Protestants still follow the pope

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"Trying get that week-day one focus to be a "hidden way to say Sabbath is the big deal at the resurrection" - is like announcing that week-day one is the Lord's day WITHOUT ever saying it - just imagine it."

GE:

'Just imagine it'! Mt28:1, "In Sabbath's fulness of daylight .... there suddenly was a great earthquake and an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and flung away the stone from the gravbe and sat upon it ..." Just imagine it!

'Just imagine it': 1Cor15:3-4, "I delivered unto you first of all ('most importantly') that which I also received (from the Word of God, that was), how that Christ died for our sins according to the (Passover) Scriptures (the first 'first day' of Passover); and that He was buried (according to the (Passover) Scriptures the second 'first day' of Passover); and that He rose again the THIRD ('first') DAY ACCORDING TO THE (Passover) SCRIPTURES," Just imagine it, word for word literally, as "received"!

"I and My Father work to this day (the Sabbath) .... the third day (of Passover) I finish!"
Go tell the foxes, the cunny, the clever, the opinion-formers, the mighty, the wise -- go tell them!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Nisan 16 ("Observe the month of Nisan!!!" for in it Christ reveals Himself.) Nisan 16, Israel stood on the yonder side of the Red Sea. It was the Sabbth Day, declares the giant American theologian Jonathan Edwards.

Then on Niasn 14 the lamb was slain (Jesus, crucified); and on Nisan 15 - Passover-sabbath - its "remains" were returned to the earth (Jesus, buried). "The day after the sabbath (of Passover, Sabbath, Nisan 16) you shall wave the First-Sheaf-Offering-Before-the-LORD".

You can also calculate the date, day for day, from the Sabbath manna came down. See 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', http://www.biblestudents.co.za.

IT CANNOT BE MISTAKEN JESUS ROSE, AND WOULD RISE, ON THE SABBATH OF THE LORD YOUR GOD.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Or The Sabbath Is Vain, And All Along, Had Been Vain.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"The bottom line is ALL already AGREE that the week-day one worship practice is PURELY man-made tradition and all CAN clearly see that the week-day ONE resurrection APPEARANCES are all clearly stated in scripture. Why not focus on the part we all DO agree with and go from there?"

GE:

If that is your bottom-line, you have gone nowhere, and have ended up very shallow indeed. The part we all should agree on is the part most controversial, unfortunately. We should begin with the Scriptures and end with the Scriptures; we should start where life for us started - which was at the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead - and end with the Life of Jesus Christ the Risen : "the Beginning and the End of the creation of God". To read Gn2:2-3 without finding Christ revealed there - and God in Christ "in His own" and "in His Rest" - is to away empty handed and empty headed.

 

[BobRyan]

BR:

"I happen to agree with DHK that in the Gospels ALL the focus IS on week-day one when it comes to the resurrection encounters with Christ and the focus that the NT authors GIVE to that significant event..."

GE:

Just read yourself again, please. It shows you how mesmerised you already are by this 'tradition'. Just read yourself : THERE IS NOT ONE "resurrection encounters with Christ . . . on weekday one" -- NOT ONE - it's all in your 'tradition'! There are appearance-encounters on the First Day, naturally : it was the first day after Jesus had risen; simple as that.

You claim Christ rose on Sabbath and the first day AFTER Sabbath would STILL be "week day one"

The point remains -

WHich is that the NT texts CONTINUALLY point to events on THAT day in all of the accounts. But that fact does not make "week day one" a Holy Day -- rather it simply opens the door for man-made tradition to "invent something" around it...

I.e. Story telling.

Then what 'tradition' have we got since Jesus died and rose and appeared again? A 'cross-tradition' for sure; a 'resurrection-tradition', especially! But NO, 'appearance-tradition'; not in the New Testament, not even in Church-tradition. Of so much importance is the day and the time of day jesus rose from the dead on.

The problem is -- NAMING the tradition DIFFERENTLY does not solve the problem.

