how well or poorly it adheres to these basic rules of human life. Hence, you find them operational even before the covenant and tablets in some form or another, like in the Noahide covenant, with Adam and his children and Abraham and his children. Of course, they were highly under-developed in human understanding at that point and even their manifestation in the Mosaic covenant was underdeveloped (Later, you find Christ saying that Moses' allowance of divorce was a concession to human sin but a deviation from God's original design). As Christians, we believe that this obscurity in our minds in telling right from wrong correctly is because of the fall.
But Christ makes them all very clear and tells us what was intended "in the beginning", putting Moses' laws in perspective and giving us the beatitudes, the summation of God's desire for the human life he made. You hear him say "You have heard it said...." referring to the law, "but say I to you..." he then gives us God's beautiful design for human life. So for me, the moral law is represented in all those imperatives given by Christ and the Apostles to the church on what kind of life human beings are to lead. Remember the 'Christic' covenant is the ultimate, intended for humanity as a whole. Yes, the church is given clearer instructions than the patriarchs (and this is part of revelation) because the church has the model of human life (Christ) and the grace he gives, which Abrahm did not have.
I find it telling that Christ did not bother with holding Moses' laws so strictly, even regarding the Sabbath which he was constantly getting in trouble for with the Pharisees. Then the Apostles do not tell any gentile they are to adhere to this and as a result, we have a history in which no gentile Christians (apart from the modern variety) ever bothered. I have to believe that the Holy Spirit would not be so careless as to permit the Apostles to fail so spectacularly in instructing former pagans of such an important rule as the Sabbath, this "failure" must've been deliberate on his part!
-
Ka-Bella, I
The suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Sunday is not the Sabbath, to Sundaybeing a new Sabbath, to Sunday being an apostolic practice, to some people esteeming a day above the others.
With due respect, that is simply false. I find it telling when a debating partner starts telling outright falsehoods, so I will hope you simply slipped. Daily Bread, where has this "suicidal" argument that I have underlined above been made here? If anything, it was made by YOU on behalf of the "opposition" and has been consistently denied. You have been informed that the Jewish Sabbath is NOT Sunday and that Sunday is distinct from it, so why make such statements?
Ka-Bella, I see the mistake I made in the first line. It should have read "the suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Saturday is not the New Testament Sabbath kept by the apostles, to Sunday being the new Sabbath...."
I welcome and appreciate your posts on this thread since they give us an understanding of the Catholic church from an insider's perspective. I must confess that for the first time I've heard a Catholic deny that the church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Most discussions I've had were with Catholics who readily accepted it and went on to say Sunday is the mark of the Catholic church's authority and protestantism is dead.
If you recall the initial post in this thread was Rome's challenge which stands to date. Rome has challenged Protestants to accept her authority or become seventh day adventist. We've had a long discussion and your contribution is welcome, but the core of that question was to protestants and the responses by Voke is suicidal (to borrow the Catholic Mirror's words). Note that Rome's challenge was issued in the late 19th century. It has been reissued several times again by other Catholic publications and from other forums (even if some Catholics question the authority of the persons to speak on behalf of the church). If you look in the link below, you will find the challenge issued and reissued over and over. In fact, some of the statements are stronger now (forgive the errors in some dates like 1983 instead of 1893 for Cardinal Gibbons' statements).
http://www.lightministries.com/id250.htm
Excerpts.
"The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday." The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4.
"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws....
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible." Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975),Chicago, Illinois, "Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI"
"I am going to propose a very plain and serious question to those who follow ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ to give their most earnest attention. It is this: Why don’t you keep holy the Sabbath day?...
"The command of the Almighty God stands clearly written in the Bible in these words: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.’ Exodus 20:8-10....
"You will answer me, perhaps, that you do keep the Sabbath; for that you abstain from all worldly business and diligently go to church, and say your prayers, and read your Bible at home every Sunday of your lives....
"But Sunday is not the Sabbath day. Sunday is the first day of the week: the Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week. Almighty God did not give a commandment that men should keep holy one day in seven; but He named His own day, and said distinctly: ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’; and He assigned a reason for choosing this day rather than any other - a reason which belongs only to the seventh day of the week, and cannot be applied to the rest. He says, ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it’, Exodus 20:11, Genesis 2:1-3. Almighty God ordered that all men should rest from their labor on the seventh day, because He too had rested on that day: He did not rest on Sunday, but on Saturday. On Sunday, which is the first day of the week, He began the work of creation; He did not finish it. It was on Saturday that He ‘ended His work which he had made: and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.’ Genesis 2:2-3....
"Nothing can be more plain and easy to understand than all this; there is nobody who attempts to deny it. It is acknowledged by everybody that the day which Almighty God appointed to be kept holy was Saturday, not Sunday. Why do you then keep holy the Sunday and not Saturday?
"You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has the authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’, who shall dare to say, ‘Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day: but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?’ This is a most important question, which I know not how you answer....
"You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet, in so important a manner as the observance of one day in seven as the holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding. Who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible, and the Bible only you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered." Excerpts from "Why Don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day?", pages 3-15 in The Clifton Tract, vol.4, published by the Roman Catholic Church about 1869.
-
The reason I aksd about moral vs ceremonial is because;
1. Such a distinction is totally strange to the scriptures, and
2. White insists Moral laws were kept inside the ark and ceremonial Laws outside. Nuff Sed is just paraphrasing or quoting her.
This arbitrarily distinction is at the heart of adventism. An Adventist reveres Saturday. To give their Sabbath doctrine some legs, they insist that the sabbath keeping is 'moral' and as such eternal cutting across covenants
Nuff Sed aka Daily Bread is not going to answer me on whether White was wrong on insisting that inside the ark was moral laws and outside ceremonial for obvious reasons; it does not make sense and attempting to answer it will expose this and she dreads contradicting her prophet knowing too well that one of the pillars of faith of an Adventist is faith in White as God's prophet of the same league as John the Baptist
As to the moral vs ceremonial law...Well, I certainly cannot speak for Daily bread but for me,
-
I had asked a few questions and it appears Jesus will return before they are answered
1. How do you biblically tell a 'moral' law from a 'ceremonial' law?
2. Are the Ten Commandments 'moral' laws?
3. What is a 'moral' Law? And what is a 'ceremonial' law?
Kadame,Nuff Sed,Daily Bread, you want to help me with these?
Ka-Bella has adequately answered the questions concerning the types of laws given by God. The help I can give is to ask you to read your Bible, see what Ka Bella has posted and my previous posts. You will see we've answered each of those questions more than once. The only thing I will add is that the Ten Commandments have never been abrogated anywhere in the Bible either by commission or omission. I've read a few websites where claims are made that the Sabbath was somehow a ceremonial law because Jesus downplayed it by "breaking the Sabbath" through healings on that day. However, the claims ignore other commandments that Jesus spoke about. For example, Jesus spoke about the seventh commandment (thou shalt not commit adultery) by saying lusting after a woman is adultery already. Did that amount to a new commandment? Not at all. Christ fulfilled the law by showing the essence or principle behind the commandments. Knowing some will think He has changed the law, He said He did not come to change the law or the prophets, and that not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the law. Had the Sabbath changed to Sunday, this is the place He would have spoken about it. But He didn't. On the contrary, He kept the Sabbath and that's on record in several places in the gospels (Mark and Luke record Jesus keeping the Sabbath many times).
The greatest suicidal move in this argument that Jesus broke the Sabbath is that He had been accused as such by Pharisees before the multitude. Jesus revealed the meaning of the Sabbath (healing, doing good, being kind to others). Had the Sabbath changed, He would have dismissed His accusers with the revelation that Sabbath was no longer Saturday but Sunday. Alas, no such thing!
-
You flap gums here about moral and ceremonial and you have no clue how to tell one from the other.
I was studying the Bible before .org and I will be studying long after .org but thank you for your advise 8)
Ka-Bella has adequately answered the questions concerning the types of laws given by God. The help I can give is to ask you to read your Bible, see what Ka Bella has posted and my previous posts.
You will see we've answered each of those questions more than once.
You have not answered those questions. That's another tactic...pretend that you have already handled a difficult question
The only thing I will add is that the Ten Commandments have never been abrogated anywhere in the Bible either by commission or omission.
Romans 14:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
If it matters not to Holy Spirit whether you esteem one day or not, that is effective abrogation of ANY holy day you may conjure at the back of your mind
I've read a few websites where claims are made that the Sabbath was somehow a ceremonial law because Jesus downplayed it by "breaking the Sabbath" through healings on that day. However, the claims ignore other commandments that Jesus spoke about. For example, Jesus spoke about the seventh commandment (thou shalt not commit adultery) by saying lusting after a woman is adultery already. Did that amount to a new commandment? Not at all. Christ fulfilled the law by showing the essence or principle behind the commandments. Knowing some will think He has changed the law, He said He did not come to change the law or the prophets, and that not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the law.
Knocking your own strawmen :D :D
Had the Sabbath changed to Sunday, this is the place He would have spoken about it. But He didn't.
Another strawman. sabbath remains sabbath and Sunday is not sabbath. You never disappoint in strawmen
On the contrary, He kept the Sabbath and that's on record in several places in the gospels (Mark and Luke record Jesus keeping the Sabbath many times).
Jesus kept the Law because he was born under the law. You notice he did more than observing sabbath don't you?
He even prescribed ANIMAL OFFERINGS because the law was effective until his own death
here is Jesus COMMANDING a man to offer a sacrifice
Luke 5:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Here is Paul reminding us that Christ was born UNDER the law
Galatians 4:4-5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
And of course he observed the Feasts.
So an Adventist yapping about how Jesus kept the Law for her example is ignorance incarnate
The greatest suicidal move in this argument that Jesus broke the Sabbath is that He had been accused as such by Pharisees before the multitude. Jesus revealed the meaning of the Sabbath (healing, doing good, being kind to others). Had the Sabbath changed, He would have dismissed His accusers with the revelation that Sabbath was no longer Saturday but Sunday. Alas, no such thing!
More strawmen. IF...IF Jesus changed the sabbath from saturday to Sunday, it would have occurred AFTER his death not before. So Jesus keeping sabbath is no proof of its relevance on Christians any more than his keeping Feast.
Nailing to the cross happened on Calvary not Nazareth..comprende?
-
It helps to note that in the ENTIRE NT, there are dire warnings against rebelling against God,against EACH of the Ten Commandments except one.
It's quite possible that nobody broke the sabbath and as such there was no need of reminding the church about it. But this is farfetched especially given the many other faults that afflicted the churches.
And finally you have zero instructions on sabbath in the NT. Paul goes as far as talking about sex but nothing on sabbath? Instead of leading the Gentile church to whom sabbath was totally strange,he tells them not to judge those who esteem some days above others or those who don't. And he'd have none of them condemned on the basis of nothing Jewish be it circumcision,weekly sabbath, monthly sacrifices and annual feasts
Let me be plain. The repetition of some laws does not nullify other existing laws. For example, if you get a ticket for jumping the lights today and tomorrow, that does not nullify speed limits.
"Zero instructions" on the Sabbath in NT? What was that Jesus was talking about healing on the Sabbath in Mark and Luke's gospels? How about Paul meeting the Gentiles over and over "as his manner was" in Acts 17 and 18? Do you want me to repost the verses?
-
The reason I aksd about moral vs ceremonial is because;
1. Such a distinction is totally strange to the scriptures, and
2. White insists Moral laws were kept inside the ark and ceremonial Laws outside. Nuff Sed is just paraphrasing or quoting her.
This arbitrarily distinction is at the heart of adventism. An Adventist reveres Saturday. To give their Sabbath doctrine some legs, they insist that the sabbath keeping is 'moral' and as such eternal cutting across covenants
Nuff Sed aka Daily Bread is not going to answer me on whether White was wrong on insisting that inside the ark was moral laws and outside ceremonial for obvious reasons; it does not make sense and attempting to answer it will expose this and she dreads contradicting her prophet knowing too well that one of the pillars of faith of an Adventist is faith in White as God's prophet of the same league as John the Baptist
As to the moral vs ceremonial law...Well, I certainly cannot speak for Daily bread but for me,
I see your usual obsession with White coming up again. Ka-Bella did not quote White when she gave the verses showing the distinction between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments, neither did Billy Graham. I posted for you verses showing where the law of Moses was kept and where the Ten Commandments were kept as well as other distinctions, even the verse in Luke where the veil in the temple was torn apart at Christ's death.
I'll refresh your memory with arguments by Sunday keepers that the commandments were nailed to the cross. You made the shifting argument when you brought up Passover, feasts, circumcision, Rom 14:5 and Col 2:16. But because you insist on making a suicidal argument, I'll forgive you for going round in circles and tying yourself in a knot.
-
Let me be plain. The repetition of some laws does not nullify other existing laws. For example, if you get a ticket for jumping the lights today and tomorrow, that does not nullify speed limits.
There are no instructions on sabbath not even Paul can afford a single line to his Gentile churches. Was there ever sabbath breaking in the first century?
"Zero instructions" on the Sabbath in NT? What was that Jesus was talking about healing on the Sabbath in Mark and Luke's gospels? How about Paul meeting the Gentiles over and over "as his manner was" in Acts 17 and 18? Do you want me to repost the verses?
Jesus Christ was born UNDER the Law (Galatians 4:4), he was bound by the Law as any other Jew. So Jesus keeping the Law does not mean Nuff Sed should keep the Law. I just shared on how Jesus commanded a freshly healed leper to offer a sacrifice. Imagine that
-
Funny that an SDA thinks am obsessed with her deranged prophet...that's the height of irony :)
What's so difficult in answering my questions?
Is the location of the ten commandments the distinction between moral and ceremonial laws?
Once again, what is the difference between a moral law and a ceremonial law?
I see your usual obsession with White coming up again. Ka-Bella did not quote White when she gave the verses showing the distinction between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments, neither did Billy Graham. I posted for you verses showing where the law of Moses was kept and where the Ten Commandments were kept as well as other distinctions, even the verse in Luke where the veil in the temple was torn apart at Christ's death.
sabbath was nailed to the cross just as other Feasts and here u can't even fire up microwave because Jews were not lighting fires on sabbath
I'll refresh your memory with arguments by Sunday keepers that the commandments were nailed to the cross. You made the shifting argument when you brought up Passover, feasts, circumcision, Rom 14:5 and Col 2:16. But because you insist on making a suicidal argument, I'll forgive you for going round in circles and tying yourself in a knot.
-
Daily Bread, what is it with all these citations of apologists plainly contradicting basic facts that they could have easily educated themselves on by picking up their catechism or even the encyclopedia on the church's reasons for Sunday? You are STILL speaking of ROME stating things yet up till now have not provided a SINGLE reference of ROME doing what you are insisting it has done, citing claims contrary to evidence spanning 2,000 years. Honestly, this is quite tiresome! Peter so and so fighting protestants in a magazine is NOT "Rome" or "the Catholic Church". Their own catechisms and authoritative council teachings contradict them and these apologists clearly don't expect their opponents to have read these (or maybe they themselves are simply ignorant). You say this is your first time hearing a catholic state BASIC Catholic teachings? Read around the internet alone, Daily Bread. Just google "catholic" "sunday" "Sabbath", I found enough refutations and not a single opinion agreeing with you, so I am guessing that catholics recognize on the whole that those apologists you cite were foolishly harping on Adventist battles with other protestants in order to make their point...totally not an honest or prudent thing to do on their part.
-
You must have been out making a sisal rope to hang your argument when I posted this:
God gave Moses His law, written with His own finger (see Ex 31:18 quoted above) a second time after Moses broke the first tablets.
Deut 10.
1 At that time the Lord said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.
2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.
Then Moses wrote other laws also given him by God in a book. This is the ceremonial law.
Exodus 24
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Was this distinction known to the congregation? Yes. Notice who wrote it and where it was kept (the law of god was kept in the ark of the covenant).
Deut 31
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel....
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Three important distinctions.
1. God's (moral) law was written with His own finger; Moses' law (ceremonial) was writen by Moses (although also coming from God).
2. God's law was written on tablets of stone (first time and second time); Moses' law was given in a book (containing ceremonies, circumcision, sacrifices and feasts, some of which were called sabbaths and not sabbath days like what Paul referred to in Col 2:16).
3. God's moral law was kept in the ark of the covenant; Moses law was kept on the side of the ark.
-
Thank you for that.
And ceremonial law is what was nailed to the cross, right?
You must have been out making a sisal rope to hang your argument when I posted this:
God gave Moses His law, written with His own finger (see Ex 31:18 quoted above) a second time after Moses broke the first tablets.
Deut 10.
1 At that time the Lord said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.
2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.
Then Moses wrote other laws also given him by God in a book. This is the ceremonial law.
Exodus 24
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Was this distinction known to the congregation? Yes. Notice who wrote it and where it was kept (the law of god was kept in the ark of the covenant).
Deut 31
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel....
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Three important distinctions.
1. God's (moral) law was written with His own finger; Moses' law (ceremonial) was writen by Moses (although also coming from God).
2. God's law was written on tablets of stone (first time and second time); Moses' law was given in a book (containing ceremonies, circumcision, sacrifices and feasts, some of which were called sabbaths and not sabbath days like what Paul referred to in Col 2:16).
3. God's moral law was kept in the ark of the covenant; Moses law was kept on the side of the ark.
-
Daily Bread, what is it with all these citations of apologists plainly contradicting basic facts that they could have easily educated themselves on by picking up their catechism or even the encyclopedia on the church's reasons for Sunday? You are STILL speaking of ROME stating things yet up till now have not provided a SINGLE reference of ROME doing what you are insisting it has done, citing claims contrary to evidence spanning 2,000 years. Honestly, this is quite tiresome! Peter so and so fighting protestants in a magazine is NOT "Rome" or "the Catholic Church". Their own catechisms and authoritative council teachings contradict them and these apologists clearly don't expect their opponents to have read these (or maybe they themselves are simply ignorant). You say this is your first time hearing a catholic state BASIC Catholic teachings? Read around the internet alone, Daily Bread. Just google "catholic" "sunday" "Sabbath", I found enough refutations and not a single opinion agreeing with you, so I am guessing that catholics recognize on the whole that those apologists you cite were foolishly harping on Adventist battles with other protestants in order to make their point...totally not an honest or prudent thing to do on their part.
Oh, getting tired now hearing what your own fellow Catholics preach?
I'll repeat myself. There are numerous documents detailing the change of the Sabbath by the Catholic church. I deliberately avoided them because you questioned their motives. That's why my quotes are from the horses mouth. But you question them too at too old in some cases. I even quoted two recent popes. You now want me to restrict myself to catechisms and encyclopedia. Let me comply with the quotes below.
"Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)....The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day....He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy..." The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4, "The Ten Commandments", 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 On-line edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm
"Question: How prove you that the church had power to command feasts and holydays?
"Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Answer: Had she not such power, she could not a done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; -she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day of the week, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism On the Obedience Due to the Church, 3rd edition, Chapter 2, p. 174 (Imprimatur, John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York).
"Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
"Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.
"Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days." John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.
{Allow me to throw this in because you have extensively educated us about canons}
"The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the Church had changed...the Sabbath into Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by its own authority." Canon and Tradition, p. 263.
"It was the Catholic church which...has transferred this rest to Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Therefore the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) church." Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, p. 213.
All these quotes are hidden in the link. We'd have a problem if they came from non-Catholic sources and if they weren't so remarkably consistent on whodunnit, why, when and how.
-
As to the moral law vs ceremonial law, I think we are getting lost in terms but we may mean the same thing. Personally, I say "moral law" to signify universally binding, no body can say that they don't have a duty not to kill, for example. So let us use, universal vs limited to avoid getting lost in terms. Certainly there are universal laws and limited laws in the Bible. The question is, how do we tell which is which?
I gather Daily Bread tells by "Ten commandments vs The rest", but I do not agree with this myself. Think about this, for example. The law against incest and homosexuality and bestiality and fornication....certainly nowhere on those two tablets. But shall we say that they were not universal? Why then did Judah try to kill his daughter in law for getting pregnant? Why did God punish Sodom and Gomorrah? Shall we say that bestiality is ok in the New Testament just because we cannot find a verse that teaches it directly? Well then, if it is only "ceremonial" or limited to the Jews, how can we say it is wrong when it is not in the ten commandments or directly mentioned in the New but only in the old? Similarly, murder is mentioned in the ten, but God punished Cain for it (and Cain knew of his guilt) and the New testament tells us that our conscience can come to knowledge of God's laws.
For me, there is distinction between universal laws (for all mankind) and limited laws (for certain covenants or certain times or certain persons only). I know which laws are universal by using both reason and looking at the New Testament and the instruction it gives me. I don't see how worshipping on ANY particular day...even if Sunday or Saturday...could possibly belong to the timeless law of God, so I will say that this represents a "covenant-specific" aspect of the New covenant or just a Christian custom, but the universal law is to make time for public worship of God as a community of believers which requires that we are uniform in the day we do this (or we wont come together) and this day was made Sunday by the apostles because it was the resurrection.
-
kadame,
sabbath was given to Israel
Exodus 31:12-13 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.
Leviticus 23 mentions it TOGETHER with the Feasts meaning it MUST be part of the feast.
My point is there is zero basis for calling it moral nor ceremonial though these two verses point to its temporal nature.
Look at how it closely resembles this
Genesis 17:11-12 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
Leviticus 23:41English Standard Version (ESV)
41 You shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord for seven days in the year. It is a statute forever throughout your generations; you shall celebrate it in the seventh month.
And we both know about the fate of the feasts. You are not having a universal law restricted to a people.
Nuff Sed's theory of moral-inside-and-ceremonial-outside as you can readily tell is clearly boneheaded.
As to the moral law vs ceremonial law, I think we are getting lost in terms but we may mean the same thing. Personally, I say "moral law" to signify universally binding, no body can say that they don't have a duty not to kill, for example. So let us use, universal vs limited to avoid getting lost in terms. Certainly there are universal laws and limited laws in the Bible. The question is, how do we tell which is which?
I gather Daily Bread tells by "Ten commandments vs The rest", but I do not agree with this myself. Think about this, for example. The law against incest and homosexuality and bestiality and fornication....certainly nowhere on those two tablets. But shall we say that they were not universal? Why then did Judah try to kill his daughter in law for getting pregnant? Why did God punish Sodom and Gomorrah? Shall we say that bestiality is ok in the New Testament just because we cannot find a verse that teaches it directly? Well then, if it is only "ceremonial" or limited to the Jews, how can we say it is wrong when it is not in the ten commandments or directly mentioned in the New but only in the old? Similarly, murder is mentioned in the ten, but God punished Cain for it (and Cain knew of his guilt) and the New testament tells us that our conscience can come to knowledge of God's laws.
For me, there is distinction between universal laws (for all mankind) and limited laws (for certain covenants or certain times or certain persons only). I know which laws are universal by using both reason and looking at the New Testament and the instruction it gives me. I don't see how worshipping on ANY particular day...even if Sunday or Saturday...could possibly belong to the timeless law of God, so I will say that this represents a "covenant-specific" aspect of the New covenant or just a Christian custom, but the universal law is to make time for public worship of God as a community of believers which requires that we are uniform (or we wont come together) and this day was made Sunday by the apostles because it was the resurrection.
-
Ka-Bella, IThe suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Sunday is not the Sabbath, to Sundaybeing a new Sabbath, to Sunday being an apostolic practice, to some people esteeming a day above the others.
With due respect, that is simply false. I find it telling when a debating partner starts telling outright falsehoods, so I will hope you simply slipped. Daily Bread, where has this "suicidal" argument that I have underlined above been made here? If anything, it was made by YOU on behalf of the "opposition" and has been consistently denied. You have been informed that the Jewish Sabbath is NOT Sunday and that Sunday is distinct from it, so why make such statements?
Ka-Bella, I see the mistake I made in the first line. It should have read "the suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Saturday is not the New Testament Sabbath kept by the apostles, to Sunday being the new Sabbath...."
I welcome and appreciate your posts on this thread since they give us an understanding of the Catholic church from an insider's perspective. I must confess that for the first time I've heard a Catholic deny that the church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Most discussions I've had were with Catholics who readily accepted it and went on to say Sunday is the mark of the Catholic church's authority and protestantism is dead.
If you recall the initial post in this thread was Rome's challenge which stands to date. Rome has challenged Protestants to accept her authority or become seventh day adventist. We've had a long discussion and your contribution is welcome, but the core of that question was to protestants and the responses by Voke is suicidal (to borrow the Catholic Mirror's words). Note that Rome's challenge was issued in the late 19th century. It has been reissued several times again by other Catholic publications and from other forums (even if some Catholics question the authority of the persons to speak on behalf of the church). If you look in the link below, you will find the challenge issued and reissued over and over. In fact, some of the statements are stronger now (forgive the errors in some dates like 1983 instead of 1893 for Cardinal Gibbons' statements).
http://www.lightministries.com/id250.htm
Excerpts.
"The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday." The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4.
"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws....
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible." Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975),Chicago, Illinois, "Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI"
"I am going to propose a very plain and serious question to those who follow ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ to give their most earnest attention. It is this: Why don’t you keep holy the Sabbath day?...
"The command of the Almighty God stands clearly written in the Bible in these words: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.’ Exodus 20:8-10....
"You will answer me, perhaps, that you do keep the Sabbath; for that you abstain from all worldly business and diligently go to church, and say your prayers, and read your Bible at home every Sunday of your lives....
"But Sunday is not the Sabbath day. Sunday is the first day of the week: the Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week. Almighty God did not give a commandment that men should keep holy one day in seven; but He named His own day, and said distinctly: ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’; and He assigned a reason for choosing this day rather than any other - a reason which belongs only to the seventh day of the week, and cannot be applied to the rest. He says, ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it’, Exodus 20:11, Genesis 2:1-3. Almighty God ordered that all men should rest from their labor on the seventh day, because He too had rested on that day: He did not rest on Sunday, but on Saturday. On Sunday, which is the first day of the week, He began the work of creation; He did not finish it. It was on Saturday that He ‘ended His work which he had made: and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.’ Genesis 2:2-3....
"Nothing can be more plain and easy to understand than all this; there is nobody who attempts to deny it. It is acknowledged by everybody that the day which Almighty God appointed to be kept holy was Saturday, not Sunday. Why do you then keep holy the Sunday and not Saturday?
"You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has the authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’, who shall dare to say, ‘Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day: but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?’ This is a most important question, which I know not how you answer....
"You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet, in so important a manner as the observance of one day in seven as the holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding. Who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible, and the Bible only you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered." Excerpts from "Why Don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day?", pages 3-15 in The Clifton Tract, vol.4, published by the Roman Catholic Church about 1869.
This is all well and good as long as you understand that by the "CHURCH", Catholics are talking of the Apostles too and not a 4th century creature as you'd like to believe. Also, that encyclopedia is supplemented by two others specifically on the Sabbath and sunday, so quotations taken out of context will not do. It's like the JP II quotations earlier that ignore the bit where he teaches that the Jewish Sabbath is distinct and non-binding and then focuss on the parts he refers to Sunday in similar terms as the Sabbath. But since you instist, I will start to paste other Catholic works here too, just for balance.
-
Nuff Sed aka Daily Bread,
Colossians 2:16 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Hosea 2:11 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease,
her feast days, her new moons,
and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
You may want to ponder on why God's judgment would include stopping the sabbath. Sounds like God suspending morality.
Search your conscience and see if there is ANY reason why Col 2:16 is talking about nothing but your beloved sabbath. Search further and prayerfully assure yourself that Romans 14:5 is talking about all but sabbath
-
As to the moral law vs ceremonial law, I think we are getting lost in terms but we may mean the same thing. Personally, I say "moral law" to signify universally binding, no body can say that they don't have a duty not to kill, for example. So let us use, universal vs limited to avoid getting lost in terms. Certainly there are universal laws and limited laws in the Bible. The question is, how do we tell which is which?
I gather Daily Bread tells by "Ten commandments vs The rest", but I do not agree with this myself. Think about this, for example. The law against incest and homosexuality and bestiality and fornication....certainly nowhere on those two tablets. But shall we say that they were not universal? Why then did Judah try to kill his daughter in law for getting pregnant? Why did God punish Sodom and Gomorrah? Shall we say that bestiality is ok in the New Testament just because we cannot find a verse that teaches it directly? Well then, if it is only "ceremonial" or limited to the Jews, how can we say it is wrong when it is not in the ten commandments or directly mentioned in the New but only in the old? Similarly, murder is mentioned in the ten, but God punished Cain for it (and Cain knew of his guilt) and the New testament tells us that our conscience can come to knowledge of God's laws.
I've given in my response to Voke some Bible verses showing there was a distinction. The Bible does not use the word ceremonial or moral, but that is not the argument (the Bible does not have the word "Bible" either). In my posts, you will see I repeated that both all those laws were given by God Himself, just that He instructed Moses to write the ceremonial laws in a book (rather than by His own finger on tablets of stone) and to put His law IN the ark, and Moses' law on the side of the ark. Complementarity is implied here like the Rome statutes and Kenyan law. So, both coming from God makes them "moral" laws if we take the meaning of good and right. All of God's laws ar right, holy and good.
Universality is implied too. Many of the laws were about health, hygiene, justice and simple common sense (like the laws on the jubilee year, bestiality or homosexuality). Israel was a nation chosen by God to demonstrate His love for mankind. People like Rahab (non-Jew) and Ruth are in Christ's lineage because they were grafted in by marriage and still inherited God's promises to Israel. That demonstrates universality of the ceremonial law.
However, the ceremonial laws (to do with ceremonies and feasts mostly) pointed to the coming Messiah. Sanctuary laws to be specific (Passover, sacrifice of animals, day of atonement etc) pointed directly at Christ's birth, death and resurrection. Once Christ fulfilled them, they became obsolete (OBE). That is the reason why God practically demonstrated it when the veil separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy place was rent in two (Luke 23:45). Paul talks about it in several places (Galatians 5 being one).
It's contradictory to quote Paul on circumcision but to play dead when it comes to his statements distinguishing the law of Moses and the Ten commandments.
For me, there is distinction between universal laws (for all mankind) and limited laws (for certain covenants or certain times or certain persons only). I know which laws are universal by using both reason and looking at the New Testament and the instruction it gives me. I don't see how worshipping on ANY particular day...even if Sunday or Saturday...could possibly belong to the timeless law of God, so I will say that this represents a "covenant-specific" aspect of the New covenant or just a Christian custom, but the universal law is to make time for public worship of God as a community of believers which requires that we are uniform (or we wont come together) and this day was made Sunday by the apostles because it was the resurrection.
The Sabbath is timeless and universal, for when it reminds us of God's creatorship, it tells us He did not just create Jews but all people, all things visible and invisible.
Exodus 31
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Let nobody ask again why this applies to modern Israel grafted into the covenant.
"We do not keep any particular day" is one of the suicidal arguments by Sunday keeping protestants. A Catholic making the argument is preposterous because Rome has demonstrated time and again that it has chosen a particular day (Sunday). Rome keeps this particular day and boasts about it to assert her authority to make religious laws. To confuse her daughters, she pretends that "any particular day" is not important, and her daughters quote her in ignorance. A Catholic making those remarks is understandable because of Rome's open apostasy. But coming from a protestant!
Three quotes.
"Sunday is founded, not of scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday." Catholic Record, September 17, 1893.
"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday....Now the Church...instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday." Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, 1927 edition, p. 136.
"Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days." John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.
When we modify God's laws, they are no longer His laws but our own. In reality, it makes us gods or something greater than God.
-
I've given in my response to Voke some Bible verses showing there was a distinction. The Bible does not use the word ceremonial or moral, but that is not the argument (the Bible does not have the word "Bible" either).
Queen of strawmen. Who talked about moral or ceremonial appearing in scriptures?
In my posts, you will see I repeated that both all those laws were given by God Himself, just that He instructed Moses to write the ceremonial laws in a book (rather than by His own finger on tablets of stone) and to put His law IN the ark, and Moses' law on the side of the ark. Complementarity is implied here like the Rome statutes and Kenyan law. So, both coming from God makes them "moral" laws if we take the meaning of good and right. All of God's laws ar right, holy and good.
The only thing that tells you is the ten was inside and the rest was not. You also waste precious space regaling us on how they came about, both was handwritten, the ten by God, the rest by Moses. None of these explains why one set is 'moral' and the other 'ceremonial'
Food for thought; WHY is the fourth commandment the ONLY one said to be throughout your generations?
Universality is implied too. Many of the laws were about health, hygiene, justice and simple common sense (like the laws on the jubilee year, bestiality or homosexuality). Israel was a nation chosen by God to demonstrate His love for mankind. People like Rahab (non-Jew) and Ruth are in Christ's lineage because they were grafted in by marriage and still inherited God's promises to Israel. That demonstrates universality of the ceremonial law.
However, the ceremonial laws (to do with ceremonies and feasts mostly) pointed to the coming Messiah. Sanctuary laws to be specific (Passover, sacrifice of animals, day of atonement etc) pointed directly at Christ's birth, death and resurrection. Once Christ fulfilled them, they became obsolete (OBE). That is the reason why God practically demonstrated it when the veil separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy place was rent in two (Luke 23:45). Paul talks about it in several places (Galatians 5 being one).
