The Lord's Day

[vooke]

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'

[GeeMail]

@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.

[vooke]

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]

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. 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 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.

[Ka-Bella]

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.

[GeeMail]

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.
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.

[GeeMail]

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.

[GeeMail]

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.

[vooke]

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.
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]

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.

[Ka-Bella]

Daily Bread, about the Sabbath as a moral vs ceremonial law,

Exodus 31 (NIV)

The Sabbath

12 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.
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....

[GeeMail]

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/

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.

[GeeMail]

Daily Bread, about the Sabbath as a moral vs ceremonial law,

Exodus 31 (NIV)

The Sabbath

12 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.
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.

[Ka-Bella]

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.

[GeeMail]

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.

[GeeMail]

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.

[Ka-Bella]

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.

[Ka-Bella]

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?

[GeeMail]

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.

[vooke]

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/

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.