It is simply a "side trail" since the basic problem REMAINS that of using man-made tradition to REPLACE the Commandment of God AS IF Man-made tradition "story telling no matter how noble" is a sufficient substitute for the real deal.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

I do not know how far we could carry `The Pope approves it, so we must not do it.'

The bishop of Rome tells Christians to assemble themselves; does that mean we should stop obeying Hebrews 10:24-5?

More seriously: the bishop of Rome tells Christians to avoid fornication; does that mean we should immediately engage in wanton fornication?

The bishop of Rome tells people not to murder unborn children; does that mean we should murder unborn babies at every opportunity?

I hope the answer to all these is `No!' What the bishop of Rome says should have absolutely NO bearing on us.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the topic at hand:

First of all, the monarchial bishop system of congregation governance is not found in the New Testament. Historical evidence surrounding the year 100 indicates that the congregation at Rome had no singular leader -- this is apparent from so-called "1 Clement" as well as the epistles of Ignatius. Apparently they were still under the multiple presbyter system. If not even the congregation at Rome was under a monarchial bishop, this excludes one claiming authority over the whole church. The `pope' did not exist even as early as the year 100.

Now, to before then, in the teachings of Scripture.

Acts 2:46 "And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart," (ASV). At this time, this community of Christians was meeting to worship every single day.

Acts 20:7a "And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them" (ASV). This meeting was held on the first day of the week. I believe that this is undeniable.

Acts 21:20 "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law:" (ASV). In the following verses, it is shown that Paul himself followed the Judaic Law and continued to do so. As Jewish Christians were still Jews, they went to synagogue on the Sabbath day; it makes sense that Christians met another day in order to not conflict with this, and the "first day" of the week seems very fitting -- it was the next day, and the same day of the week as Christ was found to be alive out of the tomb.

As far as days go, I would like to quote Romans 14:1-5

"But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples. One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind." (ASV).

As far as the Lord is concerned, we could regard every day the same. We could use any day for meetings.

 

[DQuixote]

A couple of hundred years ago the world got together to agree upon a world calendar. All other calendars were replaced. Daylight savings time, while not universal, is trudging toward the day it will be. My point?

Let's all get together (we'll invite all authentic Christian denominations) to agree on meeting on Thursday afternoon at 2p.m. daylight savings time. One worship service per week. Saturday and Sunday set aside for relaxation, picnics, camping out, football...........

I predict that the church will not collapse; that God will not reign down fire and brimstone; and that SDAers and Catholics won't join in, since they weren't invited to the meeting in the first place.

:thumbs:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"WHich is that the NT texts CONTINUALLY point to events on THAT day in all of the accounts."

GE:

The NT texts DO NOT, 'CONTINUALLY' point to events on THAT day (Sunday) in all of the accounts. You presume they do. They do NOT.

First appearance on Sunday morning with sunrise was to Mary Magdalene, John 20:11f and Mk16:9 borrowing, giving us, 1 'text'.

Second appearance on Sunday morning was to several other women, a little later, Mt28:9, giving us, 'text' 2.

Third appearance was to two disciples - not of the twelve - from Emmaus 'at the tail-end' of Sunday (if that meant anything), Lk24:13f, giving us 'text' 3.

No more on Sunday. The first appearance to be referred to after these, happened "eight days later". Eight days after Monday would be on a Tuesday.

Paul disregard each and all these appearances, where he mentions Jesus' first appearances. The appearances he mentions by every indication occurred on another day of the week than Sunday.

Then it is also stated that Jesus, in the very same manner as when He appeared to people on the first day after that He had risen (upon the Sabbath), "for / during forty days" after, just so, appeared to especially the disciples and MANY others.

But the first great and final manifestation of Jesus Christ upon earth and in earthly time occurred through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, on the Sabbath Day of Pentecost, the fiftieth day after 16 Nisan Sabbath of Jesus' resurrection.