It's contradictory to quote Paul on circumcision but to play dead when it comes to his statements distinguishing the law of Moses and the Ten commandments.
For me, there is distinction between universal laws (for all mankind) and limited laws (for certain covenants or certain times or certain persons only). I know which laws are universal by using both reason and looking at the New Testament and the instruction it gives me. I don't see how worshipping on ANY particular day...even if Sunday or Saturday...could possibly belong to the timeless law of God, so I will say that this represents a "covenant-specific" aspect of the New covenant or just a Christian custom, but the universal law is to make time for public worship of God as a community of believers which requires that we are uniform (or we wont come together) and this day was made Sunday by the apostles because it was the resurrection.
The Sabbath is timeless and universal, for when it reminds us of God's creatorship, it tells us He did not just create Jews but all people, all things visible and invisible.
Exodus 31
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
How do universal laws come so many generations after creation?
When we modify God's laws, they are no longer His laws but our own. In reality, it makes us gods or something greater than God.
For the umpteenth time, sabbath remains sabbath and as Jewish as circumcision. strawmen are your staple
-
This is all well and good as long as you understand that by the "CHURCH", Catholics are talking of the Apostles too and not a 4th century creature as you'd like to believe. Also, that encyclopedia is supplemented by two others specifically on the Sabbath and sunday, so quotations taken out of context will not do. It's like the JP II quotations earlier that ignore the bit where he teaches that the Jewish Sabbath is distinct and non-binding and then focuss on the parts he refers to Sunday in similar terms as the Sabbath. But since you instist, I will start to paste other Catholic works here too, just for balance.
I'll ask this directly. Apart from tradition, on what basis does John Paul II teach "that the Jewish Sabbath is distinct and non-binding and then focuss on the parts he refers to Sunday in similar terms as the Sabbath"? Aren't you here finally acknowledging that Rome wants to blur the disctinction between Sabbath and Sunday?
-
Nuff Sed aka Daily Bread?
What is the difference (if at all) between the Law of God and the Law of Moses?
-
This is all well and good as long as you understand that by the "CHURCH", Catholics are talking of the Apostles too and not a 4th century creature as you'd like to believe. Also, that encyclopedia is supplemented by two others specifically on the Sabbath and sunday, so quotations taken out of context will not do. It's like the JP II quotations earlier that ignore the bit where he teaches that the Jewish Sabbath is distinct and non-binding and then focuss on the parts he refers to Sunday in similar terms as the Sabbath. But since you instist, I will start to paste other Catholic works here too, just for balance.
I'll ask this directly. Apart from tradition, on what basis does John Paul II teach "that the Jewish Sabbath is distinct and non-binding and then focuss on the parts he refers to Sunday in similar terms as the Sabbath"? Aren't you here finally acknowledging that Rome wants to blur the disctinction between Sabbath and Sunday?
Wants to blur what? The teaching is plain and simple except for someone who insists no matter what that Sunday is the Jewish Sabbath. I already explained this earlier: BOTH are manifestations of a general duty to set apart time for worship of God. In that they are certainly linked. Christians took this custom of a WEEKLY observance from Jews, after all. But the Christian day is not kept as a divine ordinance to recall God's rest from creation by resting ourselves, but chosen due to the New creation signified by Christ's triumph over death. Similar they are, same they are NOT. This has been explained to you here right from the start, go back and read please.
As to JP II's basis: it's simple, BOTH scripture and tradition. You ignored tradition after I challenged your claims based on History, so I have been sticking to scripture which is adequate:
1) Sabbath was only ever commanded to the Jews in the Bible
2) Sabbath was never commanded of Christians anywhere in the Bible
3) Sabbath was explicitly declared irrelevant by the Apostles for Christians
4) The apostles established a Christian weekly observance on Sunday, recorded in the Bible
You have not been able to challenge a single one of these.....
-
Nuff Sed aka Daily Bread,
The church structures you see around was borrowed from Jewish synagogues (and probably pagan religions). Synagogues was borrowed from the pagan religion over the 70 year exile. Before Exile, all they had was Solomon's Temple
Regular weekly meetings was borrowed from the Jews. They was meeting in synagogues every sabbath. You may as well accuse everyone of Judaism/paganism for regularly meeting at designated places of worship
-
Kadame,Daily Bread aka Nuff Sed
The Fourth commandment is in every way ceremonial. Think...keeping any day is ceremony, ama? God is not and nor are you creating nothing but commemorating creation week just like you are not being born on your birthday. And Israel was not being delivered on Passover
I find it decidedly ironical that when Jesus was aksd which was the greatest commandment he never gave any of the Ten
Matthew 22:36-40 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
So, which commands are these, did Jesus summarize the Ten? I was taught so once until I discovered that these commandments actually exist!
Deuteronomy 6:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Leviticus 19:18 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.
So the GREATEST commandments are among the ceremonial laws lying out in the cold with Nuff Sed's anti-microwave sabbath resides in the warmth of the ark :o
-
Three quotes.
"Sunday is founded, not of scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday." Catholic Record, September 17, 1893.
Wrong. The author of this article clearly never held a NT in his hands or he would not embarrass himself so.
"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday....Now the Church...instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday." Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, 1927 edition, p. 136.
The author is playing polemics. If by the "church" the apostles are here referred to, then fine. Like I told you before, you will often find catholics often saying startling (to non-Catholics) things like "the church wrote the New Testament"...They are usually referring to the Apostles. So in a way they are right but in another, they are wrong. Depends on how you see it as we don't believe that the Apostolic office continued after the Apostle John's death...So "the church" can be a very confusing term if not explained properly to the listener. Just understand that this is a catholic manner of speaking because our ecclesiology (theology on the meaning of the church) is different from that of Protestants. Regardless, this has nothing to do with Sunday having been established by Apostles. A catholic will therefore say, "the Church established Sunday" and be factually referring to the same event as when a protestant says "Sunday was established in the New testament". You just have to be honest and aware of the difference between the two to know what they mean by those words.
"Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days." John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.
Again, be aware that he is talking of the Apostles when he talks of God giving "his church" the power....He is speaking of the same "power" that inspired Peter to say circumcision is irrelevant and Paul to declare Sabbath irrelevant. In any case, he is still wrong, as even in that case, it is still God acting through the Apostles, not them acting alone.
When we modify God's laws, they are no longer His laws but our own. In reality, it makes us gods or something greater than God.
So whose were the numerous laws set apart ("modified") by "God's Church" in Acts 15?
-
Kadame,Daily Bread aka Nuff Sed
The Fourth commandment is in every way ceremonial. Think...keeping any day is ceremony, ama? God is not and nor are you creating nothing but commemorating creation week just like you are not being born on your birthday. And Israel was not being delivered on Passover
I find it decidedly ironical that when Jesus was aksd which was the greatest commandment he never gave any of the Ten
Matthew 22:36-40 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
So, which commands are these, did Jesus summarize the Ten? I was taught so once until I discovered that these commandments actually exist!
Deuteronomy 6:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Leviticus 19:18 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.
So the GREATEST commandments are among the ceremonial laws lying out in the cold with Nuff Sed's anti-microwave sabbath resides in the warmth of the ark :o
Bingo. The moral-ceremonial split exists throughout, including in the ten commandments.
Like I said to Daily Bread, the tablets were part of that covenant. The reason we keep them is that they go beyond the covenant. If not, there would be no reason to keep them. But resting on Saturday is clearly distinct, arising for the first time when God speaks to Moses.
@Daily Bread, that encyclopedia you were quoting says
Christ, while observing the Sabbath, set himself in word and act against this absurd rigorism which made man a slave of the day. He reproved the scribes and Pharisees for putting an intolerable burden on men's shoulders (Matthew 23:4), and proclaimed the principle that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day. In His arguments with the Pharisees on this account He showed that the Sabbath is not broken in cases of necessity or by acts of charity (Matthew 12:3 sqq.; Mark 2:25 sqq.; Luke 6:3 sqq.; 14:5). St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5). The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day. (See SUNDAY.)
See! This was written in 1911, yet other commentators were saying much later that "no scripture" exists....clearly they were reading from different scripts, don't you think? Considering that the encyclopedia was not written as a "gotcha!" to rivals, I would say, academically, it has tones more value than the stuff you were quoting since the ulterior motives and temptations to polemics is missing.
-
Wants to blur what? The teaching is plain and simple except for someone who insists no matter what that Sunday is the Jewish Sabbath. I already explained this earlier: BOTH are manifestations of a general duty to set apart time for worship of God. In that they are certainly linked. Christians took this custom of a WEEKLY observance from Jews, after all. But the Christian day is not kept as a divine ordinance to recall God's rest from creation by resting ourselves, but chosen due to the New creation signified by Christ's triumph over death. Similar they are, same they are NOT. This has been explained to you here right from the start, go back and read please.
As to JP II's basis: it's simple, BOTH scripture and tradition. You ignored tradition after I challenged your claims based on History, so I have been sticking to scripture which is adequate:
1) Sabbath was only ever commanded to the Jews in the Bible
2) Sabbath was never commanded of Christians anywhere in the Bible
3) Sabbath was explicitly declared irrelevant by the Apostles for Christians
4) The apostles established a Christian weekly observance on Sunday, recorded in the Bible
You have not been able to challenge a single one of these.....
1. How many Jews were there in Gen 2:1-3? There's nothing like general duty when it comes to obedience to God's express commandments. Otherwise a person who rapes altar boys can claim he has generally not committed adultery.
2. Sunday was not commanded. So why keep it? I can understand Rome keeping Sunday to assert its "authority" to reverse God's word. But protestants?
3. Show which verse and which apostles. Rome categorically shows from the Bible that Paul never kept Sunday as a Sabbath but instead kept Saturday (Acts 17, Acts 18).
I'll quote and re-quote for you your own Catholic sources.
St John speaks of the Lord's day (Rev 1:10) but he does not tell us what day of the week that was, much less does he tell us what day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandments. St.Luke speaks of the disciples meeting together to break bread on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. And St. paul (1 Cor.16:2) orders that on the first day of the week the Corinthians should lay in store what they designated to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea: but neither the one or the other tells us that this first day of the week was to be henceforth a day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this ancient custom is the testimony of the church. And therefore those who pretend to be such religious observers of Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act more by humor, than by religion; since Sundays and holidays all stand upon the same foundation, namely the ordinance of the church." Catholic Christian Instructed, 17th edition, p. 272-273.
"Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles....From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first." Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1900.
4. Again, please show which Bible, chapter and verse. Rome's many sources quoted above categorically declare there is no such verse and indeed it is so.
-
Genesis 2:1-3 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Which part of this tells you to keep sabbath?
Sabbath was introduced to Israel in Exodus.
Exodus 31:16-17King James Version (KJV)
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
How many Jews were there in Gen 2:1-3? There's nothing like general duty when it comes to obedience to God's express commandments. Otherwise a person who rapes altar boys can claim he has generally not committed adultery.
-
Genesis 2:1-3 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Which part of this tells you to keep sabbath?
Sabbath was introduced to Israel in Exodus.
Exodus 31:16-17King James Version (KJV)
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
How many Jews were there in Gen 2:1-3? There's nothing like general duty when it comes to obedience to God's express commandments. Otherwise a person who rapes altar boys can claim he has generally not committed adultery.
You want to inherit all of Israel's promises, their God and their Messiah but when it comes to the fourth commandment you are not a Jew?
Isaiah 56
56 Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord God, which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.
Isaiah 58
12 And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.
Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
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.
-
A Jew would aks you the same seeing you have nothing to do with Passover. Quite a retarded rhetorical question
Why would God command sabbath for ALL men in Genesis and then later in Exodus 30 state that sabbath is a sign of a perpetual covenant between him and israel?
Think...think...THINK
Substitute sabbath with marriage
God had ordained marriage,one man-one woman for ALL men in Genesis. He later makes it a sign of his covenant with Israel. They are already doing it so how is it a sign?
You want to inherit all of Israel's promises but when it comes to the fourth commandment you are not a Jew?
Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
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.
-
A Jew would aks you the same seeing you have nothing to do with Passover. Quite a retarded rhetorical question
Why would God command sabbath for ALL men in Genesis and then later in Exodus 30 state that sabbath is a sign of a perpetual covenant between him and israel?
Think...think...THINK
Substitute sabbath with marriage
God had ordained marriage,one man-one woman for ALL men in Genesis. He later makes it a sign of his covenant with Israel. They are already doing it so how is it a sign?
You want to inherit all of Israel's promises but when it comes to the fourth commandment you are not a Jew?
Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
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.
The Sabbath is a sign between God and His people because God says so.
Exodus 31:16-17King James Version (KJV)
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
-
Why is it a sign seeing it is a universal command any way sign or no sign? Was EVERYONE part of that covenant? What then was the value of sabbath to those who was not part of the covenant?
The Sabbath is a sign between God and His people because God says so.
Exodus 31:16-17King James Version (KJV)
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
-
There are some people who Peter tells us they twist scriptures to their perdition
Let's look at Isaiah 56, especially the un-highlighted parts
Isaiah 56:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
The same 'sons of strangers' who take hold of the covenant offer BURNT OFFERINGS & SACRIFICES 8) 8) 8) 8)
When was the last time Nuff Sed and her family offered BURNT OFFERINGS & SACRIFICES?
Isaiah 58 King James Version (KJV)
58 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.......
Are you of the house of Jacob?
-
Voke the Catholic church says it set Sunday as a day of worship to assert its authority to make laws and to justify its reliance on tradition (or apostolic practice, so-called). For what reason do you as a protestant keep Sunday?
-
Nuff Sed,
I have just learnt from you and I been keeping ALL days well before today. I must admit you are quite a blessing to me, very resourceful...you are a gem
Voke the Catholic church says it set Sunday as a day of worship to assert its authority to make laws and to justify its reliance on tradition (or apostolic practice, so-called). For what reason do you as a protestant keep Sunday?
-
Kadame,Daily Bread aka Nuff Sed
The Fourth commandment is in every way ceremonial. Think...keeping any day is ceremony, ama? God is not and nor are you creating nothing but commemorating creation week just like you are not being born on your birthday.
This is a clever obfuscation but again not so clever. On one side Protetants quote Col 2:16 and Rom 14:5 saying the law was nailed to the cross. They also claim "no particular day, let everyone be convinced in his heart". At the same time, they keep Sunday rigorously like a ceremony. Will protestantism stick to one argument and stop making Rome laugh all the way to the altar?
"From this we may understand how great is the authority of the church in interpreting or explaining to us the commandments of God - an authority which is acknowledged by the universal practice of the whole Christian world, even of those sects which profess to take the holy Scriptures as their sole rule of faith, since they observe as the day of rest not the seventh day of the week demanded by the Bible, but the first day. Which we know is to be kept holy, only from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic church." Henry Gibson, Catechism Made Easy, # 2, 9th edition, vol. 1, p. 341-342.
"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church." Priest Brady, in an address reported in The News, Elizabeth, New Jersey, March 18, 1903.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible." Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975),Chicago, Illinois, "Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI"
-
Nuff Sed,
Google won't save you from the ignominy of Adventism and White lunacy :D
Observing Sunday is no Law but a tradition and not observing it is no mark of the beast as White hallucinated. That's the difference.
Meeting on Sunday is common sense. The most regular gathering of believers is on Sunday
Hebrews 10:2521st Century King James Version (KJ21)
25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as ye see the Day
So as not to forsake assembly, I meet when they meet and not because it is 'moral', commandment or Statute.
Unlike you living under a deranged false prophet, I don't look to nobody to see which electronics I may switch on or not on Sunday. I had a campus SDA loonie who took cold showers on Saturday because it was sabbath. He was a vegan too all in the name of an illiterate plagiarist who loved prawns and oysters
Kadame,Daily Bread aka Nuff Sed
The Fourth commandment is in every way ceremonial. Think...keeping any day is ceremony, ama? God is not and nor are you creating nothing but commemorating creation week just like you are not being born on your birthday.
This is a clever obfuscation but again not so clever. On one side Protetants quote Col 2:16 and Rom 14:5 saying the law was nailed to the cross. They also claim "no particular day, let everyone be convinced in his heart". At the same time, they keep Sunday rigorously like a ceremony. Will protestantism stick to one argument and stop making Rome laugh all the way to the altar?
"From this we may understand how great is the authority of the church in interpreting or explaining to us the commandments of God - an authority which is acknowledged by the universal practice of the whole Christian world, even of those sects which profess to take the holy Scriptures as their sole rule of faith, since they observe as the day of rest not the seventh day of the week demanded by the Bible, but the first day. Which we know is to be kept holy, only from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic church." Henry Gibson, Catechism Made Easy, # 2, 9th edition, vol. 1, p. 341-342.
"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church." Priest Brady, in an address reported in The News, Elizabeth, New Jersey, March 18, 1903.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible." Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975),Chicago, Illinois, "Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI"
-
Vuoks
Nuff Sed,
Google won't save you from the ignominy of Adventism and White lunacy :D
Observing Sunday is no Law but a tradition and not observing it is no mark of the beast as White hallucinated. That's the difference.
Meeting on Sunday is common sense. The most regular gathering of believers is on Sunday
Hebrews 10:2521st Century King James Version (KJ21)
25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as ye see the Day
So as not to forsake assembly, I meet when they meet and not because it is 'moral'
Unlike you living under a deranged false prophet, I don't look to nobody to see which electronics I may switch on or not on Sunday. I had a campus SDA loonie who took cold showers on Saturday because it was sabbath. He was a vegan too all in the name of an illiterate plagiarist who loved prawns and oysters
Kadame,Daily Bread aka Nuff Sed
The Fourth commandment is in every way ceremonial. Think...keeping any day is ceremony, ama? God is not and nor are you creating nothing but commemorating creation week just like you are not being born on your birthday.
This is a clever obfuscation but again not so clever. On one side Protetants quote Col 2:16 and Rom 14:5 saying the law was nailed to the cross. They also claim "no particular day, let everyone be convinced in his heart". At the same time, they keep Sunday rigorously like a ceremony. Will protestantism stick to one argument and stop making Rome laugh all the way to the altar?
"From this we may understand how great is the authority of the church in interpreting or explaining to us the commandments of God - an authority which is acknowledged by the universal practice of the whole Christian world, even of those sects which profess to take the holy Scriptures as their sole rule of faith, since they observe as the day of rest not the seventh day of the week demanded by the Bible, but the first day. Which we know is to be kept holy, only from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic church." Henry Gibson, Catechism Made Easy, # 2, 9th edition, vol. 1, p. 341-342.
"It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church." Priest Brady, in an address reported in The News, Elizabeth, New Jersey, March 18, 1903.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible." Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975),Chicago, Illinois, "Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI"
Vuoks is there ever a verse you quote in full or in context? Almost all the scriptures you have quoted in this thread are out of context, truncated or deliberately falsified. You can do that with secular texts but the word of God? In the quote above, you are deliberately trying to obfuscate it to support Sunday worship instead of the day of judgment that the chapter is talking about. It is the same argument you made with the Lord's Day as spoken of by John in Revelation (copied and pasted directly from one of the Catholic pretentions for Sunday).
Hebrews 10
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
-
Nuff Sed,
In Colossians you claimed that there is CLEAR proof that paul has something else in mind other than weekly sabbath. No proof was given. In Romans 14:5, you insisted the same but later retreated. You are a pro at misquoting scriptures but I forgive you because I understand you MUST study scriptures through White Lies. Truth is defined by EGW. Truth for Catholicism is defined by Rome. You see why you have alot in common with kadame?
On Hebrews I shared on the first bit because it is relevant to what am saying namely regular meeting of believers is a good thing and should not be neglected. This verse does not preach Sunday or Saturday worship and I never said it did; I said as a believer, the only reason I esteem Sunday is because my fellow believers meet on this day and I can't afford to miss their fellowship even as Hebrews tells me.
You, on your Google and Adventist kneejerk instincts was busy trying to disprove something I have not even claimed.
The Lord's Day is Sunday, has always been, and it's very different from the Day of the Lord. Telling me that John was' in the spirit on the Day of the Lord' is the theology only mollusks can comprehend
Vuoks is there ever a verse you quote in full or in context? Almost all the scriptures you have quoted in this thread are out of context, truncated or deliberately falsified. You can do that with secular texts but the word of God? In the quote above, you are deliberately trying to obfuscate it to support Sunday worship instead of the day of judgment that the chapter is talking about. It is the same argument you made with the Lord's Day as spoken of by John in Revelation (copied and pasted directly from one of the Catholic pretentions for Sunday).
Hebrews 10
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
-
Genesis 2:1-3 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Which part of this tells you to keep sabbath?
Sabbath was introduced to Israel in Exodus.
Exodus 31:16-17King James Version (KJV)
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
How many Jews were there in Gen 2:1-3? There's nothing like general duty when it comes to obedience to God's express commandments. Otherwise a person who rapes altar boys can claim he has generally not committed adultery.
You're speaking from both sides of your mouth if you oppose evolution and disobey the fourth commandment. Worse, you disobey God's express commandment and teach others to do so.
Is there a connection between Gen 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8? See if you can spot the link.
Gen 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
Exodus 20
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
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:
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.
-
You're speaking from both sides of your mouth if you oppose evolution and disobey the fourth commandment. Worse, you disobey God's express commandment and teach others to do so.
Another strawman. What has evilution got to do with nothing?
sabbath is not a commandment to me any more than circumcision is or Passover. Are you disobeying God because you don't keep passover?
Is there a connection between Gen 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8? See if you can spot the link.
Gen 2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
Exodus 20
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
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:
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.
God is aksing Israel to REMEMBER sabbath because they had forgotten it right? :D :D :D
-
1. How many Jews were there in Gen 2:1-3? There's nothing like general duty when it comes to obedience to God's express commandments. Otherwise a person who rapes altar boys can claim he has generally not committed adultery.
Jews? Zero. Show me Sabbath in Gen 2: 1-3. All I see there is the story of God's creation and that he rested on the 7th day. Please show me where Adam also rested or was commanded to rest. Show me where ANYBODY did that before the Exodus.
2. Sunday was not commanded. So why keep it? I can understand Rome keeping Sunday to assert its "authority" to reverse God's word. But protestants?
"Rome" keeps it because the Apostles kept it. i'm sorry you don't care for how the apostles ordered the church but that is your problem. The first it was that Christians met and the first day it shall remain.
3. Show which verse and which apostles. Rome categorically shows from the Bible that Paul never kept Sunday as a Sabbath but instead kept Saturday (Acts 17, Acts 18).
False. "Rome" categorically says that where? To help you, here is what "Rome" says,
The day of the Resurrection: the new creation
2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:
We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.106
Sunday - fulfillment of the sabbath
2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108
2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people
They call that the Catechism of the Catholic Church...yaani, authored by the Catholic magisterium, not an amateur catholic apologist somewhere.
I'll quote and re-quote for you your own Catholic sources.
Sorry, you don't get to assign me my magisterium or my sources, nor do you get to do that for the Church. The Catholic magisterium and its teaching offices are not exactly "obscure" you know. I'm sorry all you have is a bunch of apologists to go around labelling "Rome", perhaps that can work with lazy uninformed catholics but not here, not today...
St John speaks of the Lord's day (Rev 1:10) but he does not tell us what day of the week that was, much less does he tell us what day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandments. St.Luke speaks of the disciples meeting together to break bread on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. And St. paul (1 Cor.16:2) orders that on the first day of the week the Corinthians should lay in store what they designated to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea: but neither the one or the other tells us that this first day of the week was to be henceforth a day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this ancient custom is the testimony of the church. And therefore those who pretend to be such religious observers of Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act more by humor, than by religion; since Sundays and holidays all stand upon the same foundation, namely the ordinance of the church." Catholic Christian Instructed, 17th edition, p. 272-273.
"Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles....From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first." Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1900.
4. Again, please show which Bible, chapter and verse. Rome's many sources quoted above categorically declare there is no such verse and indeed it is so.
Here are some others of "Rome's many sources" for you:
Here John speaks of the Lord's Day. What does he mean by this? Some say that the term denotes no particular day, that every day is the Lord's day. But in that event, John's statement means only that he was in the Spirit, with no indication of when. Surely he mentions the Lord's Day with the intent that we shall understand which day he means, and surely he does so because the day is significant, because it is a particularly appropriate day for him to be in the Spirit, a day especially set aside for prayer and praise and rejoicing in the Spirit. Some say that he refers to the Sabbath. But in that event, why does he not simply call it the Sabbath? This would be clear, and it would be standard Jewish custom. It has never been the Jewish custom, in John's day or before or since, to call the Sabbath the Lord's day. However, as we shall see, Christians have consistently used the term to denote the first day of the week. Indeed, I venture to say that, whenever the term is used, and it is clear which day is meant, it is clear that the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, is meant. Now someone may object that I am here appealing, not to the Holy Scriptures, but to the practice of the post New Testament Church, and that this is not a legitimate authority. To this I reply, that when we wish to know the meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word found in Holy Scripture, we do not hesitate to admit as evidence the use of that word in other authors of that time or shortly before or after. Consider (to take the first example that comes to hand) the words byssos and byssinos, which occur a total of six times in the New Testament, and are translated "(fine) linen". As far as I can see, there is no way to determine, simply by examining the words in their Scriptural context, that they refer to linen rather than, say, to silk. Yet no translator hesitates, because the meaning of the words is well known to us from numerous references in ancient, or for that matter not so ancient, Greek writings. I fail to see why we should not apply the same principle to determine the meaning of the expression, "The Lord's Day," determining its meaning as used by John by noting how other writers of Greek in that age and that corner of the world, and moreover of that faith, used it.
EWTN
From the encyclopedia you love to selectively "quote"
Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indicated in Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; in Apocalypse 1:10, it is called the Lord's day.
And I guess I need not quote Pope John Paul II, seeing as he fails to qualify as Rome's source :D Perhaps because he is not a magazine but merely the head bishop of "Rome" after all.
The next time you speak of "ROME", please be sure to be speaking truth first and place lies on the side for a moment.
-
kadame,
for all my misgivings against Catholicism and they number more than SDAs, I think Nuff Sed thinks she is debating her beliefs with fellow SDAs and not kadame.
How do you continually misrepresent your opponent over and over?
The lies that fly like manna in their echo chambers certainly won't go unnoticed here.
if you are going to attack a belief system, you had better understand it first for two reasons;
1. to better offer a proper alternative position
2. to avoid unnecessary arguments
And I guess I need not quote Pope John Paul II, seeing as he fails to qualify as Rome's source :D Perhaps because he is not a magazine but merely the head bishop of "Rome" after all.
The next time you speak of "ROME", please be sure to be speaking truth first and place lies on the side for a moment.
-
Food for thought for Nuff Sed as she prepares for sabbath
Am in Nairobi, GMT+3, Nuff Sed is probably on the other side of GMT
let's say the creation week ended on Israel time GMT+2 today and He rested the next day. For Australia, sabbath starts 9 hours BEFORE while in the DC at -5 GMT will see it 7 hours AFTER. By the time sabbath is over in Israel, US will still be at it and Australia will be sleeping for a better part of the true sabbath
-
I appreciate whoever bumped up this topic to the top. Been away from a comp in the last few days. This debate has been interesting and a learning experience even for me. For example, I didn;t know there are Catholics who deny that the Roman church changed or attempted to change God's law. I was even more surprised by a protestant (presumably) who argued that the change was instituted by apostles (unnamed, no verse so far). It would be a welcome relief to hear from other protestants and other Catholics what they think of the fourth commandment or the idea that the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross.
Voke, I appreciate your posts although I don;t agree with your flip flop arguments. You failed to give the justification for Sunday worship from scripture or to stick to one argument and follow it through. One can decide to break the law of God (it;s called sinning), but to do so and justify the action by invoking God;s name is blasphemous.
Ka-Bella, your civility in debate is admirable. I think you are heading in the right direction and God will continue to lead you in His own way. Your main contention is that the Roman church is not responsible for changing God's law. I invite you to reread Pope John Paul II's Dies Domini to see how he purports to transfer solemnity from Saturday to Sunday under the guise of apostolic practice. He follows the beaten track.
-
Nuff Sed,
You have on two ocassioned dismissed Holy Spirit when he tells you that nobody should judge you over observing Jewish days. You have opted to cleave to White rather than Wisdom from above.
You have also proved to be a pro at knocking off your own arguments and basically having a monologue in the middle of a debate.
Once again, Sabbath was 'changed' in the same manner as Passover,Tabernacle and New moons or circumcision. Once you figure out who changed circumcision and Passover, you will start living in Christ away from a dead anti-Microwave-on-sabbath religion
I appreciate whoever bumped up this topic to the top. Been away from a comp in the last few days. This debate has been interesting and a learning experience even for me. For example, I didn;t know there are Catholics who deny that the Roman church changed or attempted to change God's law. I was even more surprised by a protestant (presumably) who argued that the change was instituted by apostles (unnamed, no verse so far). It would be a welcome relief to hear from other protestants and other Catholics what they think of the fourth commandment or the idea that the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross.
Voke, I appreciate your posts although I don;t agree with your flip flop arguments. You failed to give the justification for Sunday worship from scripture or to stick to one argument and follow it through. One can decide to break the law of God (it;s called sinning), but to do so and justify the action by invoking God;s name is blasphemous.
Ka-Bella, your civility in debate is admirable. I think you are heading in the right direction and God will continue to lead you in His own way. Your main contention is that the Roman church is not responsible for changing God's law. I invite you to reread Pope John Paul II's Dies Domini to see how he purports to transfer solemnity from Saturday to Sunday under the guise of apostolic practice. He follows the beaten track.
-
Voke at least now you seem to be sticking to one suicidal argument. Let's examine what you're saying.
Once again, Sabbath was 'changed' in the same manner as Passover,Tabernacle and New moons or circumcision. Once you figure out who changed circumcision and Passover, you will start living in Christ away from a dead anti-Microwave-on-sabbath religion
Were the Passover, Tabernacle (whatever that means), new moons and circumcision changed? No. They were nailed to the cross like other ordinances, ceremonies and feasts which were "against us." Who did it? Christ. In several verses Paul demonstrates this. No controversy, no excuses, no misinterpretation.
Col 2
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
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;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
How about the Ten Commandments specifically keeping the Sabbath day (Saturday) commandment? Can you demonstrate like I have done above? I promise you I'll attend this Sunday's service at a church of your choosing if you can get me one scripture demonstrating three things - who changed the Sabbath, how and to what day.
While at it, hear the Roman church laughing all the way to the pulpit.
Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, Illinois.
"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."
-
Nuff Sed,
Don't kid yourself...am not desperate get you to church on Sunday as opposed to Saturday. Reason is God is not interested in the days you fellowship with others. See,He is not EGW. vooke is here to usher you out of the rabbit's hole. I stumbled into this last week;
http://www.formeradventist.com
The guys started using their brains and have been thanking Jesus ever since. Listen to Munroe for once. Die empty having realized your brain's potential.
Next. Your three questions are extremely bogus. Nobody changed no day at no point in time. So WHO,HOW and TO WHAT are bogeymen
Clearly you are only interested in regurgitating EGW garbage about 'change' that never was. If Adventist scholarship was the standard worldwide, we would still be in stone age seeing how impervious they are to simple reasoning and facts.
Voke at least now you seem to be sticking to one suicidal argument. Let's examine what you're saying.
Once again, Sabbath was 'changed' in the same manner as Passover,Tabernacle and New moons or circumcision. Once you figure out who changed circumcision and Passover, you will start living in Christ away from a dead anti-Microwave-on-sabbath religion
Were the Passover, Tabernacle (whatever that means), new moons and circumcision changed? No. They were nailed to the cross like other ordinances, ceremonies and feasts which were "against us." Who did it? Christ. In several verses Paul demonstrates this. No controversy, no excuses, no misinterpretation.
Col 2
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
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;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
How about the Ten Commandments specifically keeping the Sabbath day (Saturday) commandment? Can you demonstrate like I have done above? I promise you I'll attend this Sunday's service at a church of your choosing if you can get me one scripture demonstrating three things - who changed the Sabbath, how and to what day.
While at it, hear the Roman church laughing all the way to the pulpit.
Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, Illinois.
"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."
-
So the suicidal argument is now in the stage of authenticating formers? There are millions of former Sunday keepers in the Adventist church your church most likely included. And they have testimonies too.
As for the change of the Sabbath, you would do well to heed the words of Whodunnit.
https://www.saint-mike.org/library/papal_library/john_paulii/apostolic_letters/dies_domini.html
Dies Domini
Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter issued, to the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Catholic church on keeping the Lord's day holy.
http://catholicism.org/dies-domini-is-saturday-the-true-sabbath.html
Why does the Church command us to keep Sunday as the Lord’s day?
The Church commands us to keep Sunday as the Lord’s day because on Sunday Christ rose from the dead, and on Sunday the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. For these reasons the Church changed the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday.[2]
These reasons are more than satisfactory for the Catholic. If it were not enough for us that two of the greatest events of the true religion (the Resurrection of Christ and the Descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost) fell on a Sunday, certainly it would be enough that the Holy Church, into whose hands Our Lord has bequeathed His divine authority, has ruled that Sunday be the “day of the Lord.” Sadly, amongst those inventors of new religions outside the Catholic Church, there is always something to be found in the Church’s teachings about which they can contend. Some Judaistic Protestants, not satisfied with accusing the Church of inventing (out of whole cloth, of course) Purgatory, the Mass, confession, the Marian dogmas, the papacy, indulgences, veneration of the saints, etc., go on also to accuse the Church of violating Scripture and breaking the commandments of God with regard to the day on which we worship.
