The Journey Home

Hi Singer,

Sunday, the Lord's Day, is not and has never been considered the "Sabbath" in Christianity. The sabbaton is still the seventh day of the week: Saturday.

Paul tells us in Col 2:16-17 that we are no longer bound to those ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law, which separate Jew from Gentile. We are still bound to set aside a day of worship and rest, which is a part of the moral law, but which day is ceremonial, and thus, the Church has the authority to bind and loose in judicial matters (Cf. Matthew 16:16-19) so she decided to celebrate the Lord's resurrection on the 8th day, the day which signifies the New Creation, whereas the Sabbath signifies the Old Creation.

Of course, the Church's decision isn't arbitrary, it has deep theological foundations as alluded to above. And, it isn't as if the New Testament doesn't make reference to this practice of the Church. We see Christians celebrating the Lord's Day in various places (such as when the disciples broke bread with the Lord after their encounter with him on the road to Emma'us in Luke 24), and St. John describes his vision of heavenly worship on the Lord's Day in the Book of Revelation.

Carson,

Why do you always have to spew out such garbage?

If we are bound to the MORAL Law, meaning the TEN COMMANDMENTS, the Ten Commandments, from the BIBLE, not the Catholic reinvented list, states that the SABBATH, which MEANS Rest, DAY was and IS, and ALWAYS WILL BE the Seventh Day of the week.

You can't change that.

Why do you keep trying to defend something that is NOT provable.

The transfer of sacredness from Sabbath to sunday was a change made by Rome in an effort to unite PAGANS with Christians.

THAT is the truth. And you know it.

God Bless,
Kelly

Yes Carson; the Sabbath always was and still is Saturday. New Testament
Protestants and Catholics apply Sunday as the day of worship in honor of the
day Jesus arose from the grave. (Not because the "Church" designated it)
Still.........modern day worshippers who deny Saturday as the Sabbath will
apply many of the OT laws to Sunday. (Working on the Sabbath being one
of them). The bible never does say to refrain from work on Sunday. It's
just that we have now applied all those OT laws to the day, Sunday
(which is wrong). If keeping the law (Sabbath rest) can't save us, why do
we yet apply all the laws that went with the keeping of the Sabbath and
expect that to put feathers in our hats ?

The New Testament of Christ teaches us that those practicing Chrisitianity worshipped on the first day of the week. The apostles gathered together to partake of the Lord's Supper upon the first day of the week.

In Acts 20:7, the Bible says,¶And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Note: The Lord's Supper was taken and the preaching of the gospel was done.

In I Cor. 16:1,2, the Bible says, Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
2  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. Again, giving was to be onthe first day of the week.

In Hebrews 2:12, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. Again singng took place. When? Note: Paul met an assembled on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7.

The church of our Lord followed their example. The Bible says in Acts 2:42,And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Note: prayers were to be offered in the first day of the week assembly Hebrews 10:24-26.

The birth of the New Testament Church was on the first day of the week as Pentecost always came upon the first day of the week. Lev.23:15,16.

Men are under duty to the new testament of Jesus Christ. Mat. 28:18-20. They are under no obligation to keep any tenet of the old law. It was abolished by Christ. Eph. 2:15. In Nehemiah 8:13- 15, the Bible says, ¶And on the second day were gathered together the chief of the fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to understand the words of the law.
14  And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:
15  And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written. In Nehemiah 9:13,14, the Bible says,Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
14  And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Note: Both the moral and ceremonial observances were a part of the Old Law.

Hi Kelly,

You asked me, "Why do you always have to spew out such garbage?"

Really, you don't have to post with such a sense of disgust and irreverence. It's not appealing to your audience, and it paints your posts gray.

If we are bound to the MORAL Law, meaning the TEN COMMANDMENTS

You're assuming that the 10 Commandments are pure moral law, which they are not. The keeping of the Sabbath day is a ceremonial aspect of the Decalogue, which is not written upon the hearts of the Gentiles because it is not within the realm of Natural Law. No one could have figured out the Sabbath apart from this special revelation of God - not even Plato, who acknowledged that worship of God is just and should rightly be given to God.