Jesus' first appearance through the offering of Himself the First Sheaf Wave Offering of Passover "BEFORE THE LORD", and of all the saved in Him and through Him, happened in and with and through and by, His resurrection, "On the Sabbath in its fulness and light" (Mt28:1).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

A couple of hundred years ago the world got together to agree upon a world calendar. All other calendars were replaced. Daylight savings time, while not universal, is trudging toward the day it will be. My point?

Let's all get together (we'll invite all authentic Christian denominations) to agree on meeting on Thursday afternoon at 2p.m. daylight savings time. One worship service per week. Saturday and Sunday set aside for relaxation, picnics, camping out, football...........

I predict that the church will not collapse; that God will not reign down fire and brimstone; and that SDAers and Catholics won't join in, since they weren't invited to the meeting in the first place.

:thumbs:

ge:

You are a self risghteous hypocrite, and I for one, won't accept if invited --- probably too, would not be invited. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

A couple of hundred years ago the world got together to agree upon a world calendar. All other calendars were replaced. Daylight savings time, while not universal, is trudging toward the day it will be. My point?

Let's all get together (we'll invite all authentic Christian denominations) to agree on meeting on Thursday afternoon at 2p.m. daylight savings time. One worship service per week. Saturday and Sunday set aside for relaxation, picnics, camping out, football...........

I predict that the church will not collapse; that God will not reign down fire and brimstone; and that SDAers and Catholics won't join in, since they weren't invited to the meeting in the first place.

:thumbs:

In the change from the Roman Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar - the days of the week remained - but the day of the month changed.

You know - like we do every leap year.

For some reason people think they "changed the days of the week" -- and nobody knows where that myth comes from.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"... that fact does not make "week day one" a Holy Day -- rather it simply opens the door for man-made tradition to "invent something" around it... "

GE:

See? Just like you've said! So important is the truth about the day upon which Jesus rose from the dead!

 

[BobRyan]

I do not know how far we could carry `The Pope approves it, so we must not do it.'

The bishop of Rome tells Christians to assemble themselves; does that mean we should stop obeying Hebrews 10:24-5?

More seriously: the bishop of Rome tells Christians to avoid fornication; does that mean we should immediately engage in wanton fornication?

The bishop of Rome tells people not to murder unborn children; does that mean we should murder unborn babies at every opportunity?

I hope the answer to all these is `No!' What the bishop of Rome says should have absolutely NO bearing on us.

Agreed.

The fact that the HISTORY of the Christian church brings us to this place does not mean that we have to CONTINUE using the arguments of the dark ages. We are free to pick up our Bibles and read and accept what God's Word says at any point in time. We are also free to invent new man-made traditions. Nothing limits us to those invented in the dark ages.

So ... ignoring HOW the Christian church got to this point and the arguments that the RCC made for "EDITING" the Word of God - and specifically Christ's Sabbath commandment... there are other options for ignoring it "all the same".

One is to simply "downsize" the ten to the "NINE COMMANDMENTS" as DHK did on the "DOWNSIZING" thread.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=945118&postcount=1


The other is to invent some kind of rule of the form "At some point in the NT we insert -- WHATEVER is not repeated get's deleted -- as if it was a Bible argument".

All three methods work with equal effectiveness.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Arminius]

G.E.

And your point is WHAT? Go back to the Sabbath? Pretend the first day of the week has absolutely no significance in the New Testament? How about you explain Romans 14 to us, and show us how what you are doing here is not violating that?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"that fact does not make "week day one" a Holy Day -- rather it simply opens the door for man-made tradition to "invent something" around it... "

GE:

So important is the truth about this matter the SDA Church and BR to this day deduce from it the mark of the beast. I would not be surprised if one day they will be proven right!
But on the other hand, then that day, they will also be proven wrong in their thousands of puplications on the subject of the 'origin of Sunday observance', because then it will be shown the 'origin of Sunday observance' had been nothing but a matter of the perversion of the Word of God, the Scriptures.

That - the courruption of the Bible - is the main feature of any 'Sunday argument', and makes of the issue such a grave one -- something people like DonXuiote hasn't got the capacity to grasp.