-
Nuff Sed,
Where can I get 'official' SDA doctrines, say book, manual or something?
So the suicidal argument is now in the stage of authenticating formers? There are millions of former Sunday keepers in the Adventist church your church most likely included. And they have testimonies too.
As for the change of the Sabbath, you would do well to heed the words of Whodunnit.
https://www.saint-mike.org/library/papal_library/john_paulii/apostolic_letters/dies_domini.html
Dies Domini
Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter issued, to the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Catholic church on keeping the Lord's day holy.
http://catholicism.org/dies-domini-is-saturday-the-true-sabbath.html
Why does the Church command us to keep Sunday as the Lord’s day?
The Church commands us to keep Sunday as the Lord’s day because on Sunday Christ rose from the dead, and on Sunday the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. For these reasons the Church changed the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday.[2]
These reasons are more than satisfactory for the Catholic. If it were not enough for us that two of the greatest events of the true religion (the Resurrection of Christ and the Descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost) fell on a Sunday, certainly it would be enough that the Holy Church, into whose hands Our Lord has bequeathed His divine authority, has ruled that Sunday be the “day of the Lord.” Sadly, amongst those inventors of new religions outside the Catholic Church, there is always something to be found in the Church’s teachings about which they can contend. Some Judaistic Protestants, not satisfied with accusing the Church of inventing (out of whole cloth, of course) Purgatory, the Mass, confession, the Marian dogmas, the papacy, indulgences, veneration of the saints, etc., go on also to accuse the Church of violating Scripture and breaking the commandments of God with regard to the day on which we worship.
-
Daily Bread, I dont think you quite understand why I keep rejecting your claims. Let me try and explain once more.
So the suicidal argument is now in the stage of authenticating formers? There are millions of former Sunday keepers in the Adventist church your church most likely included. And they have testimonies too.
As for the change of the Sabbath, you would do well to heed the words of Whodunnit.
https://www.saint-mike.org/library/papal_library/john_paulii/apostolic_letters/dies_domini.html
Dies Domini
Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter issued, to the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Catholic church on keeping the Lord's day holy.
http://catholicism.org/dies-domini-is-saturday-the-true-sabbath.html
Why does the Church command us to keep Sunday as the Lord’s day?
The Church commands us to keep Sunday as the Lord’s day because on Sunday Christ rose from the dead, and on Sunday the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. For these reasons the Church changed the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday.[2]
These reasons are more than satisfactory for the Catholic. If it were not enough for us that two of the greatest events of the true religion (the Resurrection of Christ and the Descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost) fell on a Sunday, certainly it would be enough that the Holy Church, into whose hands Our Lord has bequeathed His divine authority, has ruled that Sunday be the “day of the Lord.” Sadly, amongst those inventors of new religions outside the Catholic Church, there is always something to be found in the Church’s teachings about which they can contend. Some Judaistic Protestants, not satisfied with accusing the Church of inventing (out of whole cloth, of course) Purgatory, the Mass, confession, the Marian dogmas, the papacy, indulgences, veneration of the saints, etc., go on also to accuse the Church of violating Scripture and breaking the commandments of God with regard to the day on which we worship.
1.) That is not Dies Domini you are quoting, it is becoming ever more clear you have not read a single paragraph of it. What you have presented there is commentary on it by faithful catholic apologists. I have presented to you equally catholic commentary that is contrary to that which you cite. In fact there is commentary that is quite critical of the views of those writers you quote on this topic. Why you are insisting that this is "Rome" you are citing is beyond me. When two Catholics disagree, why do you chose one over the other as the spokesman for "Rome"? As a Catholic I can tell you that Catholics have historically disagreed over virtually EVERY single doctrine there is, including the very person and nature of God and Jesus, grace, the scriptures, what exactly happens after death....too much to count here. Recall that even the protestant reformers disagreed first as catholics before they became protestant, so their views at some point were also catholic views. In our church, all sorts of theological schools can present their own understanding and sometimes they can have theological fights that carry on over for centuries before the church decides the issue one way or another (usually forced by circumstances/like widespread heresy or a threat of schism to do this). But only the church's official proclamations are "Rome"s, if by "Rome",you mean the Catholic Church: the ordinary magisterium and the two different kinds of extraordinary magisterium, these are the SOLE spokesmen for "Rome". So as soon as you find them agreeing with you that it was NOT the Apostles who taught the church to ignore the Jewish sabbath and instituted the meeting on Sundays, I will be happy to read.
2) Secondly, I am also 100% sure that you are not quite understanding even those catholics you cite. When they say the church changed anything,they are actually referring to the Apostles themselves,not bishops in the 4th century per the established "wisdom" in some parts.Catholics believe the church started onPentecost Sunday with the descent of the Holy Spirit who took what was previously only a community of believers and constituted them an entirely new mystical entity we call the church, made themliterally one body my mystically joining them to Christ. A real body, which like a humanbody, has a physical/visual component which is the organized community of believers plus a "soul", which is the Holy Spirit himself.Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit LITERALLY dwells in the church as its soul or the source of her spiritual life and remains there forever. It was him that guided the Apostles after Christ physically left the earth (but not mystically...he is still present). It was him that guided them right from Pentecost, in their preaching, their writings, their ordering/instructions of/to the churches. What I would like you to understand while reading those catholic sources you are quoting is that THIS is "the church" they are referring to and the authority they are referring to: The one that guided the apostles. So if they changed anything, it is God himself who did it. Plain and simple. Which is why I reject your notions because I know what you mean is something different from what those authors take for granted when they write. If the Apostles established a practice of Sunday worship, it is God the Holy Spirit who established that practice since they were but his spokesmen. If you don't trust that they were guided by him, go ahead and throw out your New Testament. It is unreliable, apparently.
Protestants reject our claim to being the same church that has continued for 2,000 years (a rejection which you obviously share), but that is quite different from the matter here. They would say that sabbath is no longer mandatory because the new testament more or less says so, and we agree with them on the facts that happened in the first age of Christianity under the Apostles. But we are not sola scripturaists so we would characterize the same thing they describe differently than they do. We would say the church "changed" it in the same way we say the church stopped the observance of levitical laws or the church wrote the Gospels in such and such a date. In other words, we characterize ALL apostolic activity as the activity of the church. We dont regard the Apostles as an entity distinct from the church. This is a difference in doctrine, very big difference. But we are NOT meaning that it was anybody other than GOD himself who did/directed that "change", which is your Adventist insinuation. We don't think the Apostles were going around teaching their own ideas, in other words, nor do we regard them as some entity somehow separated from "the church".
3) Moreover, it is Catholic dogma that the Apostolic office came to a COMPLETE END with the death of St. John the Apostle sometime in 90 AD. The church has no authority to change anything of what they taught. But when you say that Rome is CLAIMING or BOASTING publicly to have "changed" divine revelation well after the Apostles (4th century!), you clearly do not know the first thing of the BASICS in catholic theology. Only Holy orders [Bishops, priests(Presbyters), diaconate (deacons)] have been passed on by the apostles to others in the church but NOT the Apostolic office (as WITNESSES) and its authority, which was given to them by Christ, which office and authority died with them.
The church would never in a million years make a claim to have changed/reversed any aspect of divine revelation besides through the apostolic office itself (the preaching of the apostles themselves) which we believe was done in the name of and by the authority of and on behalf of Jesus Christ and through the power of God the Holy Spirit himself, hence it was GOD's own activity through his chosen spokesmen, not simply "the church" going off on its own adventure based on nothing but human prudence. As long as you understand what assumptions those Catholics have when speaking of "the church", I have no beef with you, but if you insinuate that they are claiming that the church has authority to reverse the public revelation after it had been closed, then you are taking advantage of the difference in the nuances of the theological languages that exists between catholics and non-catholics to misrepresent them.
FACTS:
Catholics believe that it was God who taught the church through the apostles that sabbath observance was no longer necessary in the New Covenant
Catholics believe that is was the Apostles under God's own guidance that established the custom of Sunday observance
Catholics call ALL the above the activity of the church
Catholics believe that after the death of the Apostles, the public revelation of Jesus Christ in the New Covenant came to a definitive end and that no more public revelation is to follow EVER in this universe/existence until Christ's final return.
Catholics do NOT believe that the Church can TODAY, for example, decide that some part of that revelation can be changed: Her authority is limited to definitions and clarifications, not new revelations: that power ended with st. John in about 90 A.D. In other words, the church no longer has this power you are claiming for it after St. John's death, that is Catholic dogma. Yet catholics will still characterize what the church did before then as the activity of the church, back when she had the 'witness'/apostolic power. After that, her job is to preserve, explain, clarify, define it only.
For example, there was no "Trinity" in the first few centuries, but the TRUTH this dogma proclaims was there with and was taught by the Apostles themselves in the public revelation, though not clearly enough to exclude Arianism out of hand, yet it was there, not added to later. The church only defined, clarified it in a manner that removed the ambiguity that allowed arianism to claim it was apostolic, and gave it a name (trinity) that captured that truth simply, but the truth is itself was taught by the Apostles as the witnesses of God's self-revelation in Jesus of Nazareth. There was no "Jesus is 100% God, 100% man" (Hypostatic union) but this truth in substance was there in the witness of the Apostles, the definition clarified it in a way that the various heresies that understood the revelation differently were excluded, yet the church was not then exercising any authority to change/add to God's revelation, only to give it a more precise definition due to heresy.
-
Ka-Bella, again thanks for your gracious response. I see your point in how you read my statements. Some of my posts do not necessarily address you. In fact, I attempted to address some of Voke's arguments by repeating the Catholic Mirror's words that they are suicidal.
1. I did not quote Dies Domini but the link is in my post. I have read it and come to the same conclusion that JPII attempted to justify the transfer of solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. This is what the website says about Dies Domini:
"Dies Domini
Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter issued, to the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Catholic church on keeping the Lord's day holy." The plain import of the encyclical is that Catholics should not keep Saturday holy but keep Sunday instead. It is consistent with the Vatican website.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/1998/documents/ns_lit_doc_19980707_dies-domini_en.html
2. When I quote Catholic sources, I take them as Catholic voices. The Catholic Mirror for example is not necessarily speaking for the Vatican but what it says is consistent with other known Catholic sources and personalities previously cited in this thread. The differences do not count for much in this discussion on the Sabbath because it is consistently Catholic to worship on Sunday. I consider your sentiments Catholic because you identify yourself that way. You could be a better Catholic than some popes. The distinctions between magisteriums may not matter much in this discussion.
3. You're right on the money when you raise the matter of sola scriptura. This discussion is primarily to understand the protestant concept of Sunday worship. I have read the Catholic versions of Sunday worship and concluded that they are not based on scripture. If tradition guides Catholic doctrine, then it is understandable when the church cites some apostolic practices which we can't find in the Bible. So your statement....
They would say that sabbath is no longer mandatory because the new testament more or less says so, and we agree with them on the facts that happened in the first age of Christianity under the Apostles.
....does not hold true if you consider the sequence in time. It is THEY who agree with Rome because Rome took up "the venerable day of the sun" first on the basis of tradition and some woozy apostolic practice not found in the Bible. Protestants believing in sola scriptura should be quoting scripture on a core doctrinal matter like the day of worship, not simply agreeing with Catholic practice. That is why the Catholic Mirror rightly accuses them of hypocrisy and attempted suicide.
4. The questions raised in Rome's challenge remain unanswered. Here we are eight pages later and no straight answer. I'll quote them in summary:
1. The Protestant World claims to followers of the Bible and the Bible Only
2. The Observance of Sunday is entirely a Catholic institution and not in any way based on the Bible.
3. The claims of Protestantism to Any Part (in Sunday Observance) Therein Proved to Be Groundless, Self-Contradictory, and Suicidal.
4. The Catholic Church states that the only group to truly follow the Bible are Seventh-day Adventists, because they observe the Sabbath on Saturday
We can discuss the Trinity on its own thread. I find it unbiblical too.
-
Nuff Sed,
Catholicism for all you disagree with them,they have very clear documentations of their doctrines. You would do well to use these, past or present to confront Catholicism. Why is it so difficult for you to do so? You are giving kadame unnecessary ammo. She rightfully sees you are another wacko who can't think outside the confines of her sect. You have been yapping about 'change' of 'day of worship' yet you can't substantiate the same. You have ignored ALL objective and indifferent historical records because NONE supports your assertions.
Look at your 'questions'.
1. Correct. Was that a question?
2. FALSE. Sunday observance predates by centuries organized Catholic religion and it stretches back to the apostles. Holy Spirit says nobody should be judged over observing no day.
3. Nobody should judge the other over no day and God is completely indifferent to esteeming some days above others or esteeming all equally. It is SDAs who are tormented by days and they ignore the voice of Holy Spirit.
4. Sabbath keeping is not 'following Bible' anymore than Passover and Weeks is. Besides, Catholicism saying some thing don't make it so. And nowhere have they stated so.
Why you should inject into this thread a 'debate' you barely half-misunderstand is beyond me.
Like you said on another thread, historical facts are quite stubborn. Some Christians will not admit that atrocities was committed in the name of crusades. It's your turn to bow to facts.
Ka-Bella, again thanks for your gracious response. I see your point in how you read my statements. Some of my posts do not necessarily address you. In fact, I attempted to address some of Voke's arguments by repeating the Catholic Mirror's words that they are suicidal.
1. I did not quote Dies Domini but the link is in my post. I have read it and come to the same conclusion that JPII attempted to justify the transfer of solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. This is what the website says about Dies Domini:
"Dies Domini
Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter issued, to the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Catholic church on keeping the Lord's day holy." The plain import of the encyclical is that Catholics should not keep Saturday holy but keep Sunday instead. It is consistent with the Vatican website.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/1998/documents/ns_lit_doc_19980707_dies-domini_en.html
2. When I quote Catholic sources, I take them as Catholic voices. The Catholic Mirror for example is not necessarily speaking for the Vatican but what it says is consistent with other known Catholic sources and personalities previously cited in this thread. The differences do not count for much in this discussion on the Sabbath because it is consistently Catholic to worship on Sunday. I consider your sentiments Catholic because you identify yourself that way. You could be a better Catholic than some popes. The distinctions between magisteriums may not matter much in this discussion.
3. You're right on the money when you raise the matter of sola scriptura. This discussion is primarily to understand the protestant concept of Sunday worship. I have read the Catholic versions of Sunday worship and concluded that they are not based on scripture. If tradition guides Catholic doctrine, then it is understandable when the church cites some apostolic practices which we can't find in the Bible. So your statement....
They would say that sabbath is no longer mandatory because the new testament more or less says so, and we agree with them on the facts that happened in the first age of Christianity under the Apostles.
....does not hold true if you consider the sequence in time. It is THEY who agree with Rome because Rome took up "the venerable day of the sun" first on the basis of tradition and some woozy apostolic practice not found in the Bible. Protestants believing in sola scriptura should be quoting scripture on a core doctrinal matter like the day of worship, not simply agreeing with Catholic practice. That is why the Catholic Mirror rightly accuses them of hypocrisy and attempted suicide.
4. The questions raised in Rome's challenge remain unanswered. Here we are eight pages later and no straight answer. I'll quote them in summary:
1. The Protestant World claims to followers of the Bible and the Bible Only
2. The Observance of Sunday is entirely a Catholic institution and not in any way based on the Bible.
3. The claims of Protestantism to Any Part (in Sunday Observance) Therein Proved to Be Groundless, Self-Contradictory, and Suicidal.
4. The Catholic Church states that the only group to truly follow the Bible are Seventh-day Adventists, because they observe the Sabbath on Saturday
We can discuss the Trinity on its own thread. I find it unbiblical too.
-
Address me directly as DB if you want to avoid confusion. You have continuously attributed the question of the Sabbath to Ellen G. White. For your edification I have posted what major sects, religions and churches have said about the law of God. You have claimed you are protestant. Read what your church says and meditate on it. Questions from the Catholic Mirror.
- 1st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2nd. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? and if not, why not?
Editor's note to Rome's Challenge:
[Editor's note--It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, as here stated that the Catholic Church had apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant watchwords; and "The Scripture as in the written word the sole standard of appeal." This was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." "The bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." This was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates actually wrote to him that there was "as strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal." But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claim of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for scripture alone:
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestant's claim, that they stand upon the written word only is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of "Scripture alone as the standard.' fails; and the doctrine of "Scripture and tradition" as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges."
-
I have officially given up. Daily Bread, honestly you appear to suffer from that thing we Catholics call invincible ignorance. Appearing to simply ignore what we say and then repeat the same assertions that have been answered and disproved over and over again, going ahead to claim they have not been refuted...huh? Are we in the same convo? The Catholic Church has NEVER stated that SDAs follow the Bible. The Catholic Church believes you don't follow the Bible, actually. The Catholic Church believes that SHE follows the Bible best, not other churches, be it SDAs or whatever, that's simple fact. The idea that she parades herself and boasts of contradicting the Bible while holding up COMPETITORS as the true followers is actually veeerrry funny if you sit down and think about it. Even when she speaks of Tradition, she bases it in the scriptures and vice versa. Anyway, Daily Bread, I'm done with this topic.
I wish you the best in your Adventism....But I'm very curious about your saying you deny the Trinity?!?!?? :o I thought SDAs are Trinitarian? The word is missing in the Bible but "Trinity" is only a simple, convenient label, nothing more. The truth is there in the New Testament, yes? Perhaps you don't quite understand what it means and you may be against it without really being against it. Even in the Old Testament, there are all sorts of indications, only that the Jews could not have seen it before the incarnation. I forget the thread but I recall asking you this on a thread you started on the Trinity, I think you didn't answer. If you don't mind, please answer on that thread, I'm genuinely curious (and surprised) to hear that you don't believe in the Trinity? Personally, monotheism (One God), Trinity (Three divine persons in one divine substance/God) and Hypostatic union (Jesus is true God and true man) is how I (and the Church) distinguish Christian groups from non-Christian ones. We don't accept the JWs, for example (Deniers of the Trinity and Hypostatic union but believers in monotheism), or Mormons(especially Mormons who are deniers of monotheism or are polytheists, have belief in multiple gods) as Christian AT ALL because they deny these things we consider fundamental and unquestionable...the starting point of anything Christian, if you will. I always assumed SDAs were Trinitarians who affirmed the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit along with the Humanity of Christ. I am quite surprised that this may not be universal among SDAs, after all. Please answer this on that thread. I'm not interested in a debate, but I'm just curios about this view and would like to understand it. Are you Arian? Or perhaps you just have some other view of the God-head, in which case, can you please share it? Thank you.
Peace! I'm out.
-
Ka-Bella, this is an official cop-out. It's no marathon where one gets to a finish line. Debate can always continue.
1. From the start it has been clear that Rome's challenge is not addressing Catholics. I understand your defense of Rome's systems but this particular challenge is meant for protestants.
2. The discussion is not so much what the official Roman Catholic church is saying about the Sabbath. It is what the Catholic Mirror is saying about the hypocrisy of Sunday-keeping Protestants. Their questions again in summary are
i. The Protestant World claims to followers of the Bible and the Bible Only
ii. The Observance of Sunday is entirely a Catholic institution and not in any way based on the Bible.
iii. The claims of Protestantism to Any Part (in Sunday Observance) Therein Proved to Be Groundless, Self-Contradictory, and Suicidal.
iv. The Catholic Church states that the only group to truly follow the Bible are Seventh-day Adventists, because they observe the Sabbath on Saturday.
Whether Catholic Mirror is official or not is beside the point. And their questions are not addressed to Catholics.
3. I'm aware that Rome's doctrine is based on tradition. The reformers like Luther were aware of that too and challenged that position. It is consistent with Rome to come up with doctrine based on extra-biblical sources. When sola scriptura protestants similarly base their Sundaykeeping on extra-biblical sources (unnamed apostles, apostolic practice with no verses), that becomes tradition and that is the issue Catholic Mirror finds to be groundless, self-contradictory and suicidal.
4. The Catholic Mirror thinks the Adventist church is consistent with scripture in keeping the Sabbath and contrasts that with the rest of protestantism. The editor of the Catholic Mirror goes great lengths to explain how the reformation fell on its face at the Council of Trent when the Sunday keeping question was brought up. Are you disputing that historical gem?
5. The trinity question can be subjected to the same scriptural rigor as the Sabbath commandment. Does Rome base that theology on the Bible or on tradition?
-
I will address you as Daily Bread if you deny being Nuff Sed.
Scriptures don't enjoin nobody to observe days,months,feasts nor years any more than they enjoin you to avoid people during some days in a month over menses
Address me directly as DB if you want to avoid confusion. You have continuously attributed the question of the Sabbath to Ellen G. White. For your edification I have posted what major sects, religions and churches have said about the law of God. You have claimed you are protestant. Read what your church says and meditate on it. Questions from the Catholic Mirror.
- 1st. Which day of the week does the Bible enjoin to be kept holy?
2nd. Has the New Testament modified by precept or practice the original command?
3rd. Have Protestants, since the sixteenth century, obeyed the command of God by keeping "holy" the day enjoined by their infallible guide and teacher, the Bible? and if not, why not?
Editor's note to Rome's Challenge:
[Editor's note--It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, as here stated that the Catholic Church had apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant watchwords; and "The Scripture as in the written word the sole standard of appeal." This was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." "The bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." This was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates actually wrote to him that there was "as strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal." But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claim of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for scripture alone:
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestant's claim, that they stand upon the written word only is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of "Scripture alone as the standard.' fails; and the doctrine of "Scripture and tradition" as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges."
-
I will address you as Daily Bread if you deny being Nuff Sed.
Scriptures don't enjoin nobody to observe days,months,feasts nor years any more than they enjoin you to avoid people during some days in a month over menses
Unless you mean the scriptures is the apocrypha or Eusebius, the verses below are from the scriptures. They do command Sabbath observance on the seventh day of the week.
Exodus 16:23 And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.
Exodus 16:29 See, for that the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
(NB: This comes before the giving of the Commandments in Sinai)
Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 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:
Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.
Deuteronomy 5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.
Deuteronomy 5:14 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, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
Deuteronomy 5:15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
Nehemiah 10:31 And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day: and that we would leave the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt.
Isaiah 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Jeremiah 17:22 Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.
Matthew 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
Mark 1:21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
Mark 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luke 4:31 And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.
Luke 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
John 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
John 9:14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
John 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
(At this accusation, if indeed the Sabbath had changed or was to be changed by his death and resurrection, Jesus should have defended his actions by so stating that the Commandment no longer stood. But he didn't).
And now, Apostolic practice
Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Acts 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
The question is, other than following Rome's tradition, on what basis does protestantism keep Sunday as a Sabbath day?
-
https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=GC&lang=en&pagenumber=592
Those who honor the Bible Sabbath will be denounced as enemies of law and order, as breaking down the moral restraints of society, causing anarchy and corruption, and calling down the judgments of God upon the earth. Their conscientious scruples will be pronounced obstinacy, stubbornness, and contempt of authority. They will be accused of disaffection toward the government. Ministers who deny the obligation of the divine law will present from the pulpit the duty of yielding obedience to the civil authorities as ordained of God. In legislative halls and courts of justice, commandment keepers will be misrepresented and condemned. A false coloring will be given to their words; the worst construction will be put upon their motives.
As the Protestant churches reject the clear, Scriptural arguments in defense of God’s law, they will long to silence those whose faith they cannot overthrow by the Bible. Though they blind their own eyes to the fact, they are now adopting a course which will lead to the persecution of those who conscientiously refuse to do what the rest of the Christian world are doing, and acknowledge the claims of the papal sabbath.
The dignitaries of church and state will unite to bribe, persuade, or compel all classes to honor the Sunday. The lack of divine authority will be supplied by oppressive enactments. Political corruption is destroying love of justice and regard for truth; and even in free America, rulers and legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance. Liberty of conscience, which has cost so great a sacrifice, will no longer be respected. In the soon-coming conflict we shall see exemplified the prophet’s words: “The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 12:17.
-
Sunday keepers now claim Sunday to be the Sabbath and are actively calling for it to be set aside as a rest day. The argument has shifted from claims that Sabbath (Saturday) and Sunday are different. That Rome did not change the day (Daniel 7:25). That Sunday is kept because it was apostolic tradition. That the law (the 10 commandments) were nailed to the cross. That believers should not "Judaize" by keeping the Sabbath (Saturday). That protestants follow sola scriptura except on the Sunday issue (because not a single verse calls for Sunday worship or abrogates the Sabbath commandment). And lately, Sunday is the Sabbath and we should keep it just like the Jews did by not doing sports, shopping and so on. Let me introduce the Lord's Day Alliance of Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Friends, Lutherans, Methodists, Non-Denominationalists, Orthodox, Presbyterians, and Reformed traditional believers.
http://www.ldausa.org/lda/about/
Our Mission
The Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States exists to encourage Christians to reclaim the Sabbath–the Lord’s Day–as a day of spiritual and personal renewal, enabling them to impact their communities with the Gospel.
Our History
The Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States (LDA) was founded in 1888. That year representatives of six major Protestant denominations met in Washington, D.C. to organize the American Sabbath Union; this name was later changed to The Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States. The LDA has been the one national organization whose sole purpose is to maintain and cultivate the first day of the week as a time for rest, worship, Christian education and spiritual renewal.
Today, The Lord’s Day Alliance promotes the importance of the Sabbath, and a message of spiritual renewal and personal well-being in this fast-paced 24/7, 21st century American culture.
-
EGW managed to whip up enough frenzy around Saturday. Adventists still hallucinate about the epic battle royale where they will be persecuted for Sabbath Keeping
Nuff Sed is probably bracing herself for that BS when there will be the Sunday Law and anybody not worshiping on Sunday will be executed. This diabolical exercise will be overseen by Roman Catholic Church. It will be the Mark of the Beast.
While I can forgive EGW for her illiteracy and retarded imagination, I can't excuse her sheeple who still approach God with half-thawed brains and imagine they be the best thing on earth since the apostles
-
Meanwhile, in the continent in which Luther was born, a cousin of the American Lord's Day Alliance marches on.
http://www.europeansundayalliance.eu/site/foundingstatement
A work-free Sunday and decent working hours are of paramount importance for citizens throughout Europe. We, the undersigned, believe that all citizens of the European Union are entitled to benefit from decent working hours that, as a matter of principle, exclude working late evenings, nights, bank holidays and Sundays. We believe that today, legislation and practices in place at EU and Member States levels need to be more protective of the health, safety, dignity of everyone and should more attentively promote the reconciliation of professional and family life. We believe that social cohesion in the European citizenship should be reinforced.
-
I believe anybody with a good point to make can do so without having to resort to ad hominem.
EGW managed to whip up enough frenzy around Saturday. Adventists still hallucinate about the epic battle royale where they will be persecuted for Sabbath Keeping
Nuff Sed is probably bracing herself for that BS when there will be the Sunday Law and anybody not worshiping on Sunday will be executed. This diabolical exercise will be overseen by Roman Catholic Church. It will be the Mark of the Beast.
While I can forgive EGW for her illiteracy and retarded imagination, I can't excuse her sheeple who still approach God with half-thawed brains and imagine they be the best thing on earth since the apostles
-
No class of people denounces the Roman Church more strongly than Adventists do. They pronounce them deceivers, false teachers, perverters of history, and their boastful claims they repudiate as worthless, all except on the change of the Sabbath. Here they hold up, and publish to the world, her mere assertion as settling the question beyond dispute. The Catholics offer no proof of their claim that they changed the day. They assert that they did and leave it there. Adventists gladly accept this without any proof. Consider now: The Roman Catholic Church makes all the following boastful claims:
1.The Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church.
2.St. Peter was the first Pope of the Holy Catholic Church.
3.The present Pope of Rome is the lineal divinely appointed successor of St. Peter.
4.The Pope of Rome is the Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth.
5.The Pope is infallible.
6.The Pope holds the keys to heaven.
7.All, including Adventists, outside of the Catholic Church are heretics.
8.Protestants are indebted to Catholics for the Holy Scriptures as it is given to them.
9.Catholic priests have authority to forgive sins.
10.The Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from the seventh day to Sunday, the first day.
The Catholic Church strongly claims all these ten items. What do Seventh-Day Adventists say to these assertions? They quickly deny all the first nine, say they are all lies, without any foundation in fact. But when you come to the tenth one, the change of the Sabbath, then Adventists fall over each other to accept every word of this as the infallible truth. It settles the question beyond dispute. "The Catholic Church just owns it right up" that it did really do the job!!
To illustrate: Adventists bring their chief witness into court. But when he is sworn they acknowledge that nine-tenths of his testimony is a lie, is perjury, but one-tenth of what he swears to is true. On this they claim they have won their case! Selah!
Any judge would quickly throw out of court such testimony as worthless, yet this is the witness, and the only witness, Adventists can produce saying that the Roman Church changed the Sabbath. See any of their publications on this point.
Read on
http://www.truthorfables.com/The_Lord's_Canright.htm
-
No class of people denounces the Roman Church more strongly than Adventists do. They pronounce them deceivers, false teachers, perverters of history, and their boastful claims they repudiate as worthless, all except on the change of the Sabbath. Here they hold up, and publish to the world, her mere assertion as settling the question beyond dispute. The Catholics offer no proof of their claim that they changed the day. They assert that they did and leave it there. Adventists gladly accept this without any proof. Consider now: The Roman Catholic Church makes all the following boastful claims:
Really?
People rarely take themselves to Tobiko. However, in the case of Rome it has happened at times. When a man pontificates his righteousness, it is not strange to find themselves deceiving, being deceived and shouting it from the rooftops. Rome's Challenge has more than enough examples. There are multiple accusations against Rome by Rome that Adventists can only stand by and watch helplessly. Some latter-day Romanists have attempted to deny ownership of the self-incrimination, but the job was outstanding.
On the basis of the Bible, affirmed by the actions of Rome through history, believers will and should denounce the arrogance of man claiming to take upon himself the powers to change God's law.
Excerpts from Rome's Challenge.
The first proposition needs little proof. The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. We say by virtue of her divine mission, because He who called Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath," endowed her with His own power to teach, "He that heareth you, heareth me;" commanded all who believe in Him to hear her, under penalty of being placed with the "heathen and publican;" and promised to be with her to the end of the world. She holds her charter as the teacher from him- a charter as infallible as perpetual. The Protestant world at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the Church's right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the holy Ghost without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world."
“Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.”
From The Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. 4, “The Ten Commandments”, 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 Online edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
“Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)...The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day...He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy...”
From Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.
“Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”
From John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.
“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The (Roman Catholic) Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.”
For more, see http://www.godssabbathtruth.com/SabbathStatementsByTheCatholicChurch.pdf
The Catholic Church strongly claims all these ten items. What do Seventh-Day Adventists say to these assertions? They quickly deny all the first nine, say they are all lies, without any foundation in fact.
Wrong again. There is ample biblical evidence that these assertions are false, and Adventists have presented these evidences over and over.
-
Nuff Sed,
You are full of BS just like a biogas plant
1. Show me where Catholicism 'changed' Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday
2. Debate me on the error of #1
If you can steer clear of garbage and respond to these, you'd have a point. But lo and behold, you been flapping gum about a 'change' you can't proof
No class of people denounces the Roman Church more strongly than Adventists do. They pronounce them deceivers, false teachers, perverters of history, and their boastful claims they repudiate as worthless, all except on the change of the Sabbath. Here they hold up, and publish to the world, her mere assertion as settling the question beyond dispute. The Catholics offer no proof of their claim that they changed the day. They assert that they did and leave it there. Adventists gladly accept this without any proof. Consider now: The Roman Catholic Church makes all the following boastful claims:
Really?
People rarely take themselves to Tobiko. However, in the case of Rome it has happened at times. When a man pontificates his righteousness, it is not strange to find themselves deceiving, being deceived and shouting it from the rooftops. Rome's Challenge has more than enough examples. There are multiple accusations against Rome by Rome that Adventists can only stand by and watch helplessly. Some latter-day Romanists have attempted to deny ownership of the self-incrimination, but the job was outstanding.
On the basis of the Bible, affirmed by the actions of Rome through history, believers will and should denounce the arrogance of man claiming to take upon himself the powers to change God's law.
Excerpts from Rome's Challenge.
The first proposition needs little proof. The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. We say by virtue of her divine mission, because He who called Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath," endowed her with His own power to teach, "He that heareth you, heareth me;" commanded all who believe in Him to hear her, under penalty of being placed with the "heathen and publican;" and promised to be with her to the end of the world. She holds her charter as the teacher from him- a charter as infallible as perpetual. The Protestant world at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the Church's right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the holy Ghost without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world."
“Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.”
From The Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. 4, “The Ten Commandments”, 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 Online edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
“Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)...The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day...He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy...”
From Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.
“Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”
From John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.
“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The (Roman Catholic) Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.”