The transfer of sacredness from Sabbath to sunday was a change made by Rome in an effort to unite PAGANS with Christians.

That's an interesting theory, but it isn't tenable historically. If Rome made the change in effort to unite pagans with Xtns, then why do we see St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 107 A.D.:

"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8)

Why do we see the Didache, which some historical scholars date no later than 48 A.D., saying this:

But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. (Didache 14)

Keep to the facts, not to untenable SDA propaganda. Also, be more charitable in your posts. You'll have a greater effect on your audience, which I'm sure is one of the primary purposes you're posting on this web board.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
[QB] Hi Kelly,

You asked me, "Why do you always have to spew out such garbage?"

Really, you don't have to post with such a sense of disgust and irreverence. It's not appealing to your audience, and it paints your posts gray.

Click to expand...

Since when is reverence due to YOU? Was it irreverent of Christ to call the Scribes and Pharisees HYPOCRITES??? I wonder if it 'painted His words gray'.

If we are bound to the MORAL Law, meaning the TEN COMMANDMENTS

You're assuming that the 10 Commandments are pure moral law, which they are not. The keeping of the Sabbath day is a ceremonial aspect of the Decalogue, which is not written upon the hearts of the Gentiles because it is not within the realm of Natural Law. No one could have figured out the Sabbath apart from this special revelation of God - not even Plato, who acknowledged that worship of God is just and should rightly be given to God.

Click to expand...

And I guess that the Gentiles who had never heard of the law of God would have figured out for themselves that they have to be Baptized Catholic in order to be saved? Or perhaps they already knew, by nature that they should confess to a priest, in order to be forgiven? Did they figure it out on their own that they were supposed to meet on the FIRST DAY of the week, and BREAK BREAD? Or perhaps you can be honest for once and admit that they broke bread DAILY, and SUNDAY was no different from tuesday to them! It doesn't surprise me that you support Plato in his 'morality', seeing as how HE is where you get your plurality in the Godhead from!

The transfer of sacredness from Sabbath to sunday was a change made by Rome in an effort to unite PAGANS with Christians.

That's an interesting theory, but it isn't tenable historically.

Click to expand...

You know, for someone who acts like they know everything, you sure do miss alot! Refer to my ALREADY posted proofs on the CHALLENGE issued from ROME by Cardinal Gibbons. He not only confesses to the change but challenges all Sola Scriptura Protestants to STOP keeping the first day because there is NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it.

If Rome made the change in effort to unite pagans with Xtns, then why do we see St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 107 A.D.:

"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8)

Click to expand...

Is that all you got? How many times are you going to post the SAME quote from the SAME letter, from the SAME guy. Is this man over Scripture now? Ignatius is NOT viable proof. Unless you can show me in the Bible where John made mention of him, telling us to follow his teachings, I will NOT listen to a single word he has written!

Why do we see the Didache, which some historical scholars date no later than 48 A.D., saying this:

But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. (Didache 14)

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that John was talking about the first day of the week when he said 'Lord's Day', and since it is the ONLY scripture reference to the "Lord's Day", the Catholic Church calling sunday the Lords day is a bastardization of that phrase. AND what is that '....'? What did you CUT OUT?

Keep to the facts, not to untenable SDA propaganda.

Click to expand...

PUUULEASE! Why do you insist on continuing in your ignorance? You post page after page of Catholic Propiganda, and when I refer to HISTORY (secular sources) you call it SDA propiganda? Give me a break! There is truth to it, and you know it. You can't change history.

Also, be more charitable in your posts.

Click to expand...

Carson, you aren't getting any slack from me.

You'll have a greater effect on your audience, which I'm sure is one of the primary purposes you're posting on this web board.

Click to expand...

Nah. My primary purpose in posting to you is to expose you for what you are.

Try again. If you can.

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Refer to my ALREADY posted proofs on the CHALLENGE issued from ROME by Cardinal Gibbons. He not only confesses to the change but challenges all Sola Scriptura Protestants to STOP keeping the first day because there is NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it.

Click to expand...

Kelly, could you direct me to that post?

