I have sought to avoid topics which are potentially divisive within the Christian community here on HubPages. I prefer to disagree politely on minor issues and leave major issues for interpersonal and group studies.
However my Roman Catholic fellow hubber Mike, has been accusing me of slander and forked tongue because I have been posting links to study sites while trying to maintain the peace here.
The plain truth is we prefer to do a study than argue, because nothing much ever comes form a religious argument.
If at any point in the following discussion I see it deteriorating I will discontinue my participation. This topic will reveal new and startling information to readers, but i beg you to understand that we dont hate Catholics. I repeat, we dont hate Catholics. Among the Roman Catholics you will find some of the best and most sincere Christians ever to walk the planet.
In this thread it will be clearly demonstrated that there is no scriptural authority for the change of the Sabbath, and leading spokesmen of the Roman Catholic church have admitted that the church by her own authority has transferred the sacredness to a different day.
Here is the statement from Mike that we shall address:
Make Money wrote:
Sunday has been the new Sabbath since Jesus Christ's resurrection which was on a Sunday the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19).
Acts 20:7 "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight."
The first day of the week is Sunday.
1 Cor. 16:2 "On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made."
Col. 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths,"
He means with regard to the Jewish observations of the distinction of clean and unclean meats; and of their festivals, new moons, and sabbaths, as being no longer obligatory.
Besides the above there are more. God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath in Isaiah 1:13.
Isaias 1:13 "Offer sacrifice no more in vain: incense is an abomination to me. The new moons, and the sabbaths, and other festivals I will not abide, your assemblies are wicked."
Basically the whole chapter of Hebrews 4 but I'll just post 4 verses here. Regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of "another day," which is Sunday, the new Sabbath.
Hebrews 4 "6 Seeing then it remaineth that some are to enter into it, and they, to whom it was first preached, did not enter because of unbelief: 7 Again he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so long a time, as it is above said: Today if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, he would never have afterwards spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a day of rest for the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, the same also hath rested from his works, as God did from his."
When there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well, as we see in Hebrews 7:12. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.
Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law."
John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, the new day of rest in Christ, as we see in Revelation 1:10.
Revelation 1:10 "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,"
Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 both mention whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven.
And finally the verse that also entirely refutes sola scriptura (by scripture alone). The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
The above verses are taken as usual from the Douay-Rheims Bible. These verses are also in the King James Bible. And they should be in your Bible as well Glendon, unless it has been changed.
So there's your Biblical challenge Glendon.
Challenge the God given authority of the apostles to change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
I am not looking for another frothy mouthed diatribe or a copy and paste commentary, just your Biblical refutation of the apostle's God given authority.
I will understand if you conveniently avoid this post again cause as I have said it is basically the death knell to all denominations which are distinguished by their observance of Saturday as the Lord's Day. But hear me Glendon, if you can not challenge the God given authority of the apostles it will end all friendly dialogue between the two of us, simply because it will mean that your 7th Day Adventist denomination is not just anti-Catholic but it is also an attack against God. I would recognize it also as an attack against God because your 7th Day Adventist denomination does not recognize God's given authority to the apostles or believe that Jesus Christ left His Holy Ghost to guide His Church.
This Biblical challenge also goes out to anyone that is a member of a denomination that distinguishes itself by observance of Saturday as the Lord's Day.
The scriptural God given authority for the apostles to change the Lord's Day to Sunday are listed above. For your 7th Day Adventists denomination to try to change the Lord's Day from Sunday back to Saturday 2,000 years later can only be accomplished by completely avoiding the scriptural verses above or reading them wrong.
By the leading spokesmen of the Roman Catholic Church saying that the Church by her own authority has transferred the sacredness of the Lord's Day to Sunday they are saying that the original apostles were the start of Jesus Christ's universal Catholic Church, you know, the one and only apostolic Church.
To not accept God's given authority to the apostles is akin to not accepting God.
And it is refusal to believe Jesus Christ who said that He would send His Holy Ghost to guide His Church.
If by saying study sites you are referring to that frothy mouth diatribe that is akin to the fictitious slanderous zeitgeist movie, that basically attacks the entire Christian world then I will discontinue my participation in this forum myself.
Glendon try to just refute the scriptural verses above that clearly show God's given authority to the apostles to make Sunday the Lord's Day.
That is your Biblical challenge.
More frothy mouthed diatribes or copy and paste commentaries won't do if you can't address the scriptural verses above.
I will check back in a couple of days to see if anyone has discernment from the Holy Ghost to properly read the above verses.