For more, see http://www.godssabbathtruth.com/SabbathStatementsByTheCatholicChurch.pdf
The Catholic Church strongly claims all these ten items. What do Seventh-Day Adventists say to these assertions? They quickly deny all the first nine, say they are all lies, without any foundation in fact.
Wrong again. There is ample biblical evidence that these assertions are false, and Adventists have presented these evidences over and over.
-
Prof ad hominem in his element. Why don't you face me like a man instead of calling Nuff Sed names? I have provided links, documents and passages where Rome says they changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. You can either agree with them or provide proof to the contrary.
I'm not keen on debating you on anything let alone "the only true church" controversy. Once you are cleansed of ad hominem we can talk.
-
Nuff Sed,
You can always deny you are Nuff Sed and that will be it. In fact, I will apologize for every count I have called you Nuff Sed when you are not!
EVERY source you can imagine, every -paedia, every authority, including scriptures shows Sunday worship predating Catholicism. How do I sit and debate origins of aliens when there has never been proof of their existence? you THINK by inquiry, aksin questions;
1. Was there a 'change'?
2. Who 'changed' what?
3. When was what 'changed'?
In the entire universe, NOBODY save Jews was keen on keeping Sabbath any more than they was keen on keeping the rest of the Feasts AFTER Pentecost.
Imagine some bazungu claiming that Kenia got Independence in 2003. Now imagine on the basis of that claim insisting that Kenia got independence in 2003 as opposed to 1963. I would prescribe solitary confinement in Mathari for them. I would also strongly insist on sterilizing them to clean the human genetic pool of their schizophrenia
Prof ad hominem in his element. Why don't you face me like a man instead of calling Nuff Sed names? I have provided links, documents and passages where Rome says they changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. You can either agree with them or provide proof to the contrary.
I'm not keen on debating you on anything let alone "the only true church" controversy. Once you are cleansed of ad hominem we can talk.
-
Nuff Sed,
You can always deny you are Nuff Sed and that will be it. In fact, I will apologize for every count I have called you Nuff Sed when you are not!
EVERY source you can imagine, every -paedia, every authority, including scriptures shows Sunday worship predating Catholicism. How do I sit and debate origins of aliens when there has never been proof of their existence? you THINK by inquiry, aksin questions;
I'm not interested in sideshows. You either address me or another. Please show the authorities you refer to and the Bible verses that demonstrate Sunday worship. While at it, show where Saturday (Sabbath) worship of the 4th commandment was abrogated. I'm asking this for the umpteenth time.
1. Was there a 'change'?
There was a change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. The quotes from Rome acknowledge it, and today every Sunday most Christians including pseudo-protestants go to church instead of Saturday. Protestants even on this forum have made the suicidal argument that the new Sabbath is Sunday, the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross, the 10 Commandments are not different from ceremonial laws, Jesus rose on Sunday so we worship Sunday and so on.
2. Who 'changed' what?
Rome says they made the change. I'll repeat from previous post.
From Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.
“Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”
From John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.
“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The (Roman Catholic) Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.”
3. When was what 'changed'?
AD 364 at the Council of Laodicea.
In the entire universe, NOBODY save Jews was keen on keeping Sabbath any more than they was keen on keeping the rest of the Feasts AFTER Pentecost.
Nobody, really? From where do you get that impression? How about this?
Acts 13
13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Among those in Paul's company were Gentiles.
Acts 13:1
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
-
Nuff Sed,
Thinking for the indoctrinated is nightmarish but you are trying. Well done!
Was there a change?
1. There was no command to worship on any day of the week. Paul makes it clear that he is INDIFFERENT to esteeming any day ABOVE any other or all alike and he will have nobody judge us. How could a man who esteemed Saturday above any other weekday utter thus?
2. The Sabbath has always remained Saturday. Regular Sunday meetings commemorating resurrection of our Lord don't make Sunday Sabbath. Christians with no obligation to esteem any day above the other settled on Sunday as their preferred day of fellowship
3. Like Paul, I don't judge you for keeping Saturday nor Christians in Muslim countries for fellowship ping on Fridays. It don't matter to Holy Spirit, to Paul. Why should it matter to me?
4. Christians departed from Sabbath keeping in the same way they departed from Passover, Pentecost,Weeks, Tabernacles. And circumcision. Those are shadows long fulfilled in Christ. They are as guilty of Sabbath breaking as they are of failure to circumcise
Who changed what?
Am glad your only proof is 'Rome says'.
See that's your problem. You follow hearsay. Go bck to my example. Would claim of 2003 as the yer we attained Independence make it so?
No, because we have vast proof outside Catholicism that shows Sunday Worship predating Rome. Of course your definition of Rome and its age would be contested by kadame but it's clear that Sunday worship is as old as the church.
Once again I wish to remind you that after the resurrection of Jesus, after his ascension, after Pentecost, the then church which was largely Jewish persisted in Jewishness and attempted to impose some of this on the Gentile believers. This ocassioned the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.Even AFTER the Council, we have the Jews keeping their feasts, circumcising, sacrifices,praying at specific hours,taking Nazirite vows, things we BOTH agree are not binding as they was nailed to the cross. It follows that Sabbath keeping as recorded among the Jews in the early church is no more proof of the persisting of the Sabbath commandment into the New Covenant any more than Paul keeping Passover is.
When was what changed?
364AD the magic year.
You have stepped outside scriptures into secular history. Let's use history to interrogate your claim.
Did we have Christians BEFORE 364AD who were keeping the Sabbath only to have their liberties violently revoked during this year? Obviously if you can collect information on 364AD, you should know what was going down in 363AD and before
Nuff Sed,
You can always deny you are Nuff Sed and that will be it. In fact, I will apologize for every count I have called you Nuff Sed when you are not!
EVERY source you can imagine, every -paedia, every authority, including scriptures shows Sunday worship predating Catholicism. How do I sit and debate origins of aliens when there has never been proof of their existence? you THINK by inquiry, aksin questions;
I'm not interested in sideshows. You either address me or another. Please show the authorities you refer to and the Bible verses that demonstrate Sunday worship. While at it, show where Saturday (Sabbath) worship of the 4th commandment was abrogated. I'm asking this for the umpteenth time.
1. Was there a 'change'?
There was a change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. The quotes from Rome acknowledge it, and today every Sunday most Christians including pseudo-protestants go to church instead of Saturday. Protestants even on this forum have made the suicidal argument that the new Sabbath is Sunday, the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross, the 10 Commandments are not different from ceremonial laws, Jesus rose on Sunday so we worship Sunday and so on.
2. Who 'changed' what?
Rome says they made the change. I'll repeat from previous post.
From Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.
“Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”
From John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.
“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The (Roman Catholic) Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.”
3. When was what 'changed'?
AD 364 at the Council of Laodicea.
In the entire universe, NOBODY save Jews was keen on keeping Sabbath any more than they was keen on keeping the rest of the Feasts AFTER Pentecost.
Nobody, really? From where do you get that impression? How about this?
Acts 13
13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Among those in Paul's company were Gentiles.
Acts 13:1
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
-
Why is Nuff Sed determined against common sense, history,facts and logic to finger Rome for 'changing Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday'?
Daniel 7:25 (KJV)
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time
This verse. Daniel prophesied of a wicked ruler and We are told he would attempt to 'change times and laws'. Scanning the entire history, they lack anybody fitting the bill. The closest fit is 'change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday' in 364AD, and of course whoever did that MUST be the wicked King Daniel spoke of.
Debunking this theory knocks the wind out of Nuff Sed's sails. Her entire theology premised on identity of Daniel's wicked ruler crumbles. Besides, whoever claimed that there was a change in 364AD of the laws of God is found to be a liar. This is the same person Nuff Sed sect claims is the 'spirit of prophecy'. The single-most powerful influence on her theology,Ellen Gould White is called out.
Nuff Sed is left with an empty shell of a religion. For this, she must defend her 'God's laws were changed in 364AD' with all her might
-
1. There was no command to worship on any day of the week. Paul makes it clear that he is INDIFFERENT to esteeming any day ABOVE any other or all alike and he will have nobody judge us. How could a man who esteemed Saturday above any other weekday utter thus?
You seem to forget how far this thread has come. The argument for Sunday worship by protestants is cyclical but suicidal still. If there was no command to worship on a particular day, what have you been arguing about?
Exodus 20
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
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:
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.
2. The Sabbath has always remained Saturday. Regular Sunday meetings commemorating resurrection of our Lord don't make Sunday Sabbath. Christians with no obligation to esteem any day above the other settled on Sunday as their preferred day of fellowship
You have conveniently forgotten the posts in which I showed Rome calling Sunday the Sabbath and protestantism following blindly like a sheep to the slaughter. Do you want me to repost?
From the Westminster Confession of Faith
7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.
8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe a holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
3. Like Paul, I don't judge you for keeping Saturday nor Christians in Muslim countries for fellowship ping on Fridays. It don't matter to Holy Spirit, to Paul. Why should it matter to me?
The point is not to judge (condemn), but believers are called to choose between right and wrong. To choose what is sin and what is not is also called judgement, which is what Paul is referring to here just like Joshua asked Israel to choose this day whom you will serve. Nobody condemns you for choosing to sin, but to tell the truth apart from lies is a call of duty (Josh 24:15).
4. Christians departed from Sabbath keeping in the same way they departed from Passover, Pentecost,Weeks, Tabernacles. And circumcision. Those are shadows long fulfilled in Christ. They are as guilty of Sabbath breaking as they are of failure to circumcise
I ask again, please show where and how this happened. Specifically show even one Bible verse abrogating the fourth commandment. Contrariwise, I have shown verses demonstrating Sabbath (Saturday worship) in apostolic times. I'm aware you have thrown in the words "apostolic practice" to fire the suicidal argument. What is Acts 13 saying about apostolic practice concerning the Sabbath?
Failure to keep circumcision is well explained by Paul. Where does he or any other apostle show the same with the Sabbath? Can you show anything that makes circumcision equal to the Sabbath commandment or any other of the Ten Commandments?
I'm also conscious that you attempted in a previous post to claim that NOBODY (your emphasis) kept the Sabbath save the Jews. Acts 13 denounced you in public and you had to run back to Rome to fish another suicidal argument. In the process, you have called Adventists names, lampooned Ellen G. White and generally attempted to ruin a good discussion. What Rome has done it has openly admitted. Has it occurred to you that you are weeping louder than the bereaved?
-
Why is Nuff Sed determined against common sense, history,facts and logic to finger Rome for 'changing Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday'?
Daniel 7:25 (KJV)
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time
This verse. Daniel prophesied of a wicked ruler and We are told he would attempt to 'change times and laws'. Scanning the entire history, they lack anybody fitting the bill. The closest fit is 'change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday' in 364AD, and of course whoever did that MUST be the wicked King Daniel spoke of.
Debunking this theory knocks the wind out of Nuff Sed's sails. Her entire theology premised on identity of Daniel's wicked ruler crumbles. Besides, whoever claimed that there was a change in 364AD of the laws of God is found to be a liar. This is the same person Nuff Sed sect claims is the 'spirit of prophecy'. The single-most powerful influence on her theology,Ellen Gould White is called out.
Nuff Sed is left with an empty shell of a religion. For this, she must defend her 'God's laws were changed in 364AD' with all her might
Typically you throw in NuffSed when faced with the bitter truth. Daniel 7:25 is a good point to raise. If the Sabbath change is not a fulfillment of Daniel 7:25, what is? What is your understanding of Daniel's prophecy?
http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm
The Council of Laodicea, Canon 29
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
The express teaching of Christ and St. Paul prevented the early Christians from falling into the excesses of Jewish Sabbatarianism in the observance of the Sunday, and yet we find St. Cæsarius of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day. He especially insisted on the people hearing the whole of the Mass and not leaving the church after the Epistle and the Gospel had been read. He taught them that they should come to Vespers and spend the rest of the day in pious reading and prayer. As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday.
You have stepped outside scriptures into secular history. Let's use history to interrogate your claim.
And now you claim I have gone outside the Bible into secular history. See what history has to say about the Sabbath from the links I've posted. Secular history confirms that Greeks, just as noted in Acts 13, indeed kept the Sabbath on Saturday. History and the Bible have conspired against lies.
Canon 16
The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.
Before the arrangement of the Ecclesiastical Psalmody was settled, neither the Gospel nor the other Scriptures were accustomed to be read on the Sabbath. But out of regard to the canons which forbade fasting or kneeling on the Sabbath, there were no services, so that there might be as much feasting as possible. This the fathers prohibit, and decree that on the Sabbath the whole ecclesiastical office shall be said.
Neander (Kirchengesch., 2d ed., vol. iij., p. 565 et seq.) suggests in addition to the interpretation just given another, viz.: that it was the custom in many parts of the ancient Church to keep every Saturday as a feast in commemoration of the Creation. Neander also suggests that possibly some Judaizers read on the Sabbath only the Old Testament; he, however, himself remarks that in this case ????????? and ?????? ?????? would require the article.
Van Espen.
Among the Greeks the Sabbath was kept exactly as the Lord's day except so far as the cessation of work was concerned, wherefore the Council wishes that, as on Sundays, after the other lessons there should follow the Gospel.
For it is evident that by the intention of the Church the whole Divine Office was designed for the edification and instruction of the people, and especially was this the case on feast days, when the people were apt to be present in large numbers.
Here we may note the origin of our present [Western] discipline, by which on Sundays and feast days the Gospel is wont to be read with the other Scriptures in the canonical hours, while such is not the case on ferial days, or in the order for ferias and simples.
-
Nuff Sed,
You are all over.
I could have easily said there is no commnd to keep the feasts and you would immediately flash Leviticus. You know what I mean. I mean there is NO command to observe Sabbath for Christians any more than there is one to observe Jewish feasts.
Christian worshipping on Sunday is NO COMMANDMENT; it is a tradition, there is nothing you do on Sunday that you can't do on any other day. God is indifferent to days. Comprende? This thread started with you turning green with envy over usage of the word Lord's Day. I have produced enough proof tha t this was referring to Sunday both in and outside the scriptures.
Rome calling Thursday Sabbath don't make it Sabbath. They call Mary a perpetual virgin. Do you think Mary retained her virginity while you are told it remained UNTIL Jesus was born and she had other kids?
Tell me, why did Paul keep the feasts yet you claim they were ceremonial and were nailed to the cross?
Acts 18:21 (KJV)
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus
Why did Paul take the Nazirite Vow and offer sacrifices yet Christ the ultimate sacrifice had been offered? Did he miss the memo?
Acts 21:26 (ESV)
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.
A Jew keeping Sabbath,circumcising or taking Nazirite Vow is no cue for Nuff Sed to do so. In fact it is extreme hypocrisy for SDAs to throw around Sabbath keeping by the early church as proof of continuity of the Sabbath commnd while ignoring all other Jewishness that persisted.
Look at Paul circumcising a half-Jew Timothy (Acts 16:3) and then writing an epistle to the effect that circumcision AVAILETH nothing (Galatians 5:6)
So, Nuff Sed, at what point was your so-called 'ceremonial laws' abrogated?
1. There was no command to worship on any day of the week. Paul makes it clear that he is INDIFFERENT to esteeming any day ABOVE any other or all alike and he will have nobody judge us. How could a man who esteemed Saturday above any other weekday utter thus?
You seem to forget how far this thread has come. The argument for Sunday worship by protestants is cyclical but suicidal still. If there was no command to worship on a particular day, what have you been arguing about?
Exodus 20
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
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:
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.
2. The Sabbath has always remained Saturday. Regular Sunday meetings commemorating resurrection of our Lord don't make Sunday Sabbath. Christians with no obligation to esteem any day above the other settled on Sunday as their preferred day of fellowship
You have conveniently forgotten the posts in which I showed Rome calling Sunday the Sabbath and protestantism following blindly like a sheep to the slaughter. Do you want me to repost?
From the Westminster Confession of Faith
7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.
8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe a holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
3. Like Paul, I don't judge you for keeping Saturday nor Christians in Muslim countries for fellowship ping on Fridays. It don't matter to Holy Spirit, to Paul. Why should it matter to me?
The point is not to judge (condemn), but believers are called to choose between right and wrong. To choose what is sin and what is not is also called judgement, which is what Paul is referring to here just like Joshua asked Israel to choose this day whom you will serve. Nobody condemns you for choosing to sin, but to tell the truth apart from lies is a call of duty (Josh 24:15).
4. Christians departed from Sabbath keeping in the same way they departed from Passover, Pentecost,Weeks, Tabernacles. And circumcision. Those are shadows long fulfilled in Christ. They are as guilty of Sabbath breaking as they are of failure to circumcise
I ask again, please show where and how this happened. Specifically show even one Bible verse abrogating the fourth commandment. Contrariwise, I have shown verses demonstrating Sabbath (Saturday worship) in apostolic times. I'm aware you have thrown in the words "apostolic practice" to fire the suicidal argument. What is Acts 13 saying about apostolic practice concerning the Sabbath?
Failure to keep circumcision is well explained by Paul. Where does he or any other apostle show the same with the Sabbath? Can you show anything that makes circumcision equal to the Sabbath commandment or any other of the Ten Commandments?
I'm also conscious that you attempted in a previous post to claim that NOBODY (your emphasis) kept the Sabbath save the Jews. Acts 13 denounced you in public and you had to run back to Rome to fish another suicidal argument. In the process, you have called Adventists names, lampooned Ellen G. White and generally attempted to ruin a good discussion. What Rome has done it has openly admitted. Has it occurred to you that you are weeping louder than the bereaved?
-
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
The obligation of rest from work on Sunday remained somewhat indefinite for several centuries. A Council of Laodicea, held toward the end of the fourth century, was content to prescribe that on the Lord's Day the faithful were to abstain from work as far as possible. At the beginning of the sixth century St. Caesarius, as we have seen, and others showed an inclination to apply the law of the Jewish Sabbath to the observance of the Christian Sunday. The Council held at Orléans in 538 reprobated this tendency as Jewish and non-Christian. From the eight century the law began to be formulated as it exists at the present day, and the local councils forbade servile work, public buying and selling, pleading in the law courts, and the public and solemn taking of oaths.
-
Nuff Sed,
You don't fit your prophetess' madness into a prophecy;
EGW: "I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week: for he was to change time and laws." A Word to the Little Flock, "A Vision, April 7, 1847", p. 18.
EGW: "In a view given June 27, 1850, My accompanying angel said, "Time is almost finished. ..."The Pope had changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day of the week." Early Writings, "Mark of the Beast", p. 65.
http://www.truthorfables.com/Pope_Did_Not_Change_Sabbath_Sunday.htm
Which Gentiles kept Sabbath? It was EXPEDIENCY
https://www.gci.org/law/otl12
Why is Nuff Sed determined against common sense, history,facts and logic to finger Rome for 'changing Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday'?
Daniel 7:25 (KJV)
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time
This verse. Daniel prophesied of a wicked ruler and We are told he would attempt to 'change times and laws'. Scanning the entire history, they lack anybody fitting the bill. The closest fit is 'change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday' in 364AD, and of course whoever did that MUST be the wicked King Daniel spoke of.
Debunking this theory knocks the wind out of Nuff Sed's sails. Her entire theology premised on identity of Daniel's wicked ruler crumbles. Besides, whoever claimed that there was a change in 364AD of the laws of God is found to be a liar. This is the same person Nuff Sed sect claims is the 'spirit of prophecy'. The single-most powerful influence on her theology,Ellen Gould White is called out.
Nuff Sed is left with an empty shell of a religion. For this, she must defend her 'God's laws were changed in 364AD' with all her might
Typically you throw in NuffSed when faced with the bitter truth. Daniel 7:25 is a good point to raise. If the Sabbath change is not a fulfillment of Daniel 7:25, what is? What is your understanding of Daniel's prophecy?
http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm
The Council of Laodicea, Canon 29
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
The express teaching of Christ and St. Paul prevented the early Christians from falling into the excesses of Jewish Sabbatarianism in the observance of the Sunday, and yet we find St. Cæsarius of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day. He especially insisted on the people hearing the whole of the Mass and not leaving the church after the Epistle and the Gospel had been read. He taught them that they should come to Vespers and spend the rest of the day in pious reading and prayer. As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday.
You have stepped outside scriptures into secular history. Let's use history to interrogate your claim.
And now you claim I have gone outside the Bible into secular history. See what history has to say about the Sabbath from the links I've posted. Secular history confirms that Greeks, just as noted in Acts 13, indeed kept the Sabbath on Saturday. History and the Bible have conspired against lies.
Canon 16
The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.
Before the arrangement of the Ecclesiastical Psalmody was settled, neither the Gospel nor the other Scriptures were accustomed to be read on the Sabbath. But out of regard to the canons which forbade fasting or kneeling on the Sabbath, there were no services, so that there might be as much feasting as possible. This the fathers prohibit, and decree that on the Sabbath the whole ecclesiastical office shall be said.
Neander (Kirchengesch., 2d ed., vol. iij., p. 565 et seq.) suggests in addition to the interpretation just given another, viz.: that it was the custom in many parts of the ancient Church to keep every Saturday as a feast in commemoration of the Creation. Neander also suggests that possibly some Judaizers read on the Sabbath only the Old Testament; he, however, himself remarks that in this case ????????? and ?????? ?????? would require the article.
Van Espen.
Among the Greeks the Sabbath was kept exactly as the Lord's day except so far as the cessation of work was concerned, wherefore the Council wishes that, as on Sundays, after the other lessons there should follow the Gospel.
For it is evident that by the intention of the Church the whole Divine Office was designed for the edification and instruction of the people, and especially was this the case on feast days, when the people were apt to be present in large numbers.
Here we may note the origin of our present [Western] discipline, by which on Sundays and feast days the Gospel is wont to be read with the other Scriptures in the canonical hours, while such is not the case on ferial days, or in the order for ferias and simples.
-
You are not helping yourself. A single verse proving that the Sabbath commandment was abrogated will go along way to persuade believers to accept Sunday worship. As usual, you shoot yourself in the foot when you say "Christian worshipping on Sunday is NO COMMANDMENT; it is a tradition...." in a thread where you have cited "apostolic practice" as the basis of Sunday worship. Are you abandoning that suicidal argument now?
About what Paul did (once, mark you) by keeping a particular feast or purifying himself, have you not read John 20:19?
John 20
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Paul circumcised Timothy and purified himself for the same reason, with the intent of removing any barriers against the gospel.
I see you have now read and accepted what Rome says it did with the fourth commandment. You have no business weeping louder than them when their lies are called out, unless you personally want to fulfill the prophecy of the union between Rome, apostate Protestantism, the state and spirituality in the last days.
Finally, we see a protestant announcing in spite of himself that he is following Catholic tradition rather than the Bible. On what basis do you call yourself a protestant then?
-
Nuff Sed,
Unlike you who see the Beast in those esteeming a particular day, am far more blessed with intelligence; any day you esteem means NOTHING.
Holy Spirit demonstrates abrogation by having no man judge me over sabbaths,new moons or feasts. Note none of these was invented by man. God says, 'I commanded all these but not anymore'
Colossians 2:16 (ESV)
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
Holy Spirit by the pen of Paul shows abrogation by telling me that esteeming ALL days alike or some more than others is NOTHING and I should make up my mind on this. Imagine if Nuff Sed fornicating/lesbianism was all up to her convictions :o
Romans 14:5 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
I know you did a quick Google search on the Nazirite vow and in ignorance you ran into the fickle defense that the frequency of the act dictates its weight. That is just about the most harebrained hermeneutic I have ever heard. How many revelations did John have? Or Paul's encounter with Christ, how many were they? Peter, how many instances did he need to witness of Gentiles being baptized with the Holy Ghost before concluding that God is not respecter of persons?
Note Paul is recorded having taken the Nazirite vow TWICE and in the other instance, he was very far away from Jerusalem. Red your bible and quit substituting your devotion with Google and SDA apologist BS.
Acts 18:18 (ESV)
18 After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow
Acts 20:21 (ESV)
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.
Slither back to the SDA garbage bin and explain to me why he was so DETERMINED to keep a feast that was abrogated, why he took the Vow the first time, and what frequency makes a practice doctrine
Repeat, a Jew keeping Sabbath is no cue for Nuff Sed to keep Sabbath any more than Paul taking a Nazirite Vow is. I know your head is spinning, take your time to prayerfully digest what I have just shared
You are not helping yourself. A single verse proving that the Sabbath commandment was abrogated will go along way to persuade believers to accept Sunday worship. As usual, you shoot yourself in the foot when you say "Christian worshipping on Sunday is NO COMMANDMENT; it is a tradition...." in a thread where you have cited "apostolic practice" as the basis of Sunday worship. Are you abandoning that suicidal argument now?
About what Paul did (once, mark you) by keeping a particular feast or purifying himself, have you not read John 20:19?
John 20
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Paul circumcised Timothy and purified himself for the same reason, with the intent of removing any barriers against the gospel.
I see you have now read and accepted what Rome says it did with the fourth commandment. You have no busines weeping louder than them when their lies are called out, unless you personally want to fulfill the prophecy of the union between Rome, Protestantism, the state and spirituality in the last days.
-
I'll remind you. You do not help your argument when you thrown in a zillion ad hominems.
I ask you again, any believer keeping the Sabbath can stand and say they do so on the basis of:
1. Genesis 2 - God rested on the Sabbath (Saturday), giving the Sabbath its meaning of rest.
2. The fourth commandment stating "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" - Exodus 20:8-11
3. What Jesus Christ did "as was His custom" - Luke 4:16
4. What Paul and other apostles did (biblical, scriptural apostolic practice or custom) - Acts 13:43-45
Rome says they keep Sunday because they claim have authority to transfer solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. In this regard they follow tradition (apostolic practice) and some unscriptural practices of "holy Fathers". They condemn (excommunicate, anathemize, vaporize) anybody keeping the Sabbath and expressly command that from 364AD anybody found keeping the Sabbath will be in trouble. Keep Sunday instead, or else.....
You have admitted after a meandering suicidal argument with many fishing expeditions that you observe Sunday in following tradition, just like Rome.
Now you claim the Holy Spirit has made you do it. Where in the Bible have you seen the Holy Spirit contradicting the commandment of God that He wrote with His own finger? Might you be under the influence of another spirit that also drives you to throw in ad hominem at every turn? Repent brother before that spirit leads you into the abyss.
-
I'll remind you. You do not help your argument when you thrown in a zillion ad hominem.
When you want to rebrand, try and be original. Use some brains as well. You gave yourself away as Nuff Sed,who do we blame?
I ask you again, any believer keeping the Sabbath can stand and say they do so on the basis of:
1. Genesis 2 - God rested on the Sabbath (Saturday), giving the Sabbath its meaning of rest.
2. The fourth commandment stating "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" - Exodus 20:8-11
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The SAME God who rested on Sabbath and sanctified it, and commanded us to keep it holy says, 'nobody should judge you over keeping the sabbath,new moons nor feasts'. But you may have a point if this is Paul's verbal diarrhea ;
Colossians 2:16-17 (KJV)
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ
What a tragedy,Sabbatarians are still chasing shadows (no pun) over 1900 years since these words was penned. There is a spirit called Deaf and Dumb
3. What Jesus Christ did "as was His custom" - Luke 4:16
Galatians 4:4-5 (ESV)
4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Jesus was born UNDER the Law, he was bound by the same Law till he nailed it to the cross. In fact he kept the Passover under 24 hours to his crucifixion 8). Not only did he keep the Sabbath, he also kept the feasts. Consistency in following your logic should lead you to circumcising your sons at day 8,keeping Jewish feasts and so forth
4. What Paul and other apostles did (biblical, scriptural apostolic practice or custom) - Acts 13:43-45
It is hypocritical to pretend to follow the apostles on Sabbath and then ignore them on other Jewish stuff they did. They went to the temple, kept feasts, offered sacrifices,took vows and circumcised
Rome says they keep Sunday because they claim have authority to transfer solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. In this regard they follow tradition (apostolic practice) and some unscriptural practices of "holy Fathers".
I have always believed am engaging a grown up, a woman, a mother so I was not expecting to repeat me. Nevertheless, for the love of Jesus Christ, Rome also says Mary is a perpetual virgin
They condemn (excommunicate, anathemize, vaporize) anybody keeping the Sabbath and expressly command that from 364AD anybody found keeping the Sabbath will be in trouble. Keep Sunday instead, or else.....
JUDAIZE is the word you need to learn today
You have admitted after a meandering suicidal argument with many fishing expeditions that you observe Sunday in following tradition, just like Rome.
Sunday fellowship is a tradition, I have never said it was anything else. It is expedient for vooke to fellowship on this day seeing most believers fellowship on Sunday. Otherwise it is a normal day like any other
Now you claim the Holy Spirit has made you do it.
That's a false accusation. Cease,desist and repent. The devil is the father of all lies. He your daddy?
Where in the Bible have you seen the Holy Spirit contradicting the commandment of God that He wrote with His own finger?
If God who gave circumcision and the Feasts for an everlasting covenant saying that they availeth NOTHING is a contradiction, you have a point.
Please drop that retarded 10-commandment vs the-rest BS
Might you be under the influence of another spirit that also drives you to throw in ad hominem at every turn? Repent brother before that spirit leads you into the abyss.
I find it decidedly ironical that you believe in spiritual gifts especially prophecy yet the ONLY person since John,for over 1900 years,who has ever had the gift is one EGW. The believers was sailing rudderless until she happened onto the scene. Funny enough, Mormons believe Joseph Smith was IT. Christian Scientists know not of nobody but Mary Eddy Baker. Can you see the similarities your sect share with Mormons and Christian Scientists?
You are following seducing spirits. read this verse again
1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth
The Spirit is speaking. Are you listening?
-
vooke,
I am inclined to believe the change happened in the early years of the church. Before the Protestant Reformation. It should be rather plain which group instigated the change.
-
Holy Spirit by the pen of Paul shows abrogation by telling me that esteeming ALL days alike or some more than others is NOTHING and I should make up my mind on this. Imagine if Nuff Sed fornicating/lesbianism was all up to her convictions :o
Romans 14:5 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
I'm convinced you are writing under the influence of another spirit (speaking ad hominem in your ears as you write). Scriptures show us that the Holy Spirit can in under no circumstances contradict the word of God. Here you are telling us that some spirit has instructed you to sin (disobedience to express commandments is sin).
Expediency is no excuse for disobedience.
Jesus was born UNDER the Law, he was bound by the same Law till he nailed it to the cross.
I'll address the excuse of "Jesus was born under the law." It's what English calls a lame excuse. First, you need to clarify what you mean by born under the law. If you mean that he was subject to the law (and, by implication, claim that is the reason he kept the Sabbath), then you risk running into a theological slippery slope. It means, logically, that Jesus did not murder because he was under the law, and therefore, after the cross, it was perfectly alright to murder, steal, fornicate, abuse parents etc. You see why the verse is inapplicable?
-
Nuff Sed,
Licked your wounds properly? Welcome back.
When Jesus was tempted by Satan, he resorted to the Word. So, you may take cue and resort to the same to refute what am saying or the spirit behind it. Calling me demon possessed is not helping either of us; if you who is 'Spirit-filled' cannot withstand my wisdom, then clearly you lack the power of God in you. A better idea is to cast out this spirit :)
The Holy Spirit can never and has never CONTRADICTED God. Holy Spirit is God and God can't contradict Himself. There is no contradiction nowhere save in the annals of deranged EGW and her blind sheeple.
The Spirit of the Living God says, 'let no man judge you over feasts,new,moon or sabbath'.
Jesus was born UNDER THE LAW. It means exactly that; as a Jew he was bound by the Law of Moses,the Torah. Take all your time in the SDA sewers and try and refute that.
Let me help you; murder and robbery with violence are illegal in Kenia. This means committing the same outside Kenia, the Kenian Laws are inapplicable. You are in a different jurisdiction. You are bound by the laws of the land say UG. Now, the two are also illegal in UG. So a Kenian committing either in UG while they may escape Kenian Laws, the UG Laws will deal with the, mercilessly.
Substitute Kenia and UG with the two covenants. Killing or adultery is sin in both NT and OT. Circumcision is a legal requirement of the OT but not of NT. Ditto Sabbath keeping 8)
Holy Spirit by the pen of Paul shows abrogation by telling me that esteeming ALL days alike or some more than others is NOTHING and I should make up my mind on this. Imagine if Nuff Sed fornicating/lesbianism was all up to her convictions :o
Romans 14:5 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
I'm convinced you are writing under the influence of another spirit (speaking ad hominem in your ears as you write). Scriptures show us that the Holy Spirit can in under no circumstances contradict the word of God. Here you are telling us that some spirit has instructed you to sin (disobedience to express commandments is sin).
Expediency is no excuse for disobedience.
Jesus was born UNDER the Law, he was bound by the same Law till he nailed it to the cross.
I'll address the excuse of "Jesus was born under the law." It's what English calls a lame excuse. First, you need to clarify what you mean by born under the law. If you mean that he was subject to the law (and, by implication, claim that is the reason he kept the Sabbath), then you risk running into a theological slippery slope. It means, logically, that Jesus did not murder because he was under the law, and therefore, after the cross, it was perfectly alright to murder, steal, fornicate, abuse parents etc. You see why the verse is inapplicable?
