Historicity of the change of the Sabbath Commandment vs Sola Scriptura

[utilyan]

Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II -

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".

page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

====================================== begin expanded quote
. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church
================================================


And how does the Bible define the "Solemnity" - the blessed, sanctified and binding obligation of the Sabbath -- in actual scripture.

Gen 2
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20: 8, 11
8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So how is that the Law of God is up for "edit" for change? For taking one of the Commandments - and "repointing it" so that now "another day" is blessed, sanctified, and made holy??

===================================================

My sources in this case are -- the Bible and the Papal-imprimatur-approved -- "The faith Explained"



I know why some Catholics would say that about the Bible -- but why do you say it also about your own RCC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism?

LOL its so funny you got a COMMENTARY of a minor catechism and want to wave it as official teaching.

You don't understand those sources. You have to start with the catechism of the catholic church.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

If you don't pull a teaching from here, then its probably not a catholic teaching at all.

Its that simple, and you don't want it be.



The bible says:

46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

The "CLEAR WORD" SDA BIBLE SAYS:
I have no choice but to end your lives, because in my kingdom everyone cares about everyone else.’”

Which of the above is true?

 

[BobRyan]

The "CLEAR WORD" SDA BIBLE SAYS:
I have no choice but to end your lives, because in my kingdom everyone cares about everyone else.’”

Which of the above is true?

Answer -- There is no such thing as "Clear Word SDA Bible" -- Because the Commentary/Paraphrase known as the "Clear Word" is not a Bible and is not written by the SDA denomination nor is it a translation of anything at all.

But then I think you meant to "make that up" so we would have a bogus choice in your lets-change-the-topic list -- so then "Not that one"

 

[BobRyan]

Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II -

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".

page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

====================================== begin expanded quote
. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church
================================================

LOL its so funny you got a COMMENTARY of a minor catechism and want to wave it as official teaching.

Your commentary on your own Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II -- has your own Papal Imprimatur on it and is applauded as a "a standard reference for every Catholic home and Library".

nothing of that sort could be said of your sniping at that book -- as I am sure that even you would agree.

You don't understand those sources. You have to start with the catechism of the catholic church.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

If you don't pull a teaching from here, then its probably not a catholic teaching at all.

That is the sort of deny-all solution that you have been happy with. And frankly you have free will and can choose it. I don't mind having that as our line of difference.

I will continue to quote your own "Papal Impramatur approved" sources - and you will continue to vilify every Papacy-approved catholic teaching source - except the Catechism of your choice.

Its that simple, and I am glad of it. I will have shown that these are not anti-catholic or protestant sources - but rather Papal-Impramatur approved sources -- and you will have shown that you vilify not only Protestant sources - but also your own Catholic sources.

This way you and I are both pleased with the outcome.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[utilyan]

Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II -

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".

page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

====================================== begin expanded quote
. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church
================================================



Your commentary on your own Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II -- has your own Papal Imprimatur on it and is applauded as a "a standard reference for every Catholic home and Library".

nothing of that sort could be said of your sniping at that book -- as I am sure that even you would agree.




That is the sort of deny-all solution that you have been happy with. And frankly you have free will and can choose it. I don't mind having that as our line of difference.

I will continue to quote your own "Papal Impramatur approved" sources - and you will continue to vilify every Papacy-approved catholic teaching source - except the Catechism of your choice.

Its that simple, and I am glad of it. I will have shown that these are not anti-catholic or protestant sources - but rather Papal-Impramatur approved sources -- and you will have shown that you vilify not only Protestant sources - but also your own Catholic sources.

This way you and I are both pleased with the outcome.

in Christ,

Bob

While your at it you can learn what a "Papal Imprimatur" is in the official Vatican catechism.

You want to legalistically force a rule that does not apply to catholic teaching.

That's like if took a COMMENTARY of a STATE constitution and forced it on the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!.

Its not even the actual minor catechism....but an OPINION of one.


Bob is our Vatican Catechism so SOLID you have scavenge the COMMENTARIES of obscure instructions to find dirt?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

utilyan said: ↑
Jesus resurrected on the 8th day.

What Bible says that? or are you simply "quoting you"??

The Bible says it was "the first day of the week" -- "week day 1".