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Refer to my ALREADY posted proofs on the CHALLENGE issued from ROME by Cardinal Gibbons. He not only confesses to the change but challenges all Sola Scriptura Protestants to STOP keeping the first day because there is NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it.

Click to expand...

Kelly, could you direct me to that post? </font>[/QUOTE]

Look at this: Read the BOLD

It's long, but tells it all

From a Catholic SITE

God Bless,
Kelly

Hi Kelly,

You wrote, "Since when is reverence due to YOU?"

Reverence is expected by Jesus Christ of his disciples towards others. I believe that you consider yourself a disciple, and so you should act like one:

Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).

You are quick to call others hypocrites, yet you immediately fail to take on a Christian attitude in your method of posting. I would refer you to the old addage: "actions speak louder than words".

You wrote, "And I guess that the Gentiles who had never heard of the law of God would have figured out for themselves that they have to be Baptized Catholic in order to be saved?"

This is a non sequitur on your part. Baptism is not a part of the Natural Law. It is a sacrament of the New Law, given by revelation of God through his Son, Jesus Christ.

You have yet to demonstrate that the keeping of the seventh day can possibly be a member of the moral law for humanity, and you have also yet to refute the claim of St. Paul in Colossians 2:16-17, which definitively tells us that we are no longer bound to the keeping of the sabbaton. Scripture explicitly denies what you affirm, and you continue to jump through hoops instead of facing the clear import of God's Word.

You wrote, "Refer to my ALREADY posted proofs on the CHALLENGE issued from ROME by Cardinal Gibbons. He not only confesses to the change but challenges all Sola Scriptura Protestants to STOP keeping the first day because there is NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it. "

If Cardinal Gibbons asserts that there is no Scriptural support for resting and worshipping on the Lord's Day, I disagree with him. There is clearly Scriptural support in the New Testament for this practice of the Christian Church.

You wrote, "Is that all you got?"

No, this is not all I have. I have posted, above, another quote from the Didache, and I have multiple quotes from figures after Ignatius. These are samples.

You wrote, "How many times are you going to post the SAME quote from the SAME letter, from the SAME guy."

I don't know. Let's wait and see.

You wrote, "Is this man over Scripture now?"

No, Ignatius isn't "over Scripture".

You wrote, "Ignatius is NOT viable proof."

That depends on what is being proven. I am not using St. Ignatius - in this instance - to demonstrate that Christians should disregard the Sabbath and celebrate/worship on the Lord's Day instead (though I very well could, I have, and I will in the future). I am using Ignatius to demonstrate, historically, that your assertion above is incorrect:

"The transfer of sacredness from Sabbath to sunday was a change made by Rome in an effort to unite PAGANS with Christians."

You've made the claim that this transferral occurred in the history of Christianity - a claim which cannot be backed by Biblical sources. And so, I am asking you to prove what you assert while I simultaneously demonstrate that your assertion is clearly false, from the sources.

You wrote, "There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that John was talking about the first day of the week when he said 'Lord's Day'"

You have made this assertion, yet it has been disproven by the unanimous equation of the 'Lord's Day' to the eighth day of the week throughout the historical writings of the early Church. These historical witnesses are precisely that evidence that you claim is non-existant. The problem is that you are a-historical in your reasoning. You accept only what is in the Bible when attempting to discern what particular phrases in the Bible mean, and this methodology is foreign to even the Biblical scholars of the S.D.A. sect who themselves resort to extra-Biblical sources in discerning the meaning of particular phrases and passages in Scripture. Your methodology is fundamentalistic and unscientific, and it does damage to the Biblical text because it allows for you to superimpose your anachronistic reading of the Bible upon the Biblical text, instead of allowing for the text to reside in its historical context, taking into account the cultural and Biblical language of the early Church.

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Look at this: Read the BOLD

It's long, but tells it all

From a Catholic SITE

God Bless,
Kelly

Click to expand...

I believe your original post on this particular matter made some statement to the effect that the Church made the change to accomadate pagans.

It's the pagans part that I question.

Can you direct me to your basis for saying the change was because of supporting pagans?

Ron