-
Selective misapplication of verses to support Sunday worship
1. Colossians 2:16-17 (KJV)
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ
The emphasis is on the "shadow of things to come". The sabbath days referred to here are the ceremonial sabbaths that could fall on any day of the week (e.g. Passover on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, which could be on any day of the week). I have already explained it in a previous post on this thread that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is different from ceremonial sabbaths (small 's') which is what Paul meant here. Compare various translations to see the difference.
2. Galatians 4:4-5 (ESV)
4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
If you apply this to the Sabbath commandment, you must also apply it to other commandments like adultery, theft, idolatry and covetousness for consistency. In other words, you are saying Jesus did not steal before His crucifixion and after He was nailed to the cross, it was now ok to steal. That interpretation creates a theological conundrum you can't solve.
3.Romans 14:5 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
This verse tells nothing about the fourth commandment. Very strange coming from a person who consistently esteems Sunday above all other days.
4. Paul kept feasts and vows.
Acts 18:21 (KJV)
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus
Acts 21:26 (ESV)
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.
This verse shoots the Sunday keeping protestant in his own foot. Paul circumcised Timothy, kept Jewish feasts and vows (twice, I'm corrected) to please the Jews and to remove any impediment of spreading the gospel among the Jews. It was not a commandment and does not amount to an abrogation of the fourth commandment. If it were so, we'd also say that evangelists must travel by ship, be shipwrecked and must be stoned half to death (all that happened to Paul). Not so with the fourth commandment. In Acts 13 the Bible records he kept the Sabbath with Gentiles (demolishing your earlier argument that NOBODY but Jews kept the Sabbath). There is no record of him doing so to please the Jews. In fact, Gentiles keeping the Sabbath in the synagogue (although they also met at other places, further demolishing the argument of expediency) was completely unacceptable to the Jews. Paul deals with the issue of circumcision adequately elsewhere and we have touched on this.
-
Nuff Sed,
Licked your wounds properly? Welcome back.
When Jesus was tempted by Satan, he resorted to the Word. So, you may take cue and resort to the same to refute what am saying or the spirit behind it. Calling me demon possessed is not helping either of us; if you who is 'Spirit-filled' cannot withstand my wisdom, then clearly you lack the power of God in you.
The Holy Spirit can never and has never CONTRADICTED God. Holy Spirit is God and God can't contradict Himself. There is no contradiction nowhere save in the annals of deranged EGW and her blind sheeple.
The Spirit of the Living God says, 'let no man judge you over feasts,new,moon or sabbath'.
Jesus was born UNDER THE LAW. It means exactly that; as a Jew he was bound by the Law of Moses,the Torah.
Take your time in the SDA sewers and try and refute that
Holy Spirit by the pen of Paul shows abrogation by telling me that esteeming ALL days alike or some more than others is NOTHING and I should make up my mind on this. Imagine if Nuff Sed fornicating/lesbianism was all up to her convictions :o
Romans 14:5 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
I'm convinced you are writing under the influence of another spirit (speaking ad hominem in your ears as you write). Scriptures show us that the Holy Spirit can in under no circumstances contradict the word of God. Here you are telling us that some spirit has instructed you to sin (disobedience to express commandments is sin).
Expediency is no excuse for disobedience.
Jesus was born UNDER the Law, he was bound by the same Law till he nailed it to the cross.
I'll address the excuse of "Jesus was born under the law." It's what English calls a lame excuse. First, you need to clarify what you mean by born under the law. If you mean that he was subject to the law (and, by implication, claim that is the reason he kept the Sabbath), then you risk running into a theological slippery slope. It means, logically, that Jesus did not murder because he was under the law, and therefore, after the cross, it was perfectly alright to murder, steal, fornicate, abuse parents etc. You see why the verse is inapplicable?
You are possessed by the spirit of ad hominem. I have not seen anywhere that the Spirit of God inspires believers to abuse others (a breeze through this thread clearly shows spirit possession).
-
Ok.
Now, cast it out
You are possessed by the spirit of ad hominem. I have not seen anywhere that the Spirit of God inspires believers to abuse others (a breeze through this thread clearly shows spirit possession).
-
Selective misapplication verses to support Sunday worship
1. Colossians 2:16-17 (KJV)
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ
The emphasis is on the "shadow of things to come". The sabbath days referred to here are the ceremonial sabbaths that could fall on any day of the week (e.g. Passover on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, which could be on any day of the week). I have already explained it in a previous post on this thread that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is different from ceremonial sabbaths (small 's') which is what Paul meant here. Compare various translations to see the difference.
Wacha upus.
1. The 'shadow of things to come' is the descriptor of the things you have just been told that nobody should judge you on. Sabbath is included here
2. S or s is arbitrary.
3. Besides, if sabbaths refer to the feasts, what are the feasts? It extremely retarded to imagine that Paul is saying , ' don't nobody judge you about the Feast of Unleavened Bread OR it he sabbath of the feast of unleavened bread'. A feast would entail ALL days inside that feast including its sabbath.
The order is very clear; don't be judged on
1. Annual rituals- holy days/feasts
2.Monthly rituals- new moons
3. Weekly rituals- sabbaths
Compare this order as mentioned elsewhere
Isaiah 1:14 (ESV)
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts
Hosea 2:11 (ESV)
11 And I will put an end to all her mirth,
her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths,
1 Chronicles 23:31 (ESV)
31 and whenever burnt offerings were offered to the Lord on Sabbaths, new moons, and feast days, according to the number required of them, regularly before the Lord
2 Chronicles 2:4 (ESV)
4 Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the Lord my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him, and for the regular arrangement of the showbread, and for burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths and the new moons and the appointed feasts of the Lord our God, as ordained forever for Israel.
2 Chronicles 8:13 (ESV)
13 as the duty of each day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts—the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths
The last verse is actually quite generous in telling us what the feasts was. Nuff Sed indoctrinated brains is telling her that because we have plural Sabbaths, it is referring to SOME days of the three feasts
2. Galatians 4:4-5 (ESV)
4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
If you apply this to the Sabbath commandment, you must also apply it to other commandments like adultery, theft, idolatry and covetousness for consistency. In other words, you are saying Jesus did not steal before His crucifixion and after He was nailed to the cross, it was now ok to steal. That interpretation creates a theological conundrum you can't solve. [/quote]
I have explained this above.
3.Romans 14:5 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
This verse tells nothing about the fourth commandment. Very strange coming from a person who consistently esteems Sunday above all other days. [/quote]
This verse grants allowance for esteeming ANY day to the Lord or esteeming all alike. This is licence for SDA observing Saturday, Ex-Muslims or Chriatians in Islamic states observing Furahiday AND vooke esteeming Sunday. That this matter is left to individual conviction means God is indifferent. Again, supposing it was down to Nuff Sed convictions to commit whoredom. Imagine
4. Paul kept feasts and vows.
Acts 18:21 (KJV)
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus
Acts 21:26 (ESV)
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.
This verse shoots the Sunday keeping protestant in his own foot. Paul circumcised Timothy, kept Jewish feasts and vows (twice, I'm corrected) to please the Jews and to remove any impediment of spreading the gospel among the Jews. It was not a commandment and does not amount to an abrogation of the fourth commandment. If it were so, we'd also say that evangelists must travel by ship, be shipwrecked and must be stoned half to death (all that happened to Paul). Not so with the fourth commandment. In Acts 13 the Bible records he kept the Sabbath with Gentiles (demolishing your earlier argument that NOBODY but Jews kept the Sabbath). There is no record of him doing so to please the Jews. In fact, Gentiles keeping the Sabbath in the synagogue (although they also met at other places, further demolishing the argument of expediency) was completely unacceptable to the Jews. Paul deals with the issue of circumcision adequately elsewhere and we have touched on this.
You have assumed that Paul was trying to impress Jews by observing expired Laws. I can also assume that Sabbath keeping by the early church was purely a PR exercise! Expediency too;If Jews gather every Sabbath, a smart apostle would gather with them on Sabbath, reason with them on the day they are used to studying scriptures. Jesus went into the temple to reason with teachers because teachers was found in the temple. 8)
The gentiles never kept the commandment, they appealed to be preached to on Sabbath because that's when Jews was preaching. It's common sense. If a village vertinarian visits every Thursday, you would request that he visit you on Thursday
-
JUDAIZE is the word you need to learn today
Today's protestant accuses Adventists of "judaizing." What does judaizing mean and where did it come from?
Judaize (in the context of the Sabbath).
The council of Laodicea states in cannon 29:
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day (Sunday); and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
In other words, keeping the Sabbath on Saturday amounts to "judaizing" but keeping Sunday (erroneously called the Lord's Day) is perfectly alright and even encouraged. If anybody is found to keep the Sabbath (Saturday) in accordance with the Fourth Commandment, they are guilty in Rome's eyes and are worthy of excommunication, anathema and total condemnation. They must honor Sunday instead, and in fact, do the things Jews did with the Sabbath (Saturday). To enforce this, people "must work on Saturday" and rest on Sunday instead. And a protestant would rather spend terabytes condemning Adventists with all kinds of ad hominem.
-
Sabbaterians are chasing shadows. I pity them together with those who attempt to cleanse they sins with animal blood
Today's protestant accuses Adventists of "judaizing." What does judaizing mean and where did it come from?
Judaize (in the context of the Sabbath).
The council of Laodicea states in cannon 29:
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day (Sunday); and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
In other words, keeping the Sabbath on Saturday amounts to "judaizing" but keeping Sunday (erroneously called the Lord's Day) is perfectly alright and even encouraged. If anybody is found to keep the Sabbath (Saturday) in accordance with the Fourth Commandment, they are guilty in Rome's eyes and are worthy of excommunication, anathema and total condemnation. They must honor Sunday instead, and in fact, do the things Jews did with the Sabbath (Saturday). To enforce this, people "must work on Saturday" and rest on Sunday instead. And a protestant would rather spend terabytes condemning Adventists with all kinds of ad hominem.
-
Wacha upus. The S or s is arbitrary. Besides, if sabbaths refer to the feasts, what are the feasts? It extremely retarded to imagine that Paul is saying , ' don't nobody judge you about the Feast of Unleavened Bread OR its sabbath'. A feast would entail ALL days inside that feast including the sabbath
The Sabbath was not a ceremonial feast day, some of which came only once a year. It was Saturday, the weekly rest day commanded by God in the fourth commandment.
3.Romans 14:5 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
This verse grants allowance for esteeming ANY day to the Lord or esteeming all alike. This is licence for SDA observing Saturday, Ex-Muslims or Chriatians in Islamic states observing Furahiday AND vooke esteeming Sunday. That this matter is left to individual conviction means God is indifferent. Again, supposing it was down to Nuff Sed convictions to commit whoredom. Imagine
You're reading out of context again. Romans 14 from verse 1 to verse 23 talks about eating and drinking (as Jews did during ceremonial feasts). This is consistent with Paul's counsel on circumcision. Why do you want to force in the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment?
4. Paul kept feasts and vows.
Acts 18:21 (KJV)
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus
Acts 21:26 (ESV)
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.
You have assumed that Paul was trying to impress Jews by observing expired Laws. I can also assume that Sabbath keeping by the early church was purely a PR exercise!
The gentiles never kept the commandment, they appealed to be preached to on Sabbath because that's when Jews was preaching. It's common sense. If a village vertinarian visits every Thursday, you would request that he visit you on Thursday
Acts 13 demolishes your argument publicly.
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
I'm still waiting to read a verse from you in which the Sabbath commandment was abrogated. If you stick with scripture, you will find little opportunity for ad hominem.
-
Clearly you have run out of arguments. Nothing new here that hasn't been effectively debunked. I hope you realize it is more than winning arguments. You have ran out of rebuttals. Whether sabbath was ceremonial or not, the same word in Colossians appears 10 times in the New Testament. In each but once, SDA contend it refers to weekly sabbath.
Let's go back to Romans.
Romans 14:5 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
Why would it be left to one's imagination to esteem a day? Is it left to your conviction to fornicate? What if your hubby wakes up totally convinced that he can sleep with your househelp?
Romans is clear...it is ESTEEMING A DAY ABOVE OTHERS not eating on some days. Esteeming means elevating, sanctifying. Paul addresses unity of believers and he tackles several things;
1. Diet
2. Days
He handles them separately so tell your retarded apologists to quit sidestepping the issue by mixing them up. I know you run behind the skirts of an animal called 'context' from the light of the gospel. Here is the point. Reading Romans backwards or even the entire bible does not change this simple fact; to God, esteeming a day above others or esteeming all alike is down to me.
Wacha upus. The S or s is arbitrary. Besides, if sabbaths refer to the feasts, what are the feasts? It extremely retarded to imagine that Paul is saying , ' don't nobody judge you about the Feast of Unleavened Bread OR its sabbath'. A feast would entail ALL days inside that feast including the sabbath
The Sabbath was not a ceremonial feast day, some of which came only once a year. It was Saturday, the weekly rest day commanded by God in the fourth commandment.
3.Romans 14:5 (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
This verse grants allowance for esteeming ANY day to the Lord or esteeming all alike. This is licence for SDA observing Saturday, Ex-Muslims or Chriatians in Islamic states observing Furahiday AND vooke esteeming Sunday. That this matter is left to individual conviction means God is indifferent. Again, supposing it was down to Nuff Sed convictions to commit whoredom. Imagine
You're reading out of context again. Romans 14 from verse 1 to verse 23 talks about eating and drinking (as Jew would during ceremonial feasts). Why do you want to force in the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment?
4. Paul kept feasts and vows.
Acts 18:21 (KJV)
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus
Acts 21:26 (ESV)
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.
You have assumed that Paul was trying to impress Jews by observing expired Laws. I can also assume that Sabbath keeping by the early church was purely a PR exercise!
The gentiles never kept the commandment, they appealed to be preached to on Sabbath because that's when Jews was preaching. It's common sense. If a village vertinarian visits every Thursday, you would request that he visit you on Thursday
Acts 13 demolishes your argument publicly.
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes
-
I'm not gifted with online exorcism of ad hominem. If you are willing, you can pray and be healed.
James 5
12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Ok.
Now, cast it out
You are possessed by the spirit of ad hominem. I have not seen anywhere that the Spirit of God inspires believers to abuse others (a breeze through this thread clearly shows spirit possession).
-
you can discern online demons but are helpless about them?
I digress.
What have you scavenged from SDA sewers that I have yet to respond to?
I'm not gifted with online exorcism of ad hominem. If you are willing, you can pray and be healed.
James 5
12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Ok.
Now, cast it out
You are possessed by the spirit of ad hominem. I have not seen anywhere that the Spirit of God inspires believers to abuse others (a breeze through this thread clearly shows spirit possession).
-
Wacha upus.
1. The 'shadow of things to come' is the descriptor of the things you have just been told that nobody should judge you on. Sabbath is included here
2. S or s is arbitrary.
3. Besides, if sabbaths refer to the feasts, what are the feasts? It extremely retarded to imagine that Paul is saying , ' don't nobody judge you about the Feast of Unleavened Bread OR it he sabbath of the feast of unleavened bread'. A feast would entail ALL days inside that feast including its sabbath.
The order is very clear; don't be judged on
1. Annual rituals- holy days/feasts
2.Monthly rituals- new moons
3. Weekly rituals- sabbaths
Compare this order as mentioned elsewhere
Isaiah 1:14 (ESV)
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts
Hosea 2:11 (ESV)
11 And I will put an end to all her mirth,
her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths,
1 Chronicles 23:31 (ESV)
31 and whenever burnt offerings were offered to the Lord on Sabbaths, new moons, and feast days, according to the number required of them, regularly before the Lord
2 Chronicles 2:4 (ESV)
4 Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the Lord my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him, and for the regular arrangement of the showbread, and for burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths and the new moons and the appointed feasts of the Lord our God, as ordained forever for Israel.
2 Chronicles 8:13 (ESV)
13 as the duty of each day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts—the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths
You posted the verses above supposedly to make the point that Col 2:16 is referring to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. You claimed that capital 'S' and small 's' are arbitrary and went ahead to esteem ESV alone (you have previously used other versions but this times you did not ESTEEM them). Shall we say you were misinterpreting Rom 14:5 viz. one man esteems ESV when convenient or expedient (your own words), while others esteem all Bible versions alike? In any case, all those versescompared with Col 2:16 show Paul was referring to ceremonial sabbaths and not the Sabbath.
You have studiously refused to acknowledge that the Bible has sabbaths (ceremonial) and the Sabbath (Saturday, the fourth commandment). In your suicidal mission you have meandered from one argument to another while ignoring the principal question: Where is the verse that abrogates the fourth commandment and institutes Sunday worship? Romans 14:5 does not fit the bill.
I almost let it pass but I've picked up the verses you have selectively picked to buttress the Col 2:16 argument. You picked ESV to fit your argument. But I'll let you do the homework to see what other versions and other verses say about sabbaths and 'the Sabbath.' Note the definite article "THE" Sabbath. To demolish your selective misapplication of verses, I'll use the very same ESV which attempts to mix the articles 'a' and 'the' but still shoots itself in the foot. Notice their confusion in Leviticus 23.
Exodus 16:29 See, for that the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exodus 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Exodus 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Exodus 35:2 Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.
Exodus 35:3 You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.”
Leviticus 23:15 [ The Feast of Weeks ] “You shall count seven full weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering.
Leviticus 23:16 You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the Lord.
Leviticus 23:32 It shall be to you a Sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth day of the month beginning at evening, from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath.”
I'll not go beyond Leviticus. ESV has designs to play up Col 2:16 at the expense of the fourth commandment. Comparison with KJV or RSV blows ESV high out of the water.
-
You posted the verses above supposedly to make the point that Col 2:16 is referring to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.
There is a pattern; Annual-Monthly-Weekly. And there is a Deaf and Dumb spirit.
You claimed that capital 'S' and small 's' are arbitrary and went ahead to esteem ESV alone (you have previously used other versions but this times you did not ESTEEM them). Shall we say you were misinterpreting Rom 14:5 viz. one man esteems ESV when convenient or expedient (your own words), while others esteem all Bible versions alike? In any case, all those versescompared with Col 2:16 show Paul was referring to ceremonial sabbaths and not the Sabbath.
1. It is arbitrary and that is a very minor point. Nobody aksd u to call it sabbath or Sabbath. What is the difference between a weekly Saturday sabbath and other sabbaths?
2. I have told you for my devotion I use KJV and when doing deeper studies, several versions come in. I picked ESV randomly and I could have used any. If there is a version rendering of Col 2:16 that supports your garbage, please share it
3. A doctrine that is ONLY supported by a single version of the bible is obviously weak. Here are MANY English renderings of the same;
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Colossians%202:16
Which one favors SDA madness?
Colossians 2:16 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat or drink, or in respect to a holy day or the new moon or the Sabbath days,
Colossians 2:16 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day:
Colossians 2:16 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
16 Therefore let no one sit in judgment on you in matters of food and drink, or with regard to a feast day or a New Moon or a Sabbath.
Colossians 2:16 (BRG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:16 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
You have studiously refused to acknowledge that the Bible has sabbaths (ceremonial) and the Sabbath (Saturday, the fourth commandment).
No I haven't. The land was supposed to rest every seventh year and that is called sabbath too. You can't give any sensible REASON or even a stupid one why sabbath(s) in Colossians CAN'T possibly refer to the weekly sabbath, while I have shown you why it CAN'T be referring to anything else
In your suicidal mission you have meandered from one argument to another while ignoring the principal question: Where is the verse that abrogates the fourth commandment and institutes Sunday worship? Romans 14:5 does not fit the bill.
How could Paul, who first as a Jew and secondly a Pharisee esteemed a particular day, Saturday as sabbath writing to Romans instruct them that it was down to their minds to esteem or not to esteem?
You can't command me to ESTEEM a particular day on one hand and then leave it to me to decide whether to esteem or not to esteem any particular day seeing am ALREADY BOUND to esteem.
Fornication/adultery/blasphemy is not something Holy Spirit leaves you to make up your mind on. It is a command whose breach attracts dire consequences.
Let me help your thawed brain. What is Paul saying in Romans 14:5?
I almost let it pass but I've picked up the verses you have selectively picked to buttress the Col 2:16 argument. You picked ESV to fit your argument.
Pick any version and let's see if there is any that supports SDA sewers...there is none
But I'll let you do the homework to see what other versions and other verses say about sabbaths and 'the Sabbath.' Note the definite article "THE" Sabbath. To demolish your selective misapplication of verses, I'll use the very same ESV which attempts to mix the articles 'a' and 'the' but still shoots itself in the foot.
You are not helping your cause by making feeble sideshows. You need to give me logical rules for identifying weekly Saturday sabbath from other sabbaths. Is it the article? Or is it plural?
Notice their confusion in Leviticus 23.
Exodus 16:29 See, for that the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exodus 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Exodus 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Exodus 35:2 Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.
Exodus 35:3 You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.”
Leviticus 23:15 [ The Feast of Weeks ] “You shall count seven full weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering.
Leviticus 23:16 You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the Lord.
Leviticus 23:32 It shall be to you a Sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth day of the month beginning at evening, from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath.”
You are not intelligent enough to throw cryptic remarks. Explain what confusion ESV has on Leviticus and what the 'proper' rendering should be
I'll not go beyond Leviticus. ESV has designs to play up Col 2:16 at the expense of the fourth commandment. Comparison with KJV or RSV blows ESV high out of the water.
The only people with designs to deny the obvious inspiration of scriptures are hopeless SDAs who'd rTher stick to commandments of men than God...they are still chasing shadows long fulfilled in Christ. I rejoice in the Lord for exposing them 1900 years ago!
-
Nuff Sed,
The word of God is like a hammer, it shatters harebrained theories into smithereens
Jeremiah 23:29 (ESV)
29 Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
Study this verse closely. I noted you deliberately omitted it in your last rant for obvious reasons; it spells doom for your puny theories.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Exodus%2031:13
Exodus 31:13 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 “Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, ‘Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the Lord who doth sanctify you.
Exodus 31:13 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily ye shall keep my sabbaths: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am Jehovah who sanctifieth you.
Exodus 31:13 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 Say to the Israelites, Truly you shall keep My Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you [set you apart for Myself].
Exodus 31:13 (BRG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.
Exodus 31:13 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 Tell the Israelites: “Be sure to keep my sabbaths, because the Sabbath is a sign between me and you in every generation so you will know that I am the Lord who makes you holy.
Exodus 31:13 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 “Tell the people of Isra’el, ‘You are to observe my Shabbats; for this is a sign between me and you through all your generations; so that you will know that I am Adonai, who sets you apart for me.
Just about EVERY version renders the word sabbath in plural. Is this a 'ceremonial' sabbath of a weekly sabbath?
What about This? Is it a weekly or 'ceremonial' sabbath?
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Leviticus%2019:3
Leviticus 19:3 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, and keep My Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father; and ye shall keep my sabbaths: I am Jehovah your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Each of you shall give due respect to his mother and his father, and keep My Sabbaths holy. I the Lord am your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (BRG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 ¶ Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must keep my sabbaths; I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 “‘Every one of you is to revere his father and mother, and you are to keep my Shabbats; I am Adonai your God.
Leviticus 19:3-4 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3-4 Respect your father and your mother, honor the Sabbath, and don’t make idols or images. I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (DARBY) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Ye shall reverence every man his mother, and his father, and my sabbaths shall ye keep: I am Jehovah your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (DRA) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Let every one fear his father, and his mother. Keep my sabbaths. I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (ERV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 “Each of you must honor your mother and father and keep my special days of rest. I am the Lord your God!
Leviticus 19:3 (ESV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (ESVUK) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God
The point is the plural of SABBATH don't mean 'ceremonial' sabbaths nor does the singular mean weekly sabbath unless I have sold my brains to EGW
-
Nuff Sed,
Let us now go I to NT and do some serious word-study
Acts 17:2 in ESV. I know you hallucinate about an anti-SDA conspiracy in ESV but you will soon wish it was the only version.
Acts 17:2 (ESV)
2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Now, let us look at other versions
Acts 17:2 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
2 And Paul, as was his custom, went in unto them, and for three Sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 17:2 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
2 and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 17:2 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
2 And Paul entered, as he usually did, and for three Sabbaths he reasoned and argued with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 17:2 (BRG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:2 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
2 As was Paul’s custom, he entered the synagogue and for three Sabbaths interacted with them on the basis of the scriptures.
Acts 17:2 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
2 According to his usual practice, Sha’ul went in; and on three Shabbats he gave them drashes from the Tanakh,
Acts 17:2 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
2 So as usual, Paul went there to worship, and on three Sabbaths he spoke to the people. He used the Scriptures
Acts 17:2 (DARBY) | In Context | Whole Chapter
2 And according to Paul's custom he went in among them, and on three sabbaths reasoned with them from the scriptures,
NOTE:
1.The Greek word for sabbaths (sabbaton) in this verse is the same as that used in Col 2:15
2. There is no 'days' in the originals/Greek; it is an interpolation of the translators
3. That the word sabbath is in plural is not in doubt. There is nothing like '3 Sabbath'
4. It is OBVIOUS Paul preached on three probably consecutive weekly sabbaths/Sato and not on annual feasts
5. It is quite clear that SDAs have no basis of interpreting this word to mean 'ceremonial'/non-weekly sabbaths in Col 2:15 while consistently understanding it to mean weekly sabbath wherever else (9-10 times)it is used in the NT
6. The ONLY reason SDAs cling to this insane inconsistency is to avoid the natural conclusion of Col 2:15 namely, the weekly sabbath just like other Jewish feasts are;
(A) non-binding on Christians and
(B) 'shadows' whose reality is found in Christ
Please look at an Interlinear version(Mounce) for evidence of the usage of the word sabbaton
http://www.nipate.org/index.php?action=post;topic=1657.180;last_msg=12160
(http://i.imgur.com/PvSkSAk.jpg?1)
-
Daily Bread,
(http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2008/5/Resources/istockfedericoch.jpeg)
Here (http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2008/5/palmer.html) is a man who waged wars with shadows and lost.
And here (http://www.truthorfables.com/WREAK_HAVOC.pdf) is a more theological/academic treatment of SDA conundrum on the same verse. As usual, the authors wipe the floor with Bachiocchi.
-
SDA sewer, madness, hallucinate.... Why are you throwing endless ad hominem in this manner? Is it possible to make your point like a true believer?
You posted the verses above supposedly to make the point that Col 2:16 is referring to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.
There is a pattern; Annual-Monthly-Weekly. And there is a Deaf and Dumb spirit.
The point is the plural of SABBATH don't mean 'ceremonial' sabbaths nor does the singular mean weekly sabbath unless I have sold my brains to EGW
Voke,
You have quoted Col 2:16 over and over, so let's deal with it before we go to Leviticus or any other verse.You attempt to claim that Col 2:16 supports Sunday worship, that verses using "the Sabbath" and "sabbath" are arbitrary (and you proceeded to give Col 2:16 in ESV but not KJV and RSV which blow your arbitrary theory high out of the water). You are right that the use of sabbaths without capitalization may not always be clear (not arbitrary as you say, and there's a difference). But that's not the point. It is both the capitalization of Sabbath as well as the use of the definite article as in "the Sabbath," or the indefinite article "a sabbath" which in plural are "sabbaths" (like KJV and RSV do) .
Col 2:16 (RSV)
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.
Col 2:16 (KJV)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:16 (ESV)
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.
If capitalization of sabbath is indeed arbitrary as you say, how can you explain ESV's sudden capitalization of Sabbath in this verse? In normal writing, letters remain uncapitalized unless you are referring to a specific noun (e.g. Voke of this thread as opposed to other vokes of the Protestant world). The conclusion is that ESV is a mischievous attempt to bring confusion to water down the fourth commandment.
But the greatest problem with using Col 2:16 against the Sabbath commandment is not even capitalization or lack thereof. Note that Bible writers neither used capitalization nor punctuation. These were added much later. So how do we know whether Paul was referring to ceremonial sabbaths or the Sabbath of the fourth commandment? You know the answer and you tend to avoid it. Context. Your problems begin here, and we will use ESV to demolish your misinterpretation.
Col 2 (ESV)
6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
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 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.
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Points to note:
Verses 1-5 talk about the "mystery of God" as being understood (revealed) in Christ. Then verse 9 summarizes it by saying in Christ the fullness of God dwells bodily. Verses 11, 12, 13 talks about circumcision of the heart. It is clear that Paul addresses an audience that knew about circumcision in Israelite tradition (a ceremonial practice). Then verse 14 talks about the legal demands of the ceremonial laws that were against "us" (Colossians and Paul included), with circumcision used as the example. He concludes these "ordinances (KJV)" were "nailed to the cross". So far, the Sabbath or any of the Ten Commandments have not been mentioned.
The oft-quoted verse 16 then says: 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.
Therefore, if you read without capitalizing "sabbath," it becomes extremely tenuous to bring in the Sabbath commandment here. This simplified contextual interpretation finds the translators of ESV to be at fault.
-
Nuff Sed,
The word of God is like a hammer, it shatters harebrained theories into smithereens
Jeremiah 23:29 (ESV)
29 Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
Study this verse closely. I noted you deliberately omitted it in your last rant for obvious reasons; it spells doom for your puny theories.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Exodus%2031:13
Exodus 31:13 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 “Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, ‘Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the Lord who doth sanctify you.
Exodus 31:13 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily ye shall keep my sabbaths: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am Jehovah who sanctifieth you.
Exodus 31:13 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 Say to the Israelites, Truly you shall keep My Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you [set you apart for Myself].
Exodus 31:13 (BRG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.
Exodus 31:13 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 Tell the Israelites: “Be sure to keep my sabbaths, because the Sabbath is a sign between me and you in every generation so you will know that I am the Lord who makes you holy.
Exodus 31:13 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
13 “Tell the people of Isra’el, ‘You are to observe my Shabbats; for this is a sign between me and you through all your generations; so that you will know that I am Adonai, who sets you apart for me.
Just about EVERY version renders the word sabbath in plural. Is this a 'ceremonial' sabbath of a weekly sabbath?
What about This? Is it a weekly or 'ceremonial' sabbath?
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Leviticus%2019:3
Leviticus 19:3 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, and keep My Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father; and ye shall keep my sabbaths: I am Jehovah your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Each of you shall give due respect to his mother and his father, and keep My Sabbaths holy. I the Lord am your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (BRG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 ¶ Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must keep my sabbaths; I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 “‘Every one of you is to revere his father and mother, and you are to keep my Shabbats; I am Adonai your God.
Leviticus 19:3-4 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3-4 Respect your father and your mother, honor the Sabbath, and don’t make idols or images. I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (DARBY) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Ye shall reverence every man his mother, and his father, and my sabbaths shall ye keep: I am Jehovah your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (DRA) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Let every one fear his father, and his mother. Keep my sabbaths. I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (ERV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 “Each of you must honor your mother and father and keep my special days of rest. I am the Lord your God!
Leviticus 19:3 (ESV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 19:3 (ESVUK) | In Context | Whole Chapter
3 Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God
The point is the plural of SABBATH don't mean 'ceremonial' sabbaths nor does the singular mean weekly sabbath unless I have sold my brains to EGW
Voke,
These verses do not help the Sunday keeping cause. Exodus, Jeremiah, Deut, Jeremiah etc are all from the OT where both the ceremonial and weekly Sabbaths (plural, referring to the fourth commandment) were observed. Let's be clear here. The Israelites knew the difference between the law of Moses (ceremonial) the Ten Commandments (God's eternal law). Ceremonial laws pointed to Christ's sacrifice (e.g. the Passover lamb pointed to Christ as the Lamb of the Lord that taketh away the sins of the world (John 1:29). It is only after Christ's crucifixion that the difference between ceremonial sabbaths and the Sabbath commandment become apparent to non-Israelites.
When you look at Col 2:16 from the Israelite understanding of OT ceremonial laws, you will see that Paul addresses Colossians in that context and lays it bare in verses 1-16. Picking out Col 2:16 and using it to argue against the Fourth Commandment is to argue as if the OT did not exist, nor the 15 verses before it. Forcing in the Sabbath like ESV cleverly attempts is out of context.
-
Voke,
These verses do not help the Sunday keeping cause. Exodus, Jeremiah, Deut, Jeremiah etc are all from the OT where both the ceremonial and weekly Sabbaths (plural, referring to the fourth commandment) were observed.
Nuff Sed,
This is quite a useless point. To the Jews belong Torah in its entirety. Colossians is talking about Jewish annual,monthly and weekly observations. Sabbaths(plural of sabbath or sabbaton) as I have shared enough evidence,does not mean 'ceremonial'/non-weekly sabbaths. Do you understand? Banging your head against the wall or denying this fact won't change nothing. Bachiocchi your boy, understood this
Let's be clear here. The Israelites knew the difference between the law of Moses (ceremonial) the Ten Commandments (God's eternal law).
The distinction between the 'Law of Moses' and the Ten Commandments is artificial and it would do you well cease imagining that Israelites were SDAs nor was Paul.
Ceremonial laws pointed to Christ's sacrifice (e.g. the Passover lamb pointed to Christ as the Lamb of the Lord that taketh away the sins of the world (John 1:29).