What Bible says that? or are you, Bob Ryan, "quoting you", Bob Ryan??

YES YOU DO! Plus, you quote miesies White Lies.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Utilian said:
Jesus worshipped God almighty in the highest caliber on the resurrection.

Here again -- you quote "you"??

Said Jesus to the drunk disciples, "STAND UP, AND PRAY".

Just in these few words, the ear graced with hearing, perceives what Utilian a Roman Catholic has been graced to see and confess, BUT THE SDA has been BLINDED not to see.

Bob Ryan cannot even quote himself he is in such a fix. All Bob Ryan is able to do, is IN HUMBLE OBEDIENCE TO QUOTE THE SUNDAY-RESURRECTIONISTS.

Sissie ...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Imagine if you will that the main point of the NT writers of the Gospels is - "Jesus began weekly 7-day-cycle worship of God almighty in the highest caliber on the resurrection" -- yet oddly enough - Jesus never gets around to saying that - and they never get around to writing it??

Just like old oorle Samuele Bacchiocchi ... Quote:"If He resurrected on the Sabbath Day, Jesus would have capitalized on the fact."EndQuote

SDA are so BLINDED by their Lesser Light that they cannot understand <<The Greater Light>> that for Jesus TO HAVE RAISED ON THE SABBATH, WAS, TO <<CAPITALISE on the fact>>.

SDA and Bobbie aren’t ABLE to comprehend, that Jesus, by rising up again from the dead, as Utilian has said, <<worshipped God Almighty in the highest caliber>> of Divine Worship, “in the full Fellowship of the Trinity” [Klaas Schilder], "BY THE GLORY OF THE FATHER", Paul.


That the Sundaydarians must teach the Saturdarians about their Sabbath … tss…tss…

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That is the sort of "better-than-the-Bible because we made it up" argument that worked best in the dark ages.

How about your own SSL a week or so ago, for <<the sort of "better-than-the-Bible because we made it up" argument>>,
Quote:""The old earthly type was now replaced by something so much better""...THAN THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST...as <<The (SDA, 'heavenly') sanctuary system>>.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here is an example of what you will NOT find in the Bible

Most holy day, Day of Resurrection.

One blind led by the blind mass ...


The only <<holy day>> God called "MY, holy day" is which?


Is the Sabbath. Understandably you must differ, and deny, because you deny, "the Sabbath is sign ... an everlasting covenant between ME, and the posterity of Israel because that ... the LORD on the Seventh Day RESTED HAVING BEEN REVIVED"---from the dead---God in Christ Resurrected from the dead---"in the Resurrection of LIFE" "declared: The Son of God-with-Power according to the Spirit-of-Holiness": "a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT" ... "by Whom we have received GRACE FOR OBEDIENCE TO THE FAITH among all nations worshipping His Name among whom ye are also : The Called-of-Jesus-Christ" and The Communion of True Believers.


Everything about Christian worship of Jesus Christ Lord and Saviour God is found in and is founded upon the RESURRECTION of Him from the dead. And ROSE HE NOT ON A CERTAIN DAY, THAT DAY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ENDOWED WITH EITHER THE BLESSING, THE SANCTITY, THE COMPLETION OR THE REST that “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD”, received and was endowed with, EVER before (or after on Pentecost).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here is an example of what you WILL find in the Bible - and written "in stone"

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy... the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD Thy God" Ex 20

Christ -- the maker of the rules.

Christ -- The Maker of the rules, The Rule. Rex Lex, Lex Rex.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

How many times did Jesus say "REMEMBER the seventh day to keep it holy" at Sinai according to Hebrews 8:6-10??

Once, by having RAISED from the dead "on the Sabbath", once for all.

You saw the "once"; you missed the "once for all". Once with God, is once for all for us and time.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Answer -- There is no such thing as "Clear Word SDA Bible" -- Because the Commentary/Paraphrase known as the "Clear Word" is not a Bible and is not written by the SDA denomination nor is it a translation of anything at all.

Now I know what open lying means.

My grand daughter has a cat, Black Cat. You cannot keep that cat in a box (to take her to the vet) by any means. I think she must re-baptise her pet and name it after that fellow who was the nemesis of the Ku Klux Khan what's his name again, Houdini? Or SDA would be better still.