I see that your profile is not configured to receive email. So I will say this here. I feel like you wish to suck me into a whirlpool of endless accusations and defense. Very easy for me to deal with the posted texts but am afraid of the heated and personal statements. Already you are threatening to leave the forum.
Others are already giving you successful explanations, which I doubt will convince you. I am not interested in a Catholic vs SDA vendetta.
Can't we agree to disagree on some issues without you sounding so personal. Does theological differences mean we have to be enemies. That is scary. Some of my families and friends are Catholics. We simply agree to disagree.
Next you will be saying "christ is the end of the law" as another text. Talk to a NT Greek scholar before you post texts. Busy today so will respond to just one right now.
Yah's Sabbath is not up for changing. He spoke about the Sabbath keeping from the beginning in Genesis, and commanded it to be kept holy in the Torah. No where did it ever say that the Sabbath had changed. In fact, the Apostle James said in Acts 15:21 that every Sabbath, Moses has people teaching the Torah.
This means that every Sabbath, people will learn teh law. So, the Sabbath has not changed because YAH HIMSELF did not change it.Yeshua may have rose on the 3rd day(Sunday), but no where did Yah the father, or Yeshua, decree that Sunday is the new Sabbath.
Catholic here and I agree. All man made changes but what matters is where our heart is. Not the day of the week. Thanks!
"Col. 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths,"
He means with regard to the Jewish observations of the distinction of clean and unclean meats; and of their festivals, new moons, and sabbaths, as being no longer obligatory.
Besides the above there are more. God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath in Isaiah 1:13.
Isaias 1:13 "Offer sacrifice no more in vain: incense is an abomination to me. The new moons, and the sabbaths, and other festivals I will not abide, your assemblies are wicked."
Are you sure of this? Its an honest question?
I may be wrong, but...I always thought of this as Christ railing against the Cabolic Practices of the Cabolist Priests, at that time.
They were becoming more primitive, tribal, with human pleasures and leaning more into the Egyptian rituals and beliefs, and the beginings of Witchcraft?
Symbols used, like fire animal sacrifices, a procedure called the Great Right, that was later adopted in Heatheanist worship and Grove Worship practices. Also some Pagan practices came to this later in History.
He was saying they are folley and he will not reconise them as true worship of God? Warning them it is not of his ways. Not anything to do with a Sunday-Saturday change?
The Jews were under the Law, and He also said if you feel that you are under the Law than keep the law, do not deviate? But he warned them it would be an impossible task to do that? I am not sure Sunday or Saturday was the real issue here? Again, just a question.
Well, to answer this question- Who Authorized the Change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
The same people who built their house upon a hill of sand.
Man - made religious order - yet you follow blindly.
Man - made "god" mystic myth - therefore.
It is man who can change the day.
Just the fact- that man can change that day, should tell you something about it, in itself.
Have a great day.
Hi, why don't you let me know some atheist forum that I can also waste some time on.... you may have missed the fact that this is a CHRISTIAN forum, for CHRISTIANS.... now you are welcome to join the faith, but please don't waste your time peddling your satanic atheists nonsense here.
Sure you can join, your my new best friend!
I just dislike Cagsil's factitious response, which was completely off subject..... If you or any other has anything to say that is relevant to the debate, go for it!
Thanks aquasilver, . Maybe later I'll join. Now I'm tired
Thanks for letting me know that it is a christian forum.
And, for your information comments can be left by anyone. Since you are talking RELIGION- it is irrelevant what religion.
Since you service your master daily, I suggest you go back to servicing HIM like all others. And, not make ridiculous assumptions about what religious faith.
Atheists? Is a religion, just like yours is, but since I have NO religion whatsoever, because I believe in WHAT IS REAL and you can't handle that.....I guess you have a better problem than I do.
How ever, I'll leave you in what you think is called peace.
Have a nice day with your illusions of grandure.
Christians invented Satan and his cohorts for their exclusive worship. You are a Christian if and only if, among other things, you also believe in the devil.
In case you don't understand the teachings of Christianity, I'll say it again:
Christians NEED the devil in their lives just as much as they need Jesus. The Devil needs Christians in order to flourish and raise hell for them.
Ahteists are completely out this picture and living safe, happy lives without daily emotional torment and threats.
The first two (Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2)don't seem to have anything to do with the sabbath, all it shows is that they HAD a first day of the week. Nothing about it being the day of rest. They met together daily to "break bread" and hear the word after all, the fact that Paul was preparing to leave meant they got together with him before seeing him off.
Colossians 2:16 is directed to Gentiles, they weren't keeping the feasts and sabbaths of YHWH in the first place. Maybe this means they've STARTED doing so and are told to not let anyone judge them for it but the body of Christ.
The verse in Isaiah doesn't show God's