Hebrews 4 is quite clear that Sabbath points to Christ. The ENTIRE Law pointed to Christ
It is only after Christ's crucifixion that the difference between ceremonial sabbaths and the Sabbath commandment become apparent to non-Israelites.
Presumption is your surname. There is nothing like 'ceremonial sabbath', just sabbaths, weekly,monthly,annual. Gentiles are not and have never been under no obligation to observe any. The key to observing Torah was circumcision. Acts 15 dispensed away with that and after that, there is no way Gentiles were expected to observe ANY OTHER Part of the Law.
When you look at Col 2:16 from the Israelite understanding of OT ceremonial laws, you will see that Paul addresses Colossians in that context and lays it bare in verses 1-16. Picking out Col 2:16 and using it to argue against the Fourth Commandment is to argue as if the OT did not exist, nor the 15 verses before it. Forcing in the Sabbath like ESV cleverly attempts is out of context.
There is no 'Israelite understanding of OT ceremonial laws'. To them, there was just Moses, Torah, the Law. This distinction is an imaginary one invented to prop sabbatarianism.
Colosse is a predominantly Gentile region and they came under attack from the Circumcision who attempted to impose Judaism on them using the very scriptures they shared as a basis of their faith namely OT. Paul's encouragement was singular; 'nobody should judge you over shadows when you have the reality in you'. Note Paul was not dismissive of the ceremonies; he gives them some force or acknowledges their legitimacy. But he is very clear the real deal is Christ.
-
Voke,
You have quoted Col 2:16 over and over, so let's deal with it before we go to Leviticus or any other verse.You attempt to claim that Col 2:16 supports Sunday worship,
See why I call them sewers? You misrepresent a position and then attack it vigorously.
Sunday worship/fellowship is a tradition that need no scriptures to support it any more than closing your eyes during prayers.
What Col2:16 does is to in the most eloquent manner dispense with the necessity of observing Jewish days including the weekly sabbath which is your distinguishing mark. It pretty much renders Sabbatarianism sect hollow; God is completely indifferent to sabbath keeping.
that verses using "the Sabbath" and "sabbath" are arbitrary (and you proceeded to give Col 2:16 in ESV but not KJV and RSV which blow your arbitrary theory high out of the water).
The difference between a weekly sabbath and others is the frequency; there is a higher likelihood of breaching your most regular activity and that's why there is heavy emphasis on the weekly. Otherwise there is no difference between sabbaths.
I have shared as many versions as I could possibly paste and share the source;biblegateway. I have over and over again asked you to share with me the version of scripture that you believe supports your position so we could use it. The reason is, NONE of my points is based on words or English unlike yours
You are right that the use of sabbaths without capitalization may not always be clear (not arbitrary as you say, and there's a difference). But that's not the point. It is both the capitalization of Sabbath as well as the use of the definite article as in "the Sabbath," or the indefinite article "a sabbath" which in plural are "sabbaths" (like KJV and RSV do) .
Please quit digressing and misrepresenting me. We may do more than follow capitalization; go Greek. Explain to us why Col 2:16 sabbaton can't possibly be referring to the weekly sabbath.
Am sorry I erred and mentioned that sabbaton appears 10 times in NT. It appears 69 times and in 68 of those, SDAs agree it means either a week or weekly sabbath. They then proceed to tie themselves in hopeless theological loops on Col2:16. Such a pathetic dishonest bunch
Col 2:16 (RSV)
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.
Col 2:16 (KJV)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:16 (ESV)
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.
If capitalization of sabbath is indeed arbitrary as you say, how can you explain ESV's sudden capitalization of Sabbath in this verse? In normal writing, letters remain uncapitalized unless you are referring to a specific noun (e.g. Voke of this thread as opposed to other vokes of the Protestant world). The conclusion is that ESV is a mischievous attempt to bring confusion to water down the fourth commandment.
Here is the point, the plural or singular form of that word does not substract NOTHING from the message. The reason is plurality or singularism of SABBATH does not affect the meaning of the word, especially where use of other related days (new moons,feasts) CLEARLY eliminates them as probable candidates.
But the greatest problem with using Col 2:16 against the Sabbath commandment is not even capitalization or lack thereof. Note that Bible writers neither used capitalization nor punctuation. These were added much later. So how do we know whether Paul was referring to ceremonial sabbaths or the Sabbath of the fourth commandment? You know the answer and you tend to avoid it. [b]Context.[/b] Your problems begin here, and we will use ESV to demolish your misinterpretation
Points to note:
Verses 1-5 talk about the "mystery of God" as being understood (revealed) in Christ. Then verse 9 summarizes it by saying in Christ the fullness of God dwells bodily. Verses 11, 12, 13 talks about circumcision of the heart. It is clear that Paul addresses an audience that knew about circumcision in Israelite tradition (a ceremonial practice). Then verse 14 talks about the legal demands of the ceremonial laws that were against "us" (Colossians and Paul included), with circumcision used as the example. He concludes these "ordinances (KJV)" were "nailed to the cross". So far, the Sabbath or any of the Ten Commandments have not been mentioned.
The oft-quoted verse 16 then says: 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.
Therefore, if you read without capitalizing "sabbath," it becomes extremely tenuous to bring in the Sabbath commandment here. This simplified contextual interpretation finds the translators of ESV to be at fault.
Nuff Sed you suffer comprehension defects from excessive indoctrination.
Here is what you are saying;
1. There are 'ceremonial' and 'non-ceremonial' laws
2. The 'legal demands of the ceremonial laws' is what was AGAINST us
3. Christ fulfilled/nailed to the cross 'legal demand of the ceremonial laws'
4. Weekly sabbath is NOT part of the 'ceremonial law'.
Now,
1. Define from the scriptures ceremonial and non-ceremonial laws
2. Demonstrate that it is just the 'legal demands of the ceremonial laws' that was against us and not the entire Law- Galatians 3:10
3. Demonstrate that Christ nailed to the cross just the 'ceremonial laws' and not the entire law
4. Closely related to #1. demonstrate that the weekly sabbath is not a 'ceremonial law'
-
Col 2:16 is a reference to ceremonial sabbaths and not the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment. I can see you avoided the context of Col 2 like the plague. Not the first time you are quoting the Bible out of context like in Matthew 4. The difference between sabbath(s) and the Sabbath is hidden in plain sight.
2 Chronicles 8:13
Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.
Nehemiah 9:13-15King James Version (KJV)
13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:
Nehemiah 13:19 And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day.
Isaiah 56 King James Version (KJV)
1Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
-
Nuff Sed you suffer comprehension defects from excessive indoctrination.
Here is what you are saying;
1. There are 'ceremonial' and 'non-ceremonial' laws
2. The 'legal demands of the ceremonial laws' is what was AGAINST us
3. Christ fulfilled/nailed to the cross 'legal demand of the ceremonial laws'
4. Weekly sabbath is NOT part of the 'ceremonial law'.
Now,
1. Define from the scriptures ceremonial and non-ceremonial laws
2. Demonstrate that it is just the 'legal demands of the ceremonial laws' that was against us and not the entire Law- Galatians 3:10
3. Demonstrate that Christ nailed to the cross just the 'ceremonial laws' and not the entire law
4. Closely related to #1. demonstrate that the weekly sabbath is not a 'ceremonial law'
1. Define from the scriptures ceremonial and non-ceremonial laws
Ceremonial laws were written by Moses in a book and put in the side of the ark of the covenant.
Deut 31
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel.
10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
11 When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
12 Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
...
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Ten Commandments were written by God with His own finger.
(The Ten Commandments in full are in Exodus 20, and how God spoke them to all Israel).
Deut 5
22 These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
2. Demonstrate that it is just the 'legal demands of the ceremonial laws' that was against us and not the entire Law- Galatians 3:10
Next time you quote Gal 3:10, do so in context. Biblegateway always gives you that option.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
I'll use two examples, the Passover feast and circumcision. One of the most solemn ceremonial laws was the passover (marked for the first time in Egypt). In NT, Paul describes Christ as the Passover Lamb.
I Cor 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Any home in Egypt who did not have blood on their doorposts had the firstborn killed by the angel. This law was against "us" who were in Egypt (unbelief). The fulfillment of this is further demonstrated in Luke 23:45 where the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom.
The irrelevance of circumcision to salvation is well documented by Paul in Galatians 2,3 and 5. In Gal 2, Paul draws the distinction between his ministry (to the Gentiles) and Peter's (to the Jews) and talks about circumcision. If the Sabbath was just for Jews, Paul would have left it to Peter, but by his example to the very Gentiles he was ministering to, he condemned circumcision and followed the Sabbath.
Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Is the moral law for or "against us?"
Rom 7
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Mark 2:27 King James Bible
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
3. Demonstrate that Christ nailed to the cross just the 'ceremonial laws' and not the entire law.
Context brother. I'll repeat. Context. Col 2:14
Ceremonial laws were for a time and would not be observed once they were fulfilled. Christ observed them before they were fulfilled (for example He participated in the Passover feast before the crucifixion, but never after).
"having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross". What was the handwriting of the requirements? Remember the handwriting on the wall in Daniel 5:5 against Belshazzar? Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. It was not the handwriting of law itself that was against us but its legal requirements (death to the sinner). How did Christ blot out the handwriting? By paying the debt on the cross. He did not set aside the law, otherwise he would not need to die. Instead, He paid the price. So, "nailing them to the cross" does not mean the ceremonial law was destroyed, but was, rather, fulfilled in Christ.
"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins...By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all" (Heb 10:4,10).
4. Closely related to #1. demonstrate that the weekly sabbath is not a 'ceremonial law'
The Sabbath is not a ceremonial law, for it was contained in the Ten Commandments spoken by God and written with his own finger, placed IN the ark of the covenant. The Ten Commandments were perpetual in nature and Isaiah and John the Revelator show us why.
Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Isaiah 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Isaiah 66
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.
Revelation 11
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
My Comment:
Did you see the ark of the testament in that verse? What was IN the ark of the covenant?
Isaiah 66
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.
Rev 12:17
"And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ".
Rev 14:12
"Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus".
Rev 22:14
Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
You cannot preach heaven while at the same time disobey the commandments that give you the right to the tree of life. Do not be deceived my brother. God is not mocked.
-
Col 2:16 is a reference to ceremonial sabbaths and not the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment. I can see you avoided the context of Col 2 like the plague. Not the first time you are quoting the Bible out of context like in Matthew 4. The difference between sabbath(s) and the Sabbath is hidden in plain sight.
You are the Queen of dithering. You threw in 'context' and failed to demonstrate how the same leads you to sabbaths in Col being any other than weekly
2 Chronicles 8:13
Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.
Nehemiah 9:13-15King James Version (KJV)
13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:
Nehemiah 13:19 And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day.
Isaiah 56 King James Version (KJV)
1Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
What is the purpose of these wonderful verses?
-
1. Define from the scriptures ceremonial and non-ceremonial laws
Ceremonial laws were written by Moses in a book and put in the side of the ark of the covenant.
Deut 31
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel.
10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
11 When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
12 Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
...
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
Ten Commandments were written by God with His own finger.
(The Ten Commandments in full are in Exodus 20, and how God spoke them to all Israel).
Deut 5
22 These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
Now in your element reciting SDA sewers
1. What is the BASIS for you concluding that 'ceremonial' laws were placed outside?
2. Does it bother you that the GREATEST COMMANDMENTS given by Jesus were OUTSIDE and were written by Moses?
3. Do you have non-'ceremonial' laws outside?
2. Demonstrate that it is just the 'legal demands of the ceremonial laws' that was against us and not the entire Law- Galatians 3:10
Next time you quote Gal 3:10, do so in context. Biblegateway always gives you that option.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
I'll use two examples, the Passover feast and circumcision. One of the most solemn ceremonial laws was the passover (marked for the first time in Egypt). In NT, Paul describes Christ as the Passover Lamb.
I Cor 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Any home in Egypt who did not have blood on their doorposts had the firstborn killed by the angel. This law was against "us" who were in Egypt (unbelief). The fulfillment of this is further demonstrated in Luke 23:45 where the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom.
The irrelevance of circumcision to salvation is well documented by Paul in Galatians 2,3 and 5. In Gal 2, Paul draws the distinction between his ministry (to the Gentiles) and Peter's (to the Jews) and talks about circumcision. If the Sabbath was just for Jews, Paul would have left it to Peter, but by his example to the very Gentiles he was ministering to, he condemned circumcision and followed the Sabbath.
Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.[
[/quote]
Nuff Sed,
You are incoherent
The CURSE in Galatians is for breaking any of the 613 laws..that is what Christ redeemed us from unless you are saying that Christ shed his blood so you can stop observing Passover.
Is the moral law for or "against us?"
Rom 7
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Mark 2:27 King James Bible
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
You are putting words in Paul's mouth Paul says the LAW not moral law is good. he said the Law
Read Romans 7 properly
Romans 7:1-6English Standard Version (ESV)
Released from the Law
7 Or do you not know, brothers[a]—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[c]
What law is he talking about? moral or ceremonial?
3. Demonstrate that Christ nailed to the cross just the 'ceremonial laws' and not the entire law.
Context brother. I'll repeat. Context. Col 2:14
Ceremonial laws were for a time and would not be observed once they were fulfilled. Christ observed them before they were fulfilled (for example He participated in the Passover feast before the crucifixion, but never after).
"having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross". What was the handwriting of the requirements? Remember the handwriting on the wall in Daniel 5:5 against Belshazzar? Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. It was not the handwriting of law itself that was against us but its legal requirements (death to the sinner).
Now you contradict yourself
You just quoted instance of meetings on sabbath as proof that it was kept after crucifixion so it can't have been ceremonial yet you flat out reject recorded observation of Jewish feasts and Vows.
Christ remained on earth for just one month and ten days after resurrection whereas the next Passover would have been over ten months away...so that's a bad example seeing there was no other opportunity to celebrate it.
The Law demanded that breaking ANY of them made you guilty of all and placed you under a curse. The requirement to KEEP the Law to please God is what was taken away. Your job was to demonstrate that this was restricted to the 'ceremonial laws' ALONE.
How did Christ blot out the handwriting? By paying the debt on the cross. He did not set aside the law, otherwise he would not need to die. Instead, He paid the price.
Ephesians 2:14-15
(ESV) 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace
So, "nailing them to the cross" does not mean the ceremonial law was destroyed, but was, rather, fulfilled in Christ.
"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins...By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all" (Heb 10:4,10).
Romans 10:4 (ESV)
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.[/quote]
Galatians 3:24 (ESV)
24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian
Ask yourself what Law this verse is talking about
4. Closely related to #1. demonstrate that the weekly sabbath is not a 'ceremonial law'
The Sabbath is not a ceremonial law, for it was contained in the Ten Commandments spoken by God and written with his own finger, placed IN the ark of the covenant. The Ten Commandments were perpetual in nature and Isaiah and John the Revelator show us why.[/quote]
This is circular argument
Who said the Ten Commandments can't contain 'ceremonial' laws?
Who said what God wrote in his own hand can't contain 'ceremonial' laws?
Who said what was kept INSIDE the ark can't contain 'ceremonial' laws?
Do we have non-'ceremonial' laws OUTSIDE the ark?
How comes the greatest 2 commandments were written by Moses and housed outside?
These are a priori assumptions
Let's examine these verse one by one
Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Isaiah 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Isaiah 66
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.
Isaiah mentions NEW MOON. These verses don't tell you a lot. If there will be sabbath in heaven, then there will be NEW MOONS as well
Revelation 11
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
My Comment:
Did you see the ark of the testament in that verse? What was IN the ark of the covenant?
Nuff Sed, please grow up.
-Seeing there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage, how would you commit adultery with your next door tall dark and handsome single NFL player (former)
-Will you be giving birth in heaven so your kids can honor you?
-Do you need to be told not to kill seeing your neighbors will be clothed in immortality and death will be no more
-And what will be the point of commandments when they are already in your heart?
Point is presence of the ark in heaven whether literally or metaphorically does not add nothing to your sabbatarianism
Isaiah 66
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.
Sure, there will be New Moon and sabbath in heaven. Negro learn to think
Rev 12:17
"And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ".
Rev 14:12
"Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus".
Rev 22:14
Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
You cannot preach heaven while at the same time disobey the commandments that give you the right to the tree of life. Do not be deceived my brother. God is not mocked.
Now, the question is, are the COMMANDMENTS mentioned in these verses the ten and the ten alone?
What is a commandment?
Every time you see the word, you are conditioned by SDA sewers to see the Ten Commandments. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Just ask Jesus what is the greatest commandment
Matthew 22:36-40King James Version (KJV)
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You can see that COMMANDMENTS don't automatically mean the Ten Commandments....thinking for the indoctrinated is quite a task but you are doing fine
John the Revelator wrote the epistles and he uses the word commandment there. Please look it up
-
Voke calling me Nuffsed is provocation (its like me calling you Troi Andreola).
This is 11 pages of discussion, debate and (unfortunately), name calling and ad hominem. Some day you might be shocked by a list of ad hominems you have thrown in this thread alone. It seems to me that you are perfectly convinced that Sunday keeping as opposed to Sabbath keeping is the way to go. I have asked several times for the protestant justification for Sunday worship and so far, you have mentioned convenience (like saying that's the day apostles could find crowds), expedience and tradition (alleged apostolic practice without scriptural backing). On the other hand, the fourth commandment is plain, started in Eden and repeated in Sinai. Sabbath keeping by Christ, disciples and the apostles is well documented in Acts 13, 17 and 18 (unlike the so-called apostolic practice). I have given all this in various posts in this thread.
So, what more can be said? Not much. In summary,
1. There is no scriptural basis for calling Sunday the "Lord's Day".
2. There is no scriptural reason for Sunday worship.
3. Sunday keeping protestants are following Rome's tradition (also convenience and expediency, maybe).
4. On the basis of Sunday worship, which it originated in opposition to God's commandments, Rome openly questions the basis for protestantism's slogan of "sola scriptura". See http://www.romeschallenge.com/
5. Since Sunday worship lacks scriptural backing, Rome has the audacity to invite her lost daughters back, and rightly so. Following tradition in Sunday worship confirms the old adage, like mother, like daughter.
6. Since Sunday keeping protestants have no solid ground to stand on, rather than turning to scripture for truth, they deflect attention from this contradiction, and join Rome in ridiculing Sabbath-keeping. If the ad hominems in this thread are anything to go by, the Sunday-keeping student has outperformed her master. The only thing missing is Rome's faggots.
7. Which proves Bible prophecy right. Daniel and Revelation depict a subtle beast (little horn) creeping into the church, taking the place of Christ and substituting His authority for her own. The antichrist is not he who is violently opposed to Christ, but stealthily replaces His authority over His own church (applause from the Protestant cabin). In this regard, apostate Christianity (Protestantism) joins hands with Rome and the state to oppress anybody opposed to her authority. In this thread and in Rome's Challenge, Adventists are spelled out as Rome's thorn in the flesh. Without Jews and Adventists, it is likely the world would not know what Rome did to the Ten Commandments. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than on the Sabbath question.
You attack my adventist beliefs but you have not told us what you believe. Which is your church so we can also examine its doctrines? I'll add you a little entertainment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D4uattHh1PDY
I will endeavor to give updates on developments towards the full unity of the threesome in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. I rest my case.
-
Voke calling me Nuffsed is provocation (its like me calling you Troi Andreola).
This is 11 pages of discussion, debate and (unfortunately), name calling and ad hominem. Some day you might be shocked by a list of ad hominems you have thrown in this thread alone.
Nuff Sed,
If you are not Nuff Sed or you have never had such a handle just say so and I will duly apologize. You need to go through a list of the things EGW called Christians which you know to temper your sanctimonious nose.
It seems to me that you are perfectly convinced that Sunday keeping as opposed to Sabbath keeping is the way to go.
SDA Sewers Inc. Misrepresenting and attacking misrepresentation?And winning medals for the victory since 1840.. Sunday worship is a tradition, sabbath keeping is a realized shadow.. Holy Spirit is indifferent to both.
I have asked several times for the protestant justification for Sunday worship and so far, you have mentioned convenience (like saying that's the day apostles could find crowds), expedience and tradition (alleged apostolic practice without scriptural backing). On the other hand, the fourth commandment is plain, started in Eden and repeated in Sinai.
Don't know what you are smoking. Sabbath started with Moses,and was for the Jews just as circumcision was
Sabbath keeping by Christ, disciples and the apostles is well documented in Acts 13, 17 and 18 (unlike the so-called apostolic practice). I have given all this in various posts in this thread.
Jesus,the apostles, they all kept Jewish feasts as well. When you start keeping those and taking Nazirite vows, come looking for me. And next time you go evangelizing the Samburu, take a FGM cut so that the gospel be not hindered.
So, what more can be said? Not much. In summary,
1. There is no scriptural basis for calling Sunday the "Lord's Day". Sunday is the Lord's Day, has been, always will as long as the earth remains
2. There is no scriptural reason for Sunday worship. There need not be basis for worship on any day seeing God has left us to determine these things unlike how many men you should sleep with
3. Sunday keeping protestants are following Rome's tradition (also convenience and expediency, maybe). Observing any day is purely discretional..if I chose to keep Friday because my employer only allows me that, Holy Spirit is cool with that
4. On the basis of Sunday worship, which it originated in opposition to God's commandments, Rome openly questions the basis for protestantism's slogan of "sola scriptura". See http://www.romeschallenge.com/. Only deranged Sabbatarians lurkin in the shadows see commandments where non exists...they also see vegetarianism as a holy command and not even Jesus eating fish will convince them otherwise
5. Since Sunday worship lacks scriptural backing, Rome has the audacity to invite her lost daughters back, and rightly so. Following tradition in Sunday worship confirms the old adage, like mother, like daughter. Saturday keeping is no different from circumcision or keeping Jewish feasts...funny grown ups are chasing shadows just as Paul said it
6. Since Sunday keeping protestants have no solid ground to stand on, rather than turning to scripture for truth, they deflect attention from this contradiction, and join Rome in ridiculing Sabbath-keeping. If the ad hominems in this thread are anything to go by, the Sunday-keeping student has outperformed her master. The only thing missing is Rome's faggots. The only truth is Holy Spirit is INDIFFERENT to days...this means I can keep ANY day for whatever reason or not keep any at all
7. Which proves Bible prophecy right. Daniel and Revelation depict a subtle beast (little horn) creeping into the church, taking the place of Christ and substituting His authority for her own. The antichrist is not he who is violently opposed to Christ, but stealthily replaces His authority over His own church (applause from the Protestant cabin). In this regard, apostate Christianity (Protestantism) joins hands with Rome and the state to oppress anybody opposed to her authority. In this thread and in Rome's Challenge, Adventists are spelled out as Rome's thorn in the flesh. Without Jews and Adventists, it is likely the world would not know what Rome did to the Ten Commandments. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than on the Sabbath question. Ever thought how retarded it is to believe in spiritual gifts and prophecies but to claim that in 1900 years ONLY 1 deranged and sick whacko called EGW is God's prophet?
You attack my adventist beliefs but you have not told us what you believe. Which is your church so we can also examine its doctrines? These are not your beliefs. You are being fed with this garbage from EGW. You are not allowed to think on your own. Like Bob Marley sang, emancipate yourself from this mental slavery. I can see you don't even believe them, you are just scared of dumping the only lies you have ever known...
Let me help you, it is time you met Christ and got life in abundance
I will endeavor to give updates on developments towards the full unity of the threesome in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. I rest my case. I will keep you posted on a list of retarded prophecies EGW cooked and how they have been whitewashing them for the hopelessly ignorant like you
-
Here is why Nuff Sed thinks am blasphemous in attacking her Godess
We believe the revelation and inspiration of both the Bible and Ellen White's writings to be of equal quality. The superintendence of the Holy Spirit was just as careful and thorough in one case as in the other.
|
|
She simply had much more to say on all doctrinal topics than any other inspired writer.
|
|
"I am thankful," she wrote to the evangelist W. W. Simpson, "that the instruction contained in my books establishes present truth for this time. These books were written under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit."—Letter 50, 1906
|
|
Since we believe that Mrs. White received revelations equal in quality to those received by Bible writers,
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1981/10/ellen-whites-role-in-doctrine-formation
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1981/MIN1981-10.pdf
To Nuff Sed, Paul and Ellen White are equals
-
SDA sewer, madness, hallucinate.... Why are you throwing endless ad hominem in this manner? Is it possible to make your point like a true believer?
Why do I call them sewers?
First note what they claim about her writings above (inspired) and below.
As the church engages in its theological task of formulating the fruits of exegesis into doctrine, it welcomes the prophetic influence (Ellen White's 'inspired writings) as it chooses to expound and emphasize certain teachings of Scripture and not others. Thus Mrs. White does not prove for us that the seventh day is the Sabbath, nor is she the standard or norm for that belief, but by emphasizing the importance of the Sabbath in our relationship with God, she influences us to give special attention to this particular teaching of Scripture.
So all she is basically doing in her writings is EMPHASIZING scriptures,right?
Let us examine one of her most outrageous and embarassing statements namely AMALGAMATION of Man and Beast (http://www.nonegw.org/critica.shtml)
Ellen White the one prophet inspired equally as Paul and who emphasized scriptures is telling us that Nuff Sed is a product of Beastiality!
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."2
You can read the retarded excuse for this right here (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/amalg.html)
-
Thanks for bringing up the amalgamation text in EGW's writings. I have never seen an adult African man shaken so by the writings of a woman long dead. We must ask then, why that is so. I venture to say it is because what she says is truth. I must applaud you for linking the articles on amalgamation. For the first time, we have contextual interpretation coming from your keyboard, even if only as a link to someone else's work. In the article you have linked, there is a perfectly scriptural and rational explanation of the amalgamation passages.
Thus, unfortunately for Sabbath commandment critics, the statements by E.G. White on amalgamation do not detract from the validity and sanctity of the Ten Commandments, including the fourth. To you, the messenger may look "mad, from the sewers, deranged, hallucinating" (your own words in this thread) and so on. What remains is that God spoke and it was so until men started to insinuate and impregnate the divine word with their own vain imaginations, deliberate misinterpretations, traditions, conveniences and expedience (the excuses you have ventured in this thread).
But let's even assume your allegations against E.G. White are valid, and her writing gives you nightmares. How does that help the Sunday keeping protestant? You have the Bible (sola scriptura, remember?). So far, no scriptural justification has been offered for Sunday worship. In fact, the originator of Sunday worship (Rome) has ridiculed Protestant Sunday keepers and challenged them from scripture (of all things) to follow the truth or convert to Romanism. Stop making the suicidal and self-contradictory argument for Sunday worship, she tells Sunday keeping protestants to their face. And your answer? Ridicule Ellen G. White, dither and meander with the suicidal argument and generally throw muddy ad hominems in the face of an Adventist. What is your church so we can also examine what you believe? Can you rise and face Rome's Challenge?
SDA sewer, madness, hallucinate.... Why are you throwing endless ad hominem in this manner? Is it possible to make your point like a true believer?
Why do I call them sewers?
First note what they claim about her writings above (inspired) and below.
As the church engages in its theological task of formulating the fruits of exegesis into doctrine, it welcomes the prophetic influence (Ellen White's 'inspired writings) as it chooses to expound and emphasize certain teachings of Scripture and not others. Thus Mrs. White does not prove for us that the seventh day is the Sabbath, nor is she the standard or norm for that belief, but by emphasizing the importance of the Sabbath in our relationship with God, she influences us to give special attention to this particular teaching of Scripture.
So all she is basically doing in her writings is EMPHASIZING scriptures,right?
Let us examine one of her most outrageous and embarassing statements namely AMALGAMATION of Man and Beast (http://www.nonegw.org/critica.shtml)
Ellen White the one prophet inspired equally as Paul and who emphasized scriptures is telling us that Nuff Sed is a product of Beastiality!
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."2
You can read the retarded excuse for this right here (http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/amalg.html)
-
Thanks for bringing up the amalgamation text in EGW's writings. I have never seen an adult African man shaken so by the writings of a woman long dead. We must ask then, why that is so. I venture to say it is because what she says is truth. I must applaud you for linking the articles on amalgamation. For the first time, we have contextual interpretation coming from your keyboard, even if only as a link to someone else's work. In the article you have linked, there is a perfectly scriptural and rational explanation of the amalgamation passages.
Nuff Sed,
You know the beauty of it all is not everybody following this is as retarded, and they can make their minds on SDA garbage. Man made in the image of God sleeping with another man made in the image of God corrupts the image of God, and give rise to 'certain races' and species among animals as well?
My job has been to save the braindead from hellfire and Veritas afforded me a platform. Vera,May Jesus bless you mightily. Nipate.org has made it so easy. I usually refer them here.
Thus, unfortunately for Sabbath commandment critics, the statements by E.G. White on amalgamation do not detract from the validity and sanctity of the Ten Commandments, including the fourth. To you, the messenger may look "mad, from the sewers, deranged, hallucinating" (your own words in this thread) and so on. What remains is that God spoke and it was so until men started to insinuate and impregnate the divine word with their own vain imaginations, deliberate misinterpretations, traditions, conveniences and expedience (the excuses you have ventured in this thread). But let's even assume your allegations against E.G. White are valid, and her writing gives you nightmares. How does that help the Sunday keeping protestant? You have the Bible (sola scriptura, remember?). So far, no scriptural justification has been offered for Sunday worship. In fact, the originator of Sunday worship (Rome) has ridiculed Protestant Sunday keepers and challenged them from scripture (of all things) to follow the truth or convert to Romanism. Stop making the suicidal and self-contradictory argument for Sunday worship, she tells Sunday keeping protestants to their face. And your answer? Ridicule Ellen G. White, dither and meander with the suicidal argument and generally throw muddy ad hominems in the face of an Adventist. What is your church so we can also examine what you believe? Can you rise and face Rome's Challenge?
Nuff Sed,
Imagine somebody aksin you 'what is the SCRIPTURAL basis for the color of your top or skirt or bra?' That is exactly how I feel when a Sabbatarian aks me the basis of Sunday worship.
There is no scriptural basis for wearing a blue,white or gray shirt.
Doesn't that make wearing a gray shirt UNBIBLICAL seeing you are wearing it WITHOUT SCRIPTURAL BASIS?
Nope. It means the scriptures are INDIFFERENT to the color of your shirt 8)
The highlighted captures EGW the best. Ellen Gould White is equally inspired as Paul. Do you believe this?
-
Nuff Sed,
I would have thought after EGW called you a product of beastiality she had it.
She went on to see tall jamaaz on Jupiter! (http://www.nonsda.org/egw/criticb.shtml) :lolz: :lolz: :lolz:
This is your goddess? :o :o
This is the MOST venerated person in SDA, whose writings are christened 'Spirit of Prophecy', a mad woman who 'saw' Enock living on Jupiter?
And am supposed to sit and learn about the future and ecumenism from her? Unthaw your brain my dear sista
-
Retarded and braindead have been added to the ad hominem lexicon.
I get it now. Apparently you are miffed by the fact that a 19th century woman is getting as much attention as Paul. Let's note a few things.
1. Not all prophets get the same attention at the same time. Isaiah's prophecies were considered differently when Jesus stood up in the temple and read the scrolls about himself. Paul's prophecies didn't make sense to many in his time, and they rejected him flat leading him to say he will now go to the Gentiles. If Jesus could be rejected and Paul could be treated thus, who is EGW?
2. Prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit just like the other spirit gives the gift of ad hominem (evidently). Voke and DB have no role in where, when and on whom prophecy falls.
1 Corinthians 12:9-11King James Version (KJV)
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
3. The Bible foretells of a time when the gift of the Holy Spirit shall fall greater than the former rain (Pentecost). See Joel 2:28. Prophecy as a gift is not limited to the past. Indeed, as the end nears, the gift is needed more now that wolves have gone out in sheep's clothing.
4. Paul tells us to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. If you can prove EGW is deceiving you, by all means go ahead and reject her message.
-
Retarded and braindead have been added to the ad hominem lexicon.
I get it now. Apparently you are miffed by the fact that a 19th century woman is getting as much attention as Paul.
What are you smoking Nuff Sed?
1. Attention by whom? Am shocked at the amount of thinking an Adventist has to suspend before swearing allegiance to EGW....
2. Is EGW getting a fraction of Paul's attention? Lord have mercy on whatever is left of your brains
Let's note a few things.
1. Not all prophets get the same attention at the same time. Isaiah's prophecies were considered differently when Jesus stood up in the temple and read the scrolls about himself. Paul's prophecies didn't make sense to many in his time, and they rejected him flat leading him to say he will now go to the Gentiles. If Jesus could be rejected and Paul could be treated thus, who is EGW?
This is not even ganja; this is congenial.
Mormons could equally argue that Joseph Smith was rejected, persecuted and 'matryed' just like Peter so he was a prophet.
Rejection is no proof of your authenticity; sometimes all it takes is common sense to separate delusional sewer rats from the real deal
2. Prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit just like the other spirit gives the gift of ad hominem (evidently). Voke and DB have no role in where, when and on whom prophecy falls.
1 Corinthians 12:9-11King James Version (KJV)
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
Does it bother you that in 1900 years, the gift fell on one woman who you vowed to believe as you was baptized?