BobRyan:
<<That is the sort of deny-all solution that you have been happy with.>>

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

how does the Bible define the "Solemnity" - the blessed, sanctified and binding obligation of the Sabbath -- in actual scripture.

Gen 2
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Only do not ask, How does the Bible define the "Solemnity" - the blessed, sanctified and binding obligation of the Sabbath -- in actual Scripture, and quote,

Ephesians 1:19,20, "WHEN GOD BY THE EXCEEDING GREATNESS OF HIS POWER WHICH HE WORKED IN CHRIST RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD AND RESTED HIM UP AGAIN IN HEAVENLY MAJESTY ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD" ...

(...because it only caused delay for Jesus on his way to heaven to get his Father's OK for his sacrifice.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It says God rested the day that He raised Christ from the dead, in two ways, in Ephesians 1:19,20.

It says it by saying, First, that "God by the ALL-EXCEEDING GREATNESS OF HIS (OWN) POWER WORKED"---which is nothing than, and nothing but, God, RESTING IN CHRIST THROUGH CHRIST in the pinnacle of his Power

It says it, Next, by saying, "God RESTED-UP-AGAIN CHRIST WHEN HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD AND EXALTED HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND : HIS HEAVENLY MAJESTY." Compare Isaiah 57:15 where it says, "HIS NAME (being) THE MOST HOLY PLACE THE SANCTUARY" of God in heaven.

NOW, are we ready to read the Law in the Fourth Commandment, HOW, IN WHAT, IN WHOM, AND WHY, AND <<on which basis of>>, "God THUS concerning The Seventh Day SPAKE : THEREFORE GOD the day the Seventh Day ... Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD ... from ALL, HIS, WORKS : RESTED."

[[ 'apo'—“from” also means, HOW, IN WHAT, WHY, AND <<on the basis of>> ]]

 

[utilyan]

On Sunday when Jesus Resurrected, The actual rest in God was manifested, The actual rest that Sabbath only pointed to.

Lets think this through.

We should believe Jesus Christ being GOD knew his church would apostatize by changing day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Jesus Christ who is GOD only shows up on Sundays basically after the resurrection.


Revelation 1

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


John is worshiping on Sunday.


There was a time SDA didn't believe in the trinity.

Its quite funny. You had the original Adventists made stupid predictions end of world , didn't happen.
Popular groups that split from here are Jehovah's Witness, And Seventh day Adventist.
Sister churches.

SDA did not believe in trinity and later picked it up.
Jehovah's Witness DID believe in trinity and they dumped it.

JW and SDA believe Jesus is Michael.

SDA believe Catholics Church is ran by the Devil.
JWs believe ALL other religions is ran by the Devil.

SDA 1844 world did not end.
JW 1914 world did not end.




Heres a theological argument you should hear from SDA for not worshipping on Sunday but never mentioned

Jesus Christ has not atoned for your sins. There was NO victory at the resurrection.

It wasn't till 1844 that Jesus went to heaven. And Jesus is not the lamb that takes sins.

All your sins are being transferred to Satan who is the scapegoat.



This would be perfect grounds to ditch sunday, because it teaches there was no victory on sunday. Also your sins have not been paid for. You have no eternal rest.


All this had to be made up on the spot to "play it off" Jesus' not actually appearing on earth in 1844.

Its called "the great disappointment"


They had to be real ignorant to think end of the world was 1844.......

A lot of people left,

But for those who stayed and suckered with the new story?


Good Lord if the Catholic Church were to say the world will end tomorrow we would never hear the end of it.

But great job figuring out trinity 1931 years after we been saying.

 

[BobRyan]

Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II -

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".

page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

====================================== begin expanded quote
. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church
================================================



Your commentary on your own Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II -- has your own Papal Imprimatur on it and is applauded as a "a standard reference for every Catholic home and Library".

nothing of that sort could be said of your sniping at that book -- as I am sure that even you would agree.

While your at it you can learn what a "Papal Imprimatur" is in the official Vatican catechism.

The point is that you cannot confine your Catholic solution - to simply vilifying your own Catholic documents as if to quote them is "anti-catholic" when they are in fact approved by your own church -- having the Papal Imprimatur.

