The Lord's Day

[vooke]

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?

[GeeMail]

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.

[vooke]

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?

[Ka-Bella]

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  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.

[vooke]

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  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.

[vooke]

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

[GeeMail]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[GeeMail]

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."

[vooke]

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."

[GeeMail]

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[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,

[vooke]

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[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,

[Ka-Bella]

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[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,

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.

[GeeMail]

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.
 

[vooke]

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.
 

[GeeMail]

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."

[Ka-Bella]

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?!?!??    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.

[GeeMail]

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?

[vooke]

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."

[GeeMail]

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?