You might as well say you believe God shut the prophetic for 1900 years, released it on EGW and then shut it forever.
3. The Bible foretells of a time when the gift of the Holy Spirit shall fall greater than the former rain (Pentecost). See Joel 2:28. Prophecy as a gift is not limited to the past. Indeed, as the end nears, the gift is needed more now that wolves have gone out in sheep's clothing.
Adventists are not interested in a 'greater fall', they have ALL they need in their inspired godess
Note, Joel 2:28 stood fulfilled in Acts 2, so it is not referring to a futuristic event. In any case, how would emergence of one 'prophet' prove that that the latter fall shall be greater?
4. Paul tells us to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. If you can prove EGW is deceiving you, by all means go ahead and reject her message.
Nuff Sed, what spirit showed her tall dudes on Jupiter?
Does it bother you that her inter-galactic hallucinations matched the then EXISTING knowledge of science?
Why did she see only what astronomers had already seen?
When Mrs. White had her "vision" in 1846 it was common knowledge that Jupiter had four moons. The fifth was not discovered until 1892. In 1846, it was thought that Saturn had seven moons. The 8th moon was discovered shortly thereafter, in 1848. After the discovery, an account of the "vision" was modified to say "eight" instead of "seven". Mrs. White's vision did not reveal anything that could not have been obtained from an Astronomy book or even from a newspaper article! The only difference between what Mrs. White saw and what the astronomers saw through their telescopes was those "tall, majestic people"!
What About those Tall, Majestic People?
While Adventist historians, such as A.W. Spalding, used to trumpet the fact that Mrs. White saw tall people on Jupiter and/or Saturn in her visions, after the middle of the twentieth century, when science began to show the improbability of such, Ellen White's comments about tall, majestic people living on these planets stopped showing up in Adventist books.
The question is, if Mrs. White did not see this in vision, where did she get the notion that there were "tall people" living on the planets? Perhaps she got the idea from French author Voltaire, who in his popular 1752 story Micromegas wrote of "citizens" of Saturn who were "a thousand fathoms" tall.
I weep for you my sista...EGW is both dead and buried and probably in hell....you who have sworn allegiance to a mad woman who believed you was a product of man and monkey humping, and Enock is living in an island on Jupiter at subzero temperatures.
Nuff Sed, do you see how you blaspheme Holy Spirit by ascribing such lunacy to Him?
-
I weep for you rivers my brother. That a woman you admit is dead and buried is giving a living African male pastor such nightmares leaves a lot to be desired. Is it because she wrote the truth?
In highlighting what you use for EGW, you forgot to highlight "traditions, conveniences and expedience (the excuses you have ventured in this thread)." You almost succeeded in deflecting attention by ad hominem, meandering, dithering and all manner of obfuscation from why Protestants observe Sunday while ridiculing Sabbath keepers. Failing to find an answer, Ellen G. White has become your perpetual nightmare. Weep for yourself my brother.
-
I weep for you rivers my brother. That a woman you admit is dead and buried is giving a living African male pastor such nightmares leaves a lot to be desired. Is it because she wrote the truth?
Nuff Sed,
If truth is you are a product of man and monkey,and Enock lives in Jupiter, then you have a point
In highlighting what you use for EGW, you forgot to highlight "traditions, conveniences and expedience (the excuses you have ventured in this thread)." You almost succeeded in deflecting attention by ad hominem, meandering, dithering and all manner of obfuscation from why Protestants observe Sunday while ridiculing Sabbath keepers. Failing to find an answer, Ellen G. White has become your perpetual nightmare. Weep for yourself my brother.
There is no reason to keep sabbath any more than there is to chop foreskins. But we do chop foreskins don't we?
Why don't you share with me another dumb 'contextual' understanding of what on earth Enock is doing in Jupiter?
BTW, Joseph Smith was also shown ETs in another planet....same spirit of prophecy I tell you
-
And here is your goddess teaching Nuff Sed that masturbation cause blindness,rheumatism (http://www.nonsda.org/egw/criticc.shtml) :lolz: :lolz: :lolz: :lolz:
SDAs have been looking in vain for 100+ years to find some scientific validation for her statements but science continues to find new evidence proving her statements wrong.
Again you can see her 'visions' mirror prevailing or sections of prevailing knowledge.
Please confirm to us whether you believe her writings were EQUALLY inspired as Paul's....why are u ashamed of your sect?
-
I imagine people who get elected as senators in the US are not mad, hallucinating or coming from sewers as Pastor A.D Hominem says of SDA.
http://www.kpho.com/story/28620533/az-senator-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory
AZ Senator: Church attendance should be mandatory
Posted: Mar 26, 2015 3:41 PM
By Steve StoutCONNECT
State Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake:
"I believe what's happening to our country is that there's a moral erosion of the soul of America," she said.
"It's the soul that is corrupt. How we get back to a moral rebirth I don't know. Since we are slowly eroding religion at every opportunity that we have. Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth," she told the committee.
Read more: http://www.kpho.com/story/28620533/az-senator-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory#ixzz3VwWbHVXw
Most readers think she's an idiot. I wonder though where she could have gotten such ideas from. Of all the laws of God, none brings as much controversy as the Sabbath. Google "Who changed the Sabbath?" and compare with say "Should Christians commit adultery?"
"In the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state, Protestants are following in the steps of papists. Nay, more, they are opening the door for the papacy to regain in Protestant America the supremacy which she has lost in the Old World. And that which gives greater significance to this movement is the fact that the principal object contemplated is the enforcement of Sunday observance—a custom which originated with Rome, and which she claims as the sign of her authority. It is the spirit of the papacy—the spirit of conformity to worldly customs, the veneration for human traditions above the commandments of God—that is permeating the Protestant churches and leading them on to do the same work of Sunday exaltation which the papacy has done before them." – {GC 573.1}
-
Good morning Nuff Sed,
I have read enough junk on National Sunday Law to last me 7 consecutive eternities
http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.com/2007/09/national-sunday-law-question.html
Please make my day, think for once. National Sunday Law is the biggest BS , bigger than Nuff Sed descending from man and chimp humping and you know it
And please, grow up. Sabbath is controversial? Only to Sabbatarians. Inside an SDA congregation, feel free to spin this BS, outside, keep it to yourself
I imagine people who get elected as senators in the US are not mad, hallucinating or coming from sewers as Pastor A.D Hominem says of SDA.
http://www.kpho.com/story/28620533/az-senator-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory
AZ Senator: Church attendance should be mandatory
Posted: Mar 26, 2015 3:41 PM
By Steve StoutCONNECT
State Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake:
"I believe what's happening to our country is that there's a moral erosion of the soul of America," she said.
"It's the soul that is corrupt. How we get back to a moral rebirth I don't know. Since we are slowly eroding religion at every opportunity that we have. Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth," she told the committee.
Read more: http://www.kpho.com/story/28620533/az-senator-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory#ixzz3VwWbHVXw
Most readers think she's an idiot. I wonder though where she could have gotten such ideas from. Of all the laws of God, none brings as much controversy as the Sabbath. Google "Who changed the Sabbath?" and compare with say "Should Christians commit adultery?"
-
Anchor Sunday as the weekly day of rest: PA: EU consultation
Subtitle .: International Day of free Sunday (March 3): Alliance for the free Sunday Austria invites on the consultation process of the European Commission to the European Working Time Directive to 15.3. to participate. At 3.3. meets at the initiative of the Austrian Members Evelyn Regner also the first time a "Interest Group" on the topic of Free MEPs Sunday. (03/02/2015)
The ongoing public consultation of the European Commission on the Working Time Directive take alliances and initiatives for the free Sunday throughout Europe as an opportunity at this year's International Day of free Sunday (March 3), citizens and citizens of the EU on the possibility of an online entry suggestions to raise awareness in their native language. "We are all called to commit ourselves as part of the revision of the Working Time Directive for Sunday as the weekly day of rest common in the EU" puts it in the same call.
Bishop Black: anchor Sunday in the Working Time Directive
"The work-free Sunday as a common day of rest is essential manifestation of the European social model and should therefore also be anchored in the Working Time Directive," says Bishop Ludwig Schwarz, CEO of the Alliance for the free Sunday Austria and representatives of the Austrian Bishops' Conference in this platform of more than 50 organizations , "As we know from Austria, the free Sunday for fair working hours and decent management is essential."
"Social justice and economic efficiency go hand in hand," the social Bishop L. Black: "The developments in recent years in several European countries towards total liberalization of shop opening times and availability of workers we observe with concern. It is a sign of solidarity, to participate in the consultation, and a chance to overcome these tendencies at European level ".
http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&ei=bRFoTfytJoKw8QOU4fS7BQ&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.freiersonntag.at/%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Divns&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=de&u=http://www.freiersonntag.at/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D191:paeu-konsultationsonntagalswoechentlichenruhetagverankern%26catid%3D55:presse%26Itemid%3D105
-
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fekai.pl%2Fdziennikarze_kai%2Fx86011%2Fswieta-niedziela%2F&edit-text=&act=url
Sunday holidays
Marcin Przeciszewski / br, Warsaw, 2015-01-26
?wi?ta niedziela
Fig.
Paulina Matysiak - fotoKAI
A significant part of this year's Week of Prayer for Christian Unity Churches was a joint appeal for respect for Sunday. Signed up to the present in Poland Churches of all traditions: Orthodox, Evangelical and Catholic.
Church leaders remind workers and employers that the free Sunday is essential to deepen their faith, family life and human health. Authorities representing the right to call so its protection, noting that forcing believers to work on Sunday violates the right to freedom of religion. It is worth recalling that in our circle of civilization through Christianity the right to rest on Sunday became one of the universal human rights. Thus, the possibility of using a free Sunday should include all those who work on that day is not absolutely necessary. This right is respected in most European countries with an established democracy (see analysis on p. 6).
-
Nuff Sed when she smells a Jesuit
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c8Qx1bUJZN4/UdGHnRILhII/AAAAAAAAAZI/Hn3aXReNUEI/s485/prom-night-2008-brittany-snow-under.jpg)
Anchor Sunday as the weekly day of rest: PA: EU consultation
Subtitle .: International Day of free Sunday (March 3): Alliance for the free Sunday Austria invites on the consultation process of the European Commission to the European Working Time Directive to 15.3. to participate. At 3.3. meets at the initiative of the Austrian Members Evelyn Regner also the first time a "Interest Group" on the topic of Free MEPs Sunday. (03/02/2015)
The ongoing public consultation of the European Commission on the Working Time Directive take alliances and initiatives for the free Sunday throughout Europe as an opportunity at this year's International Day of free Sunday (March 3), citizens and citizens of the EU on the possibility of an online entry suggestions to raise awareness in their native language. "We are all called to commit ourselves as part of the revision of the Working Time Directive for Sunday as the weekly day of rest common in the EU" puts it in the same call.
Bishop Black: anchor Sunday in the Working Time Directive
"The work-free Sunday as a common day of rest is essential manifestation of the European social model and should therefore also be anchored in the Working Time Directive," says Bishop Ludwig Schwarz, CEO of the Alliance for the free Sunday Austria and representatives of the Austrian Bishops' Conference in this platform of more than 50 organizations , "As we know from Austria, the free Sunday for fair working hours and decent management is essential."
"Social justice and economic efficiency go hand in hand," the social Bishop L. Black: "The developments in recent years in several European countries towards total liberalization of shop opening times and availability of workers we observe with concern. It is a sign of solidarity, to participate in the consultation, and a chance to overcome these tendencies at European level ".
http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&ei=bRFoTfytJoKw8QOU4fS7BQ&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.freiersonntag.at/%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Divns&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=de&u=http://www.freiersonntag.at/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D191:paeu-konsultationsonntagalswoechentlichenruhetagverankern%26catid%3D55:presse%26Itemid%3D105
-
Nuff Sed,
Here is the truth
3. Adventists Have a Persecution Complex
The entire philosophy of Adventist teachings regarding end-time prophecy is that the wicked are going to join forces to persecute Seventh-day Adventists. Catholicism is supposedly going to join hands with apostate Protestantism and Spiritualism, and this three-fold union is going to pass laws restricting the liberty of Adventists to worship on Saturday. Eventually, a death penalty will be passed for all who do not honor Sunday.
This frightening end-time scenario has no basis in the Bible or in fact, but it is taught to children and new converts as if it were "gospel truth." As a result, Adventists operate in a constant state of mistrust and suspicion of other religions. Any positive statement made by a Sunday-keeping church leader regarding worship on Sunday is regarded as a "sign" of the end.
This delusional end-time scenario is referred to as the National Sunday Law. I remember vividly when SDA minister Jan Marcussen, author of a book on the subject, came to our church with a pile of newspaper clippings purporting to show the imminence of a national Sunday law. He solemnly held up his hand and declared to the congregation that it would happen so soon that a child could count the number of months. That was 19 years ago. Over 228 months, and still counting! I have now been a Christian for over 40 years, and have met thousands of people from a multitude of denominations. To this day, I have yet to meet a single person who is even the least bit interested in persecuting Seventh-day Adventists for not honoring Sunday.
The primary danger of this delusional end-time scenario is that it will cause Adventists to mis-read the true signs of the end. It dupes Adventists into thinking that certain events must transpire prior to the return of Christ. For example, an Adventist would expect Sunday laws to be passed prior to Christ's return. Therefore, an Adventist may delay getting his heart ready for the return of Christ because he thinks he has plenty of time to make that decision because there are not yet any signs of imminent Sunday laws. Secondly, it feeds the "exclusive" mindset discussed above by creating an "us" versus "them" scenario. Finally, this impending conflict generates feelings of stress, and perhaps fear, in some people. The purpose and intent of Christianity is not to coerce people to join a religion out of fear. It is to share love, joy, and peace with people.
http://www.nonsda.org/study12.shtml
Share these with your yet to be weaned babies
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fekai.pl%2Fdziennikarze_kai%2Fx86011%2Fswieta-niedziela%2F&edit-text=&act=url
Sunday holidays
Marcin Przeciszewski / br, Warsaw, 2015-01-26
?wi?ta niedziela
Fig.
Paulina Matysiak - fotoKAI
A significant part of this year's Week of Prayer for Christian Unity Churches was a joint appeal for respect for Sunday. Signed up to the present in Poland Churches of all traditions: Orthodox, Evangelical and Catholic.
Church leaders remind workers and employers that the free Sunday is essential to deepen their faith, family life and human health. Authorities representing the right to call so its protection, noting that forcing believers to work on Sunday violates the right to freedom of religion. It is worth recalling that in our circle of civilization through Christianity the right to rest on Sunday became one of the universal human rights. Thus, the possibility of using a free Sunday should include all those who work on that day is not absolutely necessary. This right is respected in most European countries with an established democracy (see analysis on p. 6).
-
http://worldincrisis.org/NSLC/NSLC-9.htm
"I do not see how a state can make protesting citizens refrain from doing innocent acts on Sunday because the doing of those acts offends sentiments of their Christian neighbors . . The ‘establishment’ clause [of the first amendment] protects citizens also against any law which selects any religious custom, practice, or ritual, or otherwise penalizes a person for not observing it . . Every Sunday school student knows the fourth commandment: [Douglas then quotes Exodus 20:8-11.] This religious mandate for observance of the seventh day became, under Emperor Constantine, a mandate for observance of the first day . . The fact that the Christian voluntarily keeps the first day of the week does not authorize the legislature to make that observance compulsory. The legislature cannot compel the citizen to do that which the Constitution leaves him free to do or omit."—William O. Douglas, United States Supreme Court, in McGowan vs. Maryland, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term, 1960 (May 29, 1961), 366 U.S. 420, 561-581.
-
If this is supposed to be proof that Ellen Gould White was a prophet for 'prophesying this', then clearly Adventism is for retards.
Why do I say this? Blue Laws was in existence BEFORE she said it, she may as well have predicted diseases among men
In the mid-1800s there were a series of incidents where Seventh-day Adventists ran into trouble with the law because they worked on Sunday. In many states there were "blue laws" forbidding work on Sunday. It was against this background of persecution by the state that prophet Ellen White describes the coming persecution of Sabbath-keepers in a series of books and articles.
http://www.nonsda.org/egw/nsl/egw22a.htm
These are being REPEALED as you have just proved down here. This was in the 60s yet Nuff Sed minus her brains is still hallucinating about the same being rolled out not just in the US but in the entire world and kadame beheading her for worshipping on Saturday
Study this carefully
Various aspects of the conspiracy theory remain unclear:
Blue laws already exist in many US states, counties and municipalities, restricting anything from the sale of alcoholic beverages to, in the past, businesses being open at all on Sunday. What is so special about a national Sunday law that would make it the trigger that sets off the fulfilment of Bible prophecy, when the US was already blanketed with state and local blue laws?
The trend over the past four decades has been to repeal those blue laws. Any attempt today at introducing such a bill for a national law would be laughed at.
Belief that such a law is inevitably coming is based on a peculiar interpretation of Bible prophecy and fears dating from the late 1800s that have ossified into a persistent conspiracy theory, not on any real legislative priorities in the U.S. Congress. A quick look at thomas.loc.gov shows nothing of the sort introduced in Congress in recent years. The closest things have been bills mentioning Sunday premium pay or designating certain Sundays “Drive Safer Sunday” or “Parent’s Day”.
What is so special about the United States that a national Sunday law in the US would trigger the end times? Would a national Sunday law in Thailand, the Ukraine, or the Republic of the Congo also trigger the end times?
Where they get Sunday worship as the mark of the beast is anyone’s guess. Although claiming the Roman Catholic Church as the beast of Revelations has been a historical pastime of many protestant churches.
http://rationalblogs.org/rationalwiki/2013/04/07/the-national-sunday-law-conspiracy/
The mad woman said it, you believe she is inspired, so it MUST come to pass :lolz: :lolz: :lolz:
http://worldincrisis.org/NSLC/NSLC-9.htm
"I do not see how a state can make protesting citizens refrain from doing innocent acts on Sunday because the doing of those acts offends sentiments of their Christian neighbors . . The ‘establishment’ clause [of the first amendment] protects citizens also against any law which selects any religious custom, practice, or ritual, or otherwise penalizes a person for not observing it . . Every Sunday school student knows the fourth commandment: [Douglas then quotes Exodus 20:8-11.] This religious mandate for observance of the seventh day became, under Emperor Constantine, a mandate for observance of the first day . . The fact that the Christian voluntarily keeps the first day of the week does not authorize the legislature to make that observance compulsory. The legislature cannot compel the citizen to do that which the Constitution leaves him free to do or omit."—William O. Douglas, United States Supreme Court, in McGowan vs. Maryland, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term, 1960 (May 29, 1961), 366 U.S. 420, 561-581.
-
(http://www.wnd.com/images/story/liddell1.jpg)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland/asportingnation/article/0019/print.shtml
Eric Liddell, a Scottish missionary and a sprinter, boycotted his best event in the 1924 Olympics because it was being ran on Sunday which in his belief was the Sabbath. He still went ahead and set a world record in a different race.
Catholic Provincial Council of Bergen, Norway (1435):
"We are informed that some people in different districts of the kingdom, have adopted and observed Saturday-keeping. It is severely forbidden – in holy church canon – [for] one and all to observe days excepting those which the holy pope, archbishop, or the bishops command. Saturday-keeping must under no circumstances be permitted hereafter further that the church canon commands. Therefore we counsel all the friends of God throughout all Norway who want to be obedient towards the holy church to let this evil of Saturday-keeping alone; and the rest we forbid under penalty of severe church punishment to keep Saturday holy."
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/57978/#S0ORtHwKkvXxo7Ld.99
-
It's not too late to grow a brain.
Is the West tending towards Blue laws/religion or secularism?
(http://www.wnd.com/images/story/liddell1.jpg)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland/asportingnation/article/0019/print.shtml
Eric Liddell, a Scottish missionary and a sprinter, boycotted his best event in the 1924 Olympics because it was being ran on Sunday which in his belief was the Sabbath. He still went ahead and set a world record in a different race.
Catholic Provincial Council of Bergen, Norway (1435):
"We are informed that some people in different districts of the kingdom, have adopted and observed Saturday-keeping. It is severely forbidden – in holy church canon – [for] one and all to observe days excepting those which the holy pope, archbishop, or the bishops command. Saturday-keeping must under no circumstances be permitted hereafter further that the church canon commands. Therefore we counsel all the friends of God throughout all Norway who want to be obedient towards the holy church to let this evil of Saturday-keeping alone; and the rest we forbid under penalty of severe church punishment to keep Saturday holy."
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/57978/#S0ORtHwKkvXxo7Ld.99
-
It's not too late to grow a brain.
Is the West tending towards Blue laws/religion or secularism?
Do you think Eric Liddell had a brain and was it, perhaps borrowed from EG White, your unending nightmare?
-
Nuff Sed,
We are tending to secularism and both EGW predictions of National Sunday Law and a powerful Rome are increasingly appearing as they really are, retarded garbage
It's not too late to grow a brain.
Is the West tending towards Blue laws/religion or secularism?
Do you think Eric Liddell had a brain and was it, perhaps borrowed from EG White, your unending nightmare?
-
Who is we and are 'we" really tending towards secularism? Why then do major Christian countries consider Islam a problem? Why did the American Romans react so rabidly when Obama reminded them about crusades during the national prayer breakfast? NB.. Address me as Daily Bread if you want to respond to my posts.
-
Nuff Sed,
I will refer you thus because that's you. You can always deny and I will apologize immediately.
Is this what Soya does to your brains? You think 'American-Romans' are resisting Islam because they are religious? It is because Islam and terror is synonymous, and Osama has to pretend that it ain't so
Who is we and are 'we" really tending towards secularism? Why then do major Christian countries consider Islam a problem? Why did the American Romans react so rabidly when Obama reminded them about crusades during the national prayer breakfast? NB.. Address me as Daily Bread if you want to respond to my posts.
-
Go to Syria or Iraq one day and tell them the war on terror is not religious, we're just tending to secularism. You will be lucky to come back with your head on your neck.
Nuff Sed,
I will refer you thus because that's you. You can always deny and I will apologize immediately.
Is this what Soya does to your brains? You think 'American-Romans' are resisting Islam because they are religious? It is because Islam and terror is synonymous, and Osama has to pretend that it ain't so
Who is we and are 'we" really tending towards secularism? Why then do major Christian countries consider Islam a problem? Why did the American Romans react so rabidly when Obama reminded them about crusades during the national prayer breakfast? NB.. Address me as Daily Bread if you want to respond to my posts.
-
Mumu,
Why now post 911 and not before? Has the West suddenly discovered religion? Did I not tell you that Islam and violence/extremism are synonyms lately?
Go to Syria or Iraq one day and tell them the war on terror is not religious, we're just tending to secularism. You will be lucky to come back with your head on your neck.
-
How does that help your secularism trending?
Mumu,
Why now post 911 and not before? Has the West suddenly discovered religion? Did I not tell you that Islam and violence/extremism are synonyms lately?
Go to Syria or Iraq one day and tell them the war on terror is not religious, we're just tending to secularism. You will be lucky to come back with your head on your neck.
-
Grow some brain;
Don't you ever mistake war on terror for West tending to religion...at least not before grownups. Before other retards, feel free to do it, you have my blessings
How does that help your secularism trending?
Mumu,
Why now post 911 and not before? Has the West suddenly discovered religion? Did I not tell you that Islam and violence/extremism are synonyms lately?
Go to Syria or Iraq one day and tell them the war on terror is not religious, we're just tending to secularism. You will be lucky to come back with your head on your neck.
-
Pastor Argumentum A.D Hominem in his element.
Grow some brain;
Don't you ever mistake war on terror for West tending to religion...at least not before grownups. Before other retards, feel free to do it, you have my blessings
-
In an article for the Christian Science Monitor, Sara Miller writes that the repeal of blue laws and the loosening of restrictions on Sunday sales is more a consequence of tight government budgets rather than a relaxation of the nation’s moral code.
http://www.sanfordherald.com/business/x1859798871/Chamber-Chat-The-business-of-Sunday
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/christian-protesters-warn-northern-ireland-fans-of-sunday-football-shame-31103596.html
Keep 'Sabbath' holy, protesters warn football fans
Police were on stand-by in south Belfast yesterday as Free Presbyterian protesters sang hymns, prayed and handed out leaflets to football fans making their way to Northern Ireland's first ever Sunday international game at home....
The protesters, waving banners and placards urging people to keep the Sabbath holy, staged an hour-long outdoor service as supporters walked along Donegall Avenue. Speaker after speaker condemned football authorities for going ahead with the match despite objections from a number of churches.
-
Cowboy country does not want to be left in the dark ages.
http://www.12newsnow.com/story/28557704/locals-oppose-lawmakers-push-to-end-state-blue-laws
-
If I was Nuff Sed, I'd be so embarrassed of combing through news hunting for anything that remotely suggests nothing about National Sunday Law because that is BS. But evidentially indoctrination in cults is no joke
-
Perhaps it's embarrassing looking up how current history proves scripture true. It's better to be embarrassed by that than dusting up 16th century arguments by counter-reformation Romanists and projecting them as today's protestant defense for Sunday worship.
If I was Nuff Sed, I'd be so embarrassed of combing through news hunting for anything that remotely suggests nothing about National Sunday Law because that is BS. But evidentially indoctrination in cults is no joke
-
Sunday worship needs no defense seeing God is indifferent to days. Sunday worship is as old as Christianity.
When Christians are not to be judged over sabbath (weekly), new moons (monthly) of holy day (annual), they are at liberty to settle on the day of worship on their own and they don't owe nobody no reason for whatever they settle on. So when they settle on Sunday being the Lord's Day seeing Christ resurrected on Sunday, it is a total waste of time quarreling them.
You should take it up to Holy Spirit who says ' let no man judge you over holy day,new moon or sabbaths'. That verse was written precisely because of shadow chasers like you who would attempt to impose the very Law Christ died to redeem us from on us
Perhaps it's embarrassing looking up how current history proves scripture true. It's better to be embarrassed by that than dusting up 16th century arguments by counter-reformation Romanists and projecting them as today's protestant defense for Sunday worship.
If I was Nuff Sed, I'd be so embarrassed of combing through news hunting for anything that remotely suggests nothing about National Sunday Law because that is BS. But evidentially indoctrination in cults is no joke
-
Sunday worship needs no defense seeing God is indifferent to days. Sunday worship is as old as Christianity.
The fact that the oldest church made many deliberate attempts to defend Sunday worship is a pointer to something unscriptural, and means your statement has been overtaken by events. Rome has defended Sunday worship in several councils as old as Trent and Laodecia. See Art 29 of the Council of Laodecia for example. Again, Sunday worship is not as old as Christianity. The Christianity we see in scripture does not show evidence of Sunday worship. On the contrary, there is ample evidence of Sabbath worship in the gospels (Christ being present in person, the beginning of Christianity) and in Acts 13, 17, 17 and 20. The so-called "apostolic tradition" that you have cited over an over is an invention of Rome.
When Christians are not to be judged over sabbath (weekly), new moons (monthly) of holy day (annual), they are at liberty to settle on the day of worship on their own and they don't owe nobody no reason for whatever they settle on. So when they settle on Sunday being the Lord's Day seeing Christ resurrected on Sunday, it is a total waste of time quarreling them.
Misinterpretation of Col 2:16. We have dealt with that several times. But just to indulge you, Catholics number more than all other Christian denominations combined (assuming they are Christian in the first place). How does such a number fear judging" by a group of Sabbatarians numbering less than 20m (Adventists for example)? Who is bullying who? How did the so-called protestants "settle on a day" when at the same time they claim "frankly speaking it does not matter to me which day"?
You should take it up to Holy Spirit who says ' let no man judge you over holy day,new moon or sabbaths'. That verse was written precisely because of shadow chasers like you who would attempt to impose the very Law Christ died to redeem us from on us
A thief runs when nobody is chasing him. For some reason, protestant Sunday worshipers have decided they are being judged by a minority, miniscule group whose only claim to fame is that they keep the Ten Commandments. It's so bad that the elephant claims the elephant imposed on him the law to flap its mighty ears.
Perhaps it's embarrassing looking up how current history proves scripture true. It's better to be embarrassed by that than dusting up 16th century arguments by counter-reformation Romanists and projecting them as today's protestant defense for Sunday worship.
If I was Nuff Sed, I'd be so embarrassed of combing through news hunting for anything that remotely suggests nothing about National Sunday Law because that is BS. But evidentially indoctrination in cults is no joke
[/quote]
-
Nuff Sed,
Defending Sunday worship is a BONUS if at all. Comprende? 'Let no man JUDGE you over days' that is Holy Spirit speaking not councils of men. Romans is very clear to all but the braindead that esteeming all days alike or some above others ARE ALL OK
We have regular meetings recorded on Sabbath and Sunday plus an exhortation not to neglect these meetings in Hebrews. Period.
Retarded arguments that sabbaton means weekly sabbath in ALL but one instance in the NT stand refuted for over 100 years 8)
Sunday worship needs no defense seeing God is indifferent to days. Sunday worship is as old as Christianity.
The fact that the oldest church made many deliberate attempts to defend Sunday worship is a pointer to something unscriptural, and means your statement has been overtaken by events. Rome has defended Sunday worship in several councils as old as Trent and Laodecia. See Art 29 of the Council of Laodecia for example. Again, Sunday worship is not as old as Christianity. The Christianity we see in scripture does not show evidence of Sunday worship. On the contrary, there is ample evidence of Sabbath worship in the gospels (Christ being present in person, the beginning of Christianity) and in Acts 13, 17, 17 and 20. The so-called "apostolic tradition" that you have cited over an over is an invention of Rome.
When Christians are not to be judged over sabbath (weekly), new moons (monthly) of holy day (annual), they are at liberty to settle on the day of worship on their own and they don't owe nobody no reason for whatever they settle on. So when they settle on Sunday being the Lord's Day seeing Christ resurrected on Sunday, it is a total waste of time quarreling them.
Misinterpretation of Col 2:16. We have dealt with that several times. But just to indulge you, Catholics number more than all other Christian denominations combined (assuming they are Christian in the first place). How does such a number fear judging" by a group of Sabbatarians numbering less than 20m (Adventists for example)? Who is bullying who? How did the so-called protestants "settle on a day" when at the same time they claim "frankly speaking it does not matter to me which day"?
You should take it up to Holy Spirit who says ' let no man judge you over holy day,new moon or sabbaths'. That verse was written precisely because of shadow chasers like you who would attempt to impose the very Law Christ died to redeem us from on us
A thief runs when nobody is chasing him. For some reason, protestant Sunday worshipers have decided they are being judged by a minority, miniscule group whose only claim to fame is that they keep the Ten Commandments. It's so bad that the elephant claims the elephant imposed on him the law to flap its mighty ears.
Perhaps it's embarrassing looking up how current history proves scripture true. It's better to be embarrassed by that than dusting up 16th century arguments by counter-reformation Romanists and projecting them as today's protestant defense for Sunday worship.
If I was Nuff Sed, I'd be so embarrassed of combing through news hunting for anything that remotely suggests nothing about National Sunday Law because that is BS. But evidentially indoctrination in cults is no joke
[/quote]
-
Nuff Sed,
Defending Sunday worship is a BONUS if at all. Comprende? 'Let no man JUDGE you over days' that is Holy Spirit speaking not councils of men. Romans is very clear to all but the braindead that esteeming all days alike or some above others ARE ALL OK
We have regular meetings recorded on Sabbath and Sunday plus an exhortation not to neglect these meetings in Hebrews. Period.
Retarded arguments that sabbaton means weekly sabbath in ALL but one instance in the NT stand refuted for over 100 years 8)
It still perplexes me pastor how you can develop a theology based on "let no man judge you" anything goes interpretation. Can Ms Corrupt extend that verse to say let no man judge you on how much you steal - after all she most probably tithed part of it for the spreading of the gospel! Sunday worship sets protestantism on such a slippery slope that tonnes and tonnes of Ad Hominem must be employed in its BONUS defense.
Falsehood, meandering and deliberate mythinformation has now been added to ad hominem.
-
Colossians is not a blank cheque, it is VERY particular about what no man should judge me.
Here,
Col 2:16 (KJV)
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
1. Food- I know you vowed before an SDA church when you was being inducted to keep off meat
2. Drink- I know you have been promised the nether parts of hell for as much as using ethanol on your mouthwash or coffee
3. HOLY DAY,NEW MOON or sabbath days- you had fits over ESV. Kumbe KJV is even clearer! What is the plural of sabbath? Sabbaths days/sabbaths/sabbath days?
And here sits SDAs cooking up apocalyptic delusions about being hounded over stuff nobody should judge you over in the first place. You are guilty of JUDGING vooke over the very things Holy Spirit charges you against judging; shadows long fulfilled in Christ 8)
Nuff Sed,
Defending Sunday worship is a BONUS if at all. Comprende? 'Let no man JUDGE you over days' that is Holy Spirit speaking not councils of men. Romans is very clear to all but the braindead that esteeming all days alike or some above others ARE ALL OK
We have regular meetings recorded on Sabbath and Sunday plus an exhortation not to neglect these meetings in Hebrews. Period.