You want to legalistically force a rule that does not apply to catholic teaching.

That's like if took a COMMENTARY of a STATE constitution and forced it on the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!.

Not a "rule" or a "Constitution" rather the observation that there is nothing in the Bible demanding a change of the Sabbath to Sunday and the "objective fact" that this is admitted to even by your own pro-RCC papal-imprimatur-approved sources.

 

[BobRyan]

On Sunday when Jesus Resurrected, The actual rest in God was manifested, The actual rest that Sabbath only pointed to.

Here you merely "quote you" as if we would take your text as our "scripture" and cast aside the actual Bible.

Lets think this through.

We should believe Jesus Christ being GOD knew his church would apostatize by changing day of worship from Saturday to Sunday

The apostate would "Think to change times and laws" - predicted long before the birth of Christ - in Daniel 7.

But to your point - God started the Jewish nation - at Sinai knowing full well they would crucify Christ.

Your argument is that God would never setup a system of free will -- knowing that Lucifer would choose rebellion..., knowing that Adam would choose rebellion... knowing that the Jews would crucify Christ.... knowing that the catholic church would think to change times and laws.

. Jesus Christ who is GOD only shows up on Sundays basically after the resurrection.

Here again - you "Quote you" - not the actual Bible.

Acts 1
The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Are you thinking that there are 40 sundays between Passover and 10-days-before-Pentecost??

 

[BobRyan]

There was a time SDA didn't believe in the trinity.

Some - but not all held that view - after all Ellen White was united Methodist - Trinitarian

JW and SDA believe Jesus is Michael.

That is also not true -- so far you are 100% wrong.

JW's believe that Jesus was an Angel -- not the 2nd person of the Godhead.

SDAs believe that God and 2 angels appear to Abraham "as men" in Gen 18 -- but not that God was "man" merely that He appears to Abraham that way.

In the same way SDAs believe that God the Son - Jesus Christ appeared in the form of Michael before the incarnation -- but not that he was literally an Angel -- just that He chose to take that form.

Millerites predicted the world would end in 1844... SDA organized in 1861.

so then.. "wrong again" and keeping to your 100% level

Jesus Christ has not atoned for your sins. There was NO victory at the resurrection.

SDAs teach that the "Atoning Sacrifice" of 1 John 2:2 was completed at the cross. The Victory was won when Christ died - and celebrated when Christ raised Himself from the dead on week-day-1

So then your statement is - wrong again - keeping you 100%?? still

It wasn't till 1844 that Jesus went to heaven. And Jesus is not the lamb that takes sins.

Wrong again -- but still at your 100% level.

Jesus ascended to heaven 40 days after Passover - 10 days before Pentecost - read Acts 1.

On Palm Sunday the disciples "were mistaken" thinking Christ would be crowned king - when in fact He would be crucified.

The mocking of the Millerites that you do - and the mocking of the disciples -- is not so dissimilar ...

But why change the topic of the thread? -- except that you think it is so evil to quote your own Catholic sources - that this random topic response of yours is justified.

 

[BobRyan]

Revelation 1

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


John is worshiping on Sunday.

Your "John is worshiping on Sunday" text is missing -- so you quote "you"
Your "week day 1 -- is the Lord's day" text is missing - so you quote "you".

In the Bible "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD" is in Ex 20:8-11

But in the NT there is not even ONE "week-day-1 is the Lord's day" ... no not even one.

It is no wonder then that you simply -- quote "you" for that key salient argument -- that is so conspicuously missing from the actual text of the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Heres a theological argument you should hear from SDA for not worshipping on Sunday but never mentioned

Jesus Christ has not atoned for your sins. There was NO victory at the resurrection.
.

SDAs teach a once-for-all completed "atoning sacrifice" on the cross just as we see in 1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only - but for the sins of the whole world" NIV

Sacrificed - once -- and no longer participating in any sacrifice

Heb 10
8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God

By contrast the RCC argues for "confecting the body blood soul and divinity of Christ" every mass -- not remembering a past event but participating in the sacrifice as each mass they confect - "the body blood soul and divinity of Christ"

(which of course - has nothing at all to do with this thread - but you are bringing this topic up for some odd reason.... expect a new thread
#1 A moment ago