 

[BobRyan]

GE your argument seems to be that all Bible translations are wrong when it comes to the "Week day one" references in the Gospel -

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Now, to before then, in the teachings of Scripture.

Acts 2:46 "And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart," (ASV). At this time, this community of Christians was meeting to worship every single day.

GE:

No, you're wrong. In Acts 2 you will note two very different kinds of 'breaking bread', and more insurmountable difficulties for your understanding of these verses, see http://www.biblestudents.co.za, the book, 'Pentecost', right in its first pages.

Darron Steele:

"Acts 20:7a "And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them" (ASV). This meeting was held on the first day of the week. I believe that this is undeniable."

GE:

Believe as you like. It won't change reality, the texts says, "Being together still it being evening of that First Day of the week after that we had assembled (earlier), Paul discused matters . . . "

Haven't you read many posts on this one? No, you haven't -- too lazy to or too omniscient?

Darron Steele:

"Acts 21:20 "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law:" (ASV). In the following verses, it is shown that Paul himself followed the Judaic Law and continued to do so. As Jewish Christians were still Jews, they went to synagogue on the Sabbath day; it makes sense that Christians met another day in order to not conflict with this, and the "first day" of the week seems very fitting -- it was the next day, and the same day of the week as Christ was found to be alive out of the tomb."

GE:

Answered right here, above. A void argument if one!

Darron Steele:

"As far as days go, I would like to quote Romans 14:1-5

As far as the Lord is concerned, we could regard every day the same. We could use any day for meetings.

GE:

All, "regarded", 'days' - none were there who did not. None were there, who "unto the Lord regard(ed) not" [see other threads and the above web-page)

But you forgot, that in verse 9, Paul concludes with an unmistable inference to the Seventh Day Sabbath -- which he 'automatically' as a Christian, would have presumed the chief of days it being the Lord's and day of His resurrection from the dead.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

G.E.

And your point is WHAT? Go back to the Sabbath? Pretend the first day of the week has absolutely no significance in the New Testament? How about you explain Romans 14 to us, and show us how what you are doing here is not violating that?

GE:

Read above, refer to http://www.biblestudents.co.za, and see the thread, 'Sabbath-Scriptures Unknown'.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Arminius:

"And your point is WHAT?"

GE:

That "Because Jesus had given them rest", and, "Because He had entered into His own rest as God in His own", "there remaineth for the People of God a keeping of the Sabbath Day".

Arminius:

"Go back to the Sabbath?"

GE:

Jesus (written POST resurrection) "Sabbath's went back to Church".

Arminius:

"Pretend the first day of the week has absolutely no significance in the New Testament?"

GE:

You show me, if it had!

There is only one Covenant, One Lord of it, one day ever made a token of it, the eternal, Covenant of the Grace of God.
You show me God being unfaithful to Himself - then only would you be able to show me He discarding of Hos own Covenant sign, Arminian!


Arminian:

"How about you explain Romans 14 to us, and show us how what you are doing here is not violating that?"

GE:

You fell in at this stage of this thread going on? First go read a bit back, and pick up a few hints from other threads, before you bash in party-breaker!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE your argument seems to be that all Bible translations are wrong when it comes to the "Week day one" references in the Gospel -

GE:

Could you be more unspecific? what's this about?

There is a VAST difference impossible NOT to see, between the older Translations and Versions and the newer ones re the specific 'resurrection-references'. This was the one signal that set me off in my quest after truth.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE your argument seems to be that all Bible translations are wrong when it comes to the "Week day one" references in the Gospel -

GE:

I'll answer you with your own words, "The fact that the HISTORY of the Christian church brings us to this place does not mean that we have to CONTINUE using the arguments of the dark ages. We are free to pick up our Bibles and read and accept what God's Word says at any point in time."

You may think and sicerely believe you are free -- not realising how you slavishly follow your manipulator. Any honest believer today is delivered out to the mercies or tirany of those holding the pen (and purse) .... The methods long since are not those of the dark ages any more. They have become far more sinister.