Retarded arguments that sabbaton means weekly sabbath in ALL but one instance in the NT stand refuted for over 100 years 8)
It still perplexes me pastor how you can develop a theology based on "let no man judge you" anything goes interpretation. Can Ms Corrupt extend that verse to say let no man judge you on how much you steal - after all she most probably tithed part of it for the spreading of the gospel! Sunday worship sets protestantism on such a slippery slope that tonnes and tonnes of Ad Hominem must be employed in its BONUS defense.
Falsehood, meandering and deliberate mythinformation has now been added to ad hominem.
-
Folks,
How about you keep every day holy? Let's make that every nano-second of the earth's rotation. Will God be satisfied with that?
-
Pastor Voke you are not helping the Sundaykeeping cause. You have used Col 2:16 and misinterpreted it to talk about the Ten Commandments. KJV does not help you at all. But again, supposing you were right that it is about the Sabbath, you have variously used this verse and Romans to argue that where Paul talks about circumcision, he also abolishes the Sabbath commandment. You can use Col 2:16 to see the Sabbath where it does not exist, but when one uses the same Col 2:16 to support corruption you scream ad hominem. Do you see the hypocrisy now?
Colossians is not a blank cheque, it is VERY particular about what no man should judge me.
Here,
Col 2:16 (KJV)
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
1. Food- I know you vowed before an SDA church when you was being inducted to keep off meat
2. Drink- I know you have been promised the nether parts of hell for as much as using ethanol on your mouthwash or coffee
3. HOLY DAY,NEW MOON or sabbath days- you had fits over ESV. Kumbe KJV is even clearer! What is the plural of sabbath? Sabbaths days/sabbaths/sabbath days?
And here sits SDAs cooking up apocalyptic delusions about being hounded over stuff nobody should judge you over in the first place. You are guilty of JUDGING vooke over the very things Holy Spirit charges you against judging.
Nuff Sed,
Defending Sunday worship is a BONUS if at all. Comprende? 'Let no man JUDGE you over days' that is Holy Spirit speaking not councils of men. Romans is very clear to all but the braindead that esteeming all days alike or some above others ARE ALL OK
We have regular meetings recorded on Sabbath and Sunday plus an exhortation not to neglect these meetings in Hebrews. Period.
Retarded arguments that sabbaton means weekly sabbath in ALL but one instance in the NT stand refuted for over 100 years 8)
It still perplexes me pastor how you can develop a theology based on "let no man judge you" anything goes interpretation. Can Ms Corrupt extend that verse to say let no man judge you on how much you steal - after all she most probably tithed part of it for the spreading of the gospel! Sunday worship sets protestantism on such a slippery slope that tonnes and tonnes of Ad Hominem must be employed in its BONUS defense.
Falsehood, meandering and deliberate mythinformation has now been added to ad hominem.
-
Folks,
How about you keep every day holy? Let's make that every nano-second of the earth's rotation. Will God be satisfied with that?
Not at all. It's the argument that Protestants make when they see the sanctity of God's law. If we were left to make our own laws about the Sabbath, we could as well make our own laws about theft and say corruption is not the same as theft - we only stole to give water to the needy (which turns out to be ourselves mostly). We could also shag a neigbor's wife but justify it that she was really in need and begged for it. One could swear like Pastor Ad Hominem here and justify it with claims of Ellen G. White obsession - she asked for it, our resident pastor might say. Our own laws are just that, our own. God's Ten Commandments are to be obeyed, not rationalized, changed or modified to suit convenience, apostolic tradition and such other excuses.
Think about it - the origin of sin is in Eve disobeying a simple instruction not to eat of a certain tree. She justified it (the snake deceived me), and Adam did too (the woman you gave me). But that did not stop the consequences of sin and they were banished from Eden. Protestantism today makes the same old justification. We're following "apostolic practice" which apostles are unidentified, no scripture to back up the claims, but alas, tonnes of ad hominem freely available from Rome's apologist-in-chief.
I learned a principle that used to separate Protestants from Rome (I suppose by now you know Rome is wholly bent on rebelling against God and boasting about it). Rome enjoins all that the Bible does not oppose (Romanists find no problem smoking for example, saying it is not forbidden, but once on the slippery slope they go into forbidden territory too easily, too often); Protestantism never enjoins anything the Bible does not endorse, hence sola scriptura. Here we have the reverse - Protestants screaming louder than bereaved Rome about Rome's adored idol of Pagan, Sunday worship!
God wants us to work six days a week, so we can't worship like the Commandment requires every nanosecond and still work. In the same commandment, He sets aside a day for Himself. Making a day for ourselves makes it an idol and makes us gods of our own selves, yet He purchased us at great cost.
-
Nuff Sed,
All your arguments against Weekly sabbath are hollow as I have effectively shown you. Let me jog your memory
1. sabbaths in Colossians is in plural so it can't be weekly
I have shared another example of the same word in plural in Acts where the meaning is obviously weekly sabbath
2. sabbaths in Colossians starts with a small 's'.
I have shown that this is the translators' job, and going Greek gets to the bottom of it
3. The 'context' of Colossians show that the ceremonial sabbath is in question not the weekly.
I have shown you that the arbitrary distinction between 'ceremonial' and 'moral' parts of the law are a figment of your imagination, add your apriori bias blinds you . For instance, why can't the weekly sabbath be ceremonial? What is the moral imperative to keep a certain day in somebody who has never read Torah? On the contrary, the rest of the commandments are full of moral elements pervading EVERY Homo sapien.
On the contrary, you have not offered substantial or ANY refutation to the following arguments about Sabbaton in Colossians referring to the weekly sabbath;
1. The same word appears over 50 times,69 I hazard and in EVERY instance Adventists agree it means the weekly sabbath except this. Inconsistency
2. Paul has already mentioned the 'ceremonial' sabbaths in the phrase HOLY DAY and it is insulting to his person and the Holy Spirit to insinuate that he is repeating the same. Yaani, I can't imagine Paul/Holy Spirit inspiring, 'let no man judge you over drinking, eating or even DRINKING'.
3. The scriptural pattern of Annual-monthly-weekly feasts sometimes appearing in reverse , weekly-monthly-annual is very evident here yet SDAs would have us believe that Paul is saying Annual-Monthly-Annual
The inconsistent hypocrite here clearly is the purveyor of shallow and hollow no-sabbath-in-Colossians arguments
Romans nails ANY Sabbatarian hopes.
Romans 14:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Here, Holy Spirit leaves it to our own persuasion whether to esteem some days above others or to esteem all equally. He is not talking about circumcision here. Please read Romans 14.
It would be tragic for Paul to leave such instructions which would contradict a command to esteem one day above others. I mean I can't be allowed to follow my own persuasions on days when am already under instruction to esteem one day above others. Likewise, Nuff Sed can't be free to commit whoredom while at the same time being warned against fornication.
But thank God, Paul by revelation knew esteeming any day above others belonged to the past/Jews and not Gentiles
Kindly note that screaming that there is no sabbath in Colossians don't make it so. Please use your brains and demonstrate this. Deduce as opposed to regurgitating illogical arguments
Pastor Voke you are not helping the Sundaykeeping cause. You have used Col 2:16 and misinterpreted it to talk about the Ten Commandments. KJV does not help you at all. But again, supposing you were right that it is about the Sabbath, you have variously used this verse and Romans to argue that where Paul talks about circumcision, he also abolishes the Sabbath commandment. You can use Col 2:16 to see the Sabbath where it does not exist, but when one uses the same Col 2:16 to support corruption you scream ad hominem. Do you see the hypocrisy now?
Colossians is not a blank cheque, it is VERY particular about what no man should judge me.
Here,
Col 2:16 (KJV)
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
1. Food- I know you vowed before an SDA church when you was being inducted to keep off meat
2. Drink- I know you have been promised the nether parts of hell for as much as using ethanol on your mouthwash or coffee
3. HOLY DAY,NEW MOON or sabbath days- you had fits over ESV. Kumbe KJV is even clearer! What is the plural of sabbath? Sabbaths days/sabbaths/sabbath days?
And here sits SDAs cooking up apocalyptic delusions about being hounded over stuff nobody should judge you over in the first place. You are guilty of JUDGING vooke over the very things Holy Spirit charges you against judging.
Nuff Sed,
Defending Sunday worship is a BONUS if at all. Comprende? 'Let no man JUDGE you over days' that is Holy Spirit speaking not councils of men. Romans is very clear to all but the braindead that esteeming all days alike or some above others ARE ALL OK
We have regular meetings recorded on Sabbath and Sunday plus an exhortation not to neglect these meetings in Hebrews. Period.
Retarded arguments that sabbaton means weekly sabbath in ALL but one instance in the NT stand refuted for over 100 years 8)
It still perplexes me pastor how you can develop a theology based on "let no man judge you" anything goes interpretation. Can Ms Corrupt extend that verse to say let no man judge you on how much you steal - after all she most probably tithed part of it for the spreading of the gospel! Sunday worship sets protestantism on such a slippery slope that tonnes and tonnes of Ad Hominem must be employed in its BONUS defense.
Falsehood, meandering and deliberate mythinformation has now been added to ad hominem.
-
Folks,
How about you keep every day holy? Let's make that every nano-second of the earth's rotation. Will God be satisfied with that?
Not at all. It's the argument that Protestants make when they see the sanctity of God's law. If we were left to make our own laws about the Sabbath, we could as well make our own laws about theft and say corruption is not the same as theft - we only stole to give water to the needy (which turns out to be ourselves mostly). We could also shag a neigbor's wife abut justify it that she was really in need and begged for it. One could swear like Pastor Ad Hominem here and justify it with claims of Ellen G. White obsession - she asked for it, our resident pastor might say. Our own laws are just that, our own. God's Ten Commandments are to be obeyed, not rationalized, changed or modified to suit convenience, apostolic tradition and such other excuses.
I learned a principle that separates Protestants from Rome (I suppose by now you know Rome is wholly bent on rebelling against God and boasting about it). Rome enjoins all that the Bible does not oppose; Protestantism never enjoins anything the Bible does not endorse, hence sola scriptura. Here we have the reverse - Protestants screaming louder than bereaved Rome about Rome's adored idol of Pagan, Sunday worship!
God wants us to work six days a week, and He sets aside a day for Himself. Making a day for ourselves makes it an idol and makes us gods of our own selves, yet He purchased us at great cost.
Interesting. Does that mean that you view work as incompatible with Holiness? Should a doctor not save a life because he is keeping the Lord's day holy?
Is there any specific calendar God prefers?
-
Work and holiness are highly compatible, that's why the fourth Commandment begins with "Six days thou shalt work and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God". There are jobs out of necessity to save lives that are completely compatible with the Sabbath commandment and Jesus said as much by asking Pharisees if they would not pull out an injured ox out of a hole on the Sabbath. He went ahead and healed many on the Sabbath, demonstrating that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
Sundaykeeping Protestants when confronted with the reality of God's law begin meandering and dithering that even Jesus healed on the Sabbath, so the Sabbath law does not really count. When you ask them about stealing they don't have answers.
I do not know if God prefers a calendar. All I know is that He gave the Ten Commandments one of which is to keep the Sabbath.
The question about work and holiness being compatible is what rendered the mendicant Friars really contemptible. Relying on their holiness, they refrained from work and cloistered themselves, only coming out to beg for alms with menaces. They wholly denied the true apostolic practice set up by Paul the tentmaker and greatest evangelist who also kept the Sabbath.
-
The Achiles heel of legalism is picking parts of Torah while tossing out the rest. He also gave a commandment to Israel to circumcise
I do not know if God prefers a calendar. All I know is that He gave the Ten Commandments one of which is to keep the Sabbath.
-
Not at all. We have seen how the Jerusalem Council gave reasons for not subjecting Gentiles to Jewish laws (Paul explains why circumcision and the feasts and sabbaths in Col 2:16 are among the "ordinances" done away with at the cross. We call them ceremonial laws, different from the Ten Commandments). Not sacrificing or keeping the passover have scriptural backing. However, Christianity that keeps Sunday and does away with Sabbath (while at the same time appropriating the Sabbath laws to Sunday) without scriptural backing becomes highly questionable.
You made the assertion that circumcision was commanded of the Jews. Can you back that up?
Unlike Sunday worship, Sabbath keeping has scriptural backing all the way from creation to the prophets, to Christ Himself, to the disciples, to the apostles in the early church and to eternity (Isaiah 58, Isaiah 66). If you found one verse endorsing Sunday, we could begin from there.
The Achiles heel of legalism is picking parts of Torah while tossing out the rest. He also gave a commandment to Israel to circumcise
I do not know if God prefers a calendar. All I know is that He gave the Ten Commandments one of which is to keep the Sabbath.
-
Not at all. We have seen how the Jerusalem Council gave reasons for not subjecting Gentiles to Jewish laws
These are not 'Jewish laws' but the LAW OF GOD,THE LAW OF MOSES. Jews did not invent them, these are commandments of God
(Paul explains why circumcision and the feasts and sabbaths in Col 2:16 are among the "ordinances" done away with at the cross.
How unthinking does it get when SDAs cherry pick what was nailed and what was not! The entire Law was nailed to the cross
We call them ceremonial laws, different from the Ten Commandments).
Yes you call them thus but on what basis do you toss out one as 'ceremonial' and another as 'moral' law? Crass arbitrariness
Not sacrificing or keeping the passover have scriptural backing.
And so is NOT esteeming sabbath. Read Romans 14:5 again
However, Christianity that keeps Sunday and does away with Sabbath (while at the same time appropriating the Sabbath laws to Sunday) without scriptural backing becomes highly questionable.
God has given a Gentile freedom to circumcise or not to whereas once He commanded it. Likewise He has given me freedom to esteem one day above others for ANY reason or not to esteem at all
You made the assertion that circumcision was commanded of the Jews. Can you back that up?
hoping you won't throw a tantrum over ESV again
Genesis 17:10-13 English Standard Version (ESV)
10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
Unlike Sunday worship, Sabbath keeping has scriptural backing all the way from creation to the prophets, to Christ Himself, to the disciples, to the apostles in the early church and to eternity (Isaiah 58, Isaiah 66). If you found one verse endorsing Sunday, we could begin from there.
I don't need a single verse endorsing Sunday because I have been left to my own convictions to esteem a day above others or not to.
Romans 14:5 (KJV)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind
It's high time you approached God minus your Adventist shades where whatever you do must have been commanded somewhere. Does God endorse Android or iOS? 8)
-
Nuff Sed,
Could you be kind enough to teach me where Sabbath will be kept in heaven from the book of Isaiah?
Thank you, you are far too kind
-
https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/
Kenya is now #19 up from #43 in the world ranking of nations where persecution is strong. It's easy to see the Muslim persecution of Christians because of the terror attacks. The invisible persecution of Adventists for their faith is less visible and not mentioned on such websites.
OVERVIEW OF KENYA
Kenya
Homegrown radical Muslims and militants crossing the border from Somalia are severely persecuting Christians. The government’s approach to pushing for an unbalanced secularist agenda also has an impact on the Kenyan church, as some of the agenda being pushed by the government contradicts with the values and principles of Christianity. Violence has increased in different parts of the country particularly where Islamic radicalism is high. The future of Kenyan Christians will continue deteriorating as long as the underlying issues are not properly and adequately tackled. The future of the Kenyan church appears precarious. The government’s stance towards religious institutions is becoming less and less positive and the church faces intensifying levels of persecution, especially from the militant group al-Shabaab.
https://www.opendoorsusa.org/newsroom/tag-news-post/kenya-many-saw-sights-too-horrible-to-describe/
Postbank Adventist workers fired for keeping the Sabbath had to go to court.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201410090159.html
Alliance High School students had a similar experience. Remember these are children still in their teenage years being persecuted for their faith.
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/lifestyle/article/2000084618/judge-orders-public-schools-to-exempt-sda-students-in-row-over-sabbath
And there are many others.
-
Over 30 Ethiopian Christians just lost they heads to ISIS in Libya
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-release-sickening-new-video-5549977
The various church attacks in Kenia
That's persecution not whining over obsolete shadows. Told you Mormons have been persecuted for the longest; there are Laws forbidding polygamy something they deem as their right. Gay 'Christians' would also fill more pages with how homosexuality their 'God-given' rights are ever so violently infringed to the point of death.
This OpendoorUS, I'd be very much interested in digging they statement of faith. I'd be least surprised if it's not another SDA lobby group unintelligently distancing itself from its mother cult
https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/
Kenya is now #19 up from #43 in the world ranking of nations where persecution is strong. It's easy to see the Muslim persecution of Christians because of the terror attacks. The invisible persecution of Adventists for their faith is less visible and not mentioned on such websites.
OVERVIEW OF KENYA
Kenya
Homegrown radical Muslims and militants crossing the border from Somalia are severely persecuting Christians. The government’s approach to pushing for an unbalanced secularist agenda also has an impact on the Kenyan church, as some of the agenda being pushed by the government contradicts with the values and principles of Christianity. Violence has increased in different parts of the country particularly where Islamic radicalism is high. The future of Kenyan Christians will continue deteriorating as long as the underlying issues are not properly and adequately tackled. The future of the Kenyan church appears precarious. The government’s stance towards religious institutions is becoming less and less positive and the church faces intensifying levels of persecution, especially from the militant group al-Shabaab.
https://www.opendoorsusa.org/newsroom/tag-news-post/kenya-many-saw-sights-too-horrible-to-describe/
Postbank Adventist workers fired for keeping the Sabbath had to go to court.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201410090159.html
Alliance High School students had a similar experience. Remember these are children still in their teenage years being persecuted for their faith.
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/lifestyle/article/2000084618/judge-orders-public-schools-to-exempt-sda-students-in-row-over-sabbath
And there are many others.
-
"In my county [Washington] we have a religious sect known as the Seventh-day Adventists, a very devout and respectable people, but they labor on our Sabbath [Sunday], and greatly annoy the Christian people of that section. . . . If you lived in Springdale for a few months, your opinions on the 'religious liberty' function would undergo a radical change. Those Seventh-day Adventists are generally good citizens, but they have become very aggressive since the passage of the Sunday law of two years ago, and our people are getting very tired of them. The senator from Independence suggests that if this bill should pass, it will drive these people from the State. That would not be a serious loss. There would be fewer Sabbath-breakers to deal with." J. N. Tillman, Facts for the Times, 229.
-
This is for the attention of Windy City just in case he thought Pastor Ad Hominem's religious intolerance is a pesky fly in the wind.
Speech by Jonathan Edwards, D. D. to the National Reform Association (stands for religious unity in defending the Christian faith, especially the (spurious) Sabbath called Sunday, the removal of the First Amendment, the unity of church and state, and the return of Bible teaching to public schools.
Now, we are warned that to ingraft this doctrine upon the Constitution will be oppressive; that it will infringe the rights of conscience; and we are told that there are atheists, deists, Jews, and Seventh-day Baptists who would be sufferers under it.
These all are, for the occasion, and so far as our amendment is concerned, one class. They use the same arguments and the same tactics against us. They must be counted together, which we very much regret, but which we cannot help. The first-named is the leader in the discontent and in the outcry—the atheist, to whom nothing is higher or more sacred than man, and nothing survives the tomb. It is his class. Its labors are almost wholly in his interest; its success would be almost wholly his triumph. The rest are adjuncts to him in this contest. They must be named from him; they must be treated as, for this question, one party.
What are the rights of the atheist? I would tolerate him as I would tolerate a poor lunatic; for in my view his mind is scarcely sound. So long as he does not rave, so long as he is not dangerous, I would tolerate him. I would tolerate him as I would a conspirator. The atheist is a dangerous man. Yes, to this extent I will tolerate the atheist; but no more. Why should I? The atheist does not tolerate me. He does not smile either in pity or in scorn upon my faith. He hates my faith, and he hates me for my faith. I can tolerate difference and discussion; I can tolerate heresy and false religion; I can debate the use of the Bible in our common schools, the taxation of church property, the propriety of chaplaincies and the like, but there are some questions past debate. Tolerate atheism, sir? There is nothing out of hell that I would not tolerate as soon! The atheist may live, as I have said; but, God helping us, the taint of his destructive creed shall not defile any of the civil institutions of all this fair land! Let us repeat, atheism and Christianity are contradictory terms. They are incompatible systems. They cannot dwell together on the same continent!
-
“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath”
(Mark 2:27, 28, NKJV).
Although Luke wrote his Gospel primarily for the Gentiles, it is
significant how frequently he refers to the Sabbath. Of the 54
times the Gospels and Acts refer to Sabbath, 17 are in Luke and
9 in Acts; there are 9 in Matthew, and 10 in Mark and 9 in John. As a
Gentile convert, Luke certainly believed in the seventh-day Sabbath for
Jews, as well as Gentiles. The first coming of Christ made no difference
concerning the keeping of the Sabbath.
Indeed, “Christ, during His earthly ministry, emphasized the binding
claims of the Sabbath; in all His teaching He showed reverence for the
institution He Himself had given. In His day, the Sabbath had become
so perverted that its observance reflected the character of selfish and
arbitrary men rather than the character of God. Christ set aside the false
teaching by which those who claimed to know God had misrepresented
Him.”—Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings, p. 183.
This lesson turns to Jesus as the Lord of the Sabbath: how He
observed it and how He set an example for us to follow. The practice of
observing the first day of the week as Sabbath has no sanction either in
Christ or in the New Testament.
http://absg.adventist.org/2015/2Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ215_05.pdf
-
“As His Custom Was”
“As His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day”
(Luke 4:16, NKJV). This is a good Seventh-day Adventist text. Most of
us use it in evangelistic meetings or in Bible studies in order to emphasize
the point that it was the practice of Jesus to keep the Sabbath.
Synagogues played a crucial role in Jewish religious life. During the
exile, when the temple no longer existed, synagogues were built for
worship and for the schooling of young children. A synagogue could
be built wherever there were at least ten Jewish families. Growing up in
Nazareth, Jesus followed the “custom” of going to the synagogue each
Sabbath, and now on His first journey to His hometown, the Sabbath
finds Him in the synagogue.
Read Mark 1:21, 6:2, Luke 4:16–30, 6:6–11, 13:10–16, 14:1–5. What
do these texts teach us about Jesus and the Sabbath? As you read
them, ask yourself where, if anywhere, you can find indications that
Jesus was either abolishing our obligation to keep the Sabbath or
pointing to another day to replace it?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
“As His custom was” (Luke 4:16, NKJV). Only Luke uses this
phrase: in Luke 4:16, as Jesus attended the synagogue in Nazareth; and
in Luke 22:39, as the cross drew near, Jesus “went, as was his custom,
to the Mount of Olives” (RSV). Both times the “custom” had to do with
worship and prayer.
Why should we make it our custom to go to church on Sabbath, as
Jesus went to the synagogue on Sabbath?
First, God is everywhere. He may be worshiped anywhere, but there’s
something special about getting together in a common place on the day
designated at Creation and commanded in His moral law.
Second, it provides a public opportunity to affirm that God is our
Creator and Redeemer.
Finally, it gives an opportunity for fellowship and sharing one another’s
joys and concerns.
http://absg.adventist.org/2015/2Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ215_05.pdf
-
Discussion Questions:
? Isn’t it amazing just how clear the Bible is about Jesus and the
Sabbath? And yet, millions of churchgoers around the world still
insist that the seventh-day Sabbath is no longer binding or that it
doesn’t matter or that keeping it is tantamount to legalism. What
should this tell us about why unwavering fealty and obedience to
the Word of God are so important? On something as foundational
as God’s holy law, the masses are so deceived. What crucial warning
does Jesus give us in Mark 13:22?
? Look at how Satan has worked so hard to destroy the Sabbath:
either he used the leaders in Israel to turn it into a heavy burden,
all but denuding it of so much of what it was supposed to mean
and be; or he used, and still uses, leaders in the church to dismiss
it as antiquated, legalistic, or a mere Jewish tradition. What is it
about the Sabbath, and what it entails, that would make it such a
target of Satan’s enmity?
? Jesus is the “ ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ ” (Luke 6:5, NKJV). What
implications does this statement have for Christians and their
attitude toward the Sabbath?
-
Judge orders public schools to exempt SDA students in row over Sabbath
BY PAMELA CHEPKEMEI Updated Tuesday, May 28th 2013 at 00:00 GMT +3
Nairobi, Kenya: Secondary school students who subscribe to Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) church are exempt from weekend classes thanks to a landmark order by a judge hearing a dispute over Sabbath. High Court Judge Isaac Lenaola directed all public secondary schools in the country to allow SDA faithful students to skip classes from Friday evening through Saturday in fulfilment of the obligation to their faith. The order was made after the Seventh Day Adventist Church (East Africa) Limited filed a petition seeking a relaxation of the rules for SDA student worship while a case between them and Ministry of Education progresses in court. The Church approached the Ministry last year to resolve the matter but the Government failed to act on the complaints, according to the Church.
Read more at: http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/lifestyle/article/2000084618/judge-orders-public-schools-to-exempt-sda-students-in-row-over-sabbath.
-
Israel, formerly the chosen nation, now bows at the feet of Rome.
Bennett to demand Sunday as day off
As part of coalition negotiations, Habayit Hayehudi expected to call for revival of long-weekend initiative. 'Move will benefit families, designating Sunday for shopping, leisure and trips,' party official says
Moran Azulay
Published: 02.03.13, 11:44 / Israel News
Bennett strives to shorten work week: The Habayit Hayehudi party is expected to revive the proposal to turn Sunday into a sabbatical, extending the Israeli weekend to Sunday while turning Friday into a short work day.
The proposal will be presented Sunday during the initial stages of government coalition negotiations between Bennett's Habayit Hayehudi and representatives of the Likud-Beiteinu.
Related Stories
Gov't to consider adding Sunday as day of rest
Op-ed: Embrace our Shabbat
Half of Israelis willing to give up shopping on Shabbat
The Habayit Hayehudi says that the proposal will be one of the central tenets of their coalition demands for joining Benjamin Netanyahu's government.
A party source noted, "This is a social initiative that will benefit families, designating Sunday for shopping, leisure and trips," thus alleviating Saturday's burden.
The source further said that "the initiative is likely to lead to an extended school day during the rest of the week, in a desire to facilities women integration into the work force; as well as foster religious publics' integration into Israeli leisure cultural and activities," which had been unavailable to those who observe Shabbat (Saturday)."
In 2011, Prime Minister Netanyahu tasked the Head of the National Economic Council, Professor Eugene Kandel, with examining the possibility of making Sunday an additional day of rest instead of a regular work day.
Read more at:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4340299,00.html
-
[Bumping this up from the Abortion thread in which many would have missed it].
Our resident prophet once claimed
The Waldenses NEVER kept sabbath. Samuelle Bachiocchi could find NO evidence of their sabbath keeping despite more resources at his disposal. Let's aks him;
I spent several hours searching for an answer in the two scholarly volumes Storia dei Valdesi–(History of the Waldenses), authored by Amedeo Molnar and Augusto Hugon. These two books were published in 1974 by the Claudiana, which is the official Italian Waldensian publishing house. They are regarded as the most comprehensive history of the Waldenses. To my regret I found no allusion whatsoever to Sabbath-keeping among the Waldenses.
https://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html
The (f) prophet implies that the Waldensians got their namefrom their footwear and were persecuted for, further implied, choosing to wear sandals different from other people around them.
What have historians recorded about the Waldensians?
Another scholar, Bonacursus, also wrote against them: "Not a few, but many know what are the errors of those who are called Pasigini. ... First, they teach that we should obey the sabbath. Furthermore, to increase their error, they condemn and reject all the church Fathers, and the whole Roman Church".[18] In Spain the persecution was directed at the Waldensian Sabbath-keepers.[19]
Let's quote a source from Rome, the power that persecuted the Waldensians.
The Roman Inquisitor Reinerus Sacho writing c. 1230 held the sect of the Vaudois to be of great antiquity, thus long preceding Waldo by centuries. In the Waldensians, Sabbatati or Insabbatati, there was a more or less continuous tradition of Sabbath-keeping from the early church of the Apostles, throughout southern Europe. There are also account of Paulicians, Petrobusians, Pasaginians along with the Waldenses of the Alps, who kept the Saturday for the Lord's day which was in conflict with the change to Sunday held by the Roman Catholic Church. The Sabbatati were known also by the name Pasigini. In reference to the Sabbath-keeping Pasigini, one scholar wrote: "The spread of heresy at this time is almost incredible. From Bulgaria to the Ebro, from Northern France to the Tiber, everywhere we meet them. Whole countries are infested, like Hungary and southern France; they abound in many other countries; in Germany, in Italy, in the Netherlands and even in England they put their efforts."
Apart from Sabbath-keeping, the Waldensians became the target of Rome's wrath for their beliefs such as...
They held that temporal offices and dignities were not meant for preachers of the Gospel; that relics were simply rotten bones which had belonged to one knew not whom; that to go on pilgrimage served no end, save to empty one's purse; that flesh might be eaten any day if one's appetite served one; that holy water was not a whit more efficacious than rain water; and that prayer in a barn was just as effectual as if offered in a church. They were accused, moreover, of having scoffed at the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of having spoken blasphemously of the Roman Catholic Church as the harlot of the apocalypse.[3] They rejected the perceived idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church and considered the Papacy as the Antichrist of Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians
Contrary to the above assertions and to the great embarrassment of the resident prophet, assuming the sense of embarrassment is not silenced yet, the real McCoy now goes ahead and apologizes to the Waldensians (for killing only 1,700 of them, official figures supplied by Rome, one would assume).
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2015/06/22/pope-francis-asks-pardon-from-waldensian-protestants-for-past-persecution/
Pope Francis asked forgiveness on Monday for the Roman Catholic Church’s “non-Christian and inhumane” treatment in the past of the Waldensians, a tiny Protestant movement the Vatican tried to exterminate in the 15th century.
-
-
This is for the attention of Windy City just in case he thought Pastor Ad Hominem's religious intolerance is a pesky fly in the wind.
Speech by Jonathan Edwards, D. D. to the National Reform Association (stands for religious unity in defending the Christian faith, especially the (spurious) Sabbath called Sunday, the removal of the First Amendment, the unity of church and state, and the return of Bible teaching to public schools.
Now, we are warned that to ingraft this doctrine upon the Constitution will be oppressive; that it will infringe the rights of conscience; and we are told that there are atheists, deists, Jews, and Seventh-day Baptists who would be sufferers under it.
These all are, for the occasion, and so far as our amendment is concerned, one class. They use the same arguments and the same tactics against us. They must be counted together, which we very much regret, but which we cannot help. The first-named is the leader in the discontent and in the outcry—the atheist, to whom nothing is higher or more sacred than man, and nothing survives the tomb. It is his class. Its labors are almost wholly in his interest; its success would be almost wholly his triumph. The rest are adjuncts to him in this contest. They must be named from him; they must be treated as, for this question, one party.
What are the rights of the atheist? I would tolerate him as I would tolerate a poor lunatic; for in my view his mind is scarcely sound. So long as he does not rave, so long as he is not dangerous, I would tolerate him. I would tolerate him as I would a conspirator. The atheist is a dangerous man. Yes, to this extent I will tolerate the atheist; but no more. Why should I? The atheist does not tolerate me. He does not smile either in pity or in scorn upon my faith. He hates my faith, and he hates me for my faith. I can tolerate difference and discussion; I can tolerate heresy and false religion; I can debate the use of the Bible in our common schools, the taxation of church property, the propriety of chaplaincies and the like, but there are some questions past debate. Tolerate atheism, sir? There is nothing out of hell that I would not tolerate as soon! The atheist may live, as I have said; but, God helping us, the taint of his destructive creed shall not defile any of the civil institutions of all this fair land! Let us repeat, atheism and Christianity are contradictory terms. They are incompatible systems. They cannot dwell together on the same continent!
DB,
I know there is a special place in mainstream Christianity's mind for apostates like me. I don't know what SDs teach. In fact I think Jehovah's witnesses are quite more tolerant.
There is a friendly JW couple that drops by my door to leave me copies of their watchtower magazines every few days. Free handy floor covers for my parakeet cage; but they don't know.
-
There is a reason the distinctive Adventist message is targeted at the moment, including by unlikely foot soldiers from the Sunday-keeping Protestant Front. Atheists, it seemed to me, were collateral damage until I read that quote.
This video below is especially for the resident anti-EGW crusader in Nipate. Notice at 16:45-17:50 the words oft employed by the famous Nipate resident, lifted word-for-word from the lips of Rome.
With love from YouTube.
-
Here, pope Francis sets the stage for Sunday worship in very clear terms.
-
If there is any credence to Termie's theory of inverse relationship between religion and IQ its have to be Adventism
-
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc36.html
The dignitaries of church and state will unite to bribe, persuade, or compel all classes to honor the Sunday. The lack of divine authority will be supplied by oppressive enactments. Political corruption is destroying love of justice and regard for truth; and even in free America, rulers and legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance. Liberty of conscience, which has cost so great a sacrifice, will no longer be respected. In the soon-coming conflict we shall see exemplified the prophet's words: "The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 12:17.
(The Great Controversy, pg592).
The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted.
When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not. While the observance of the false sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God's law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator. While one class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark of the beast, the other choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God.
(The Great Controversy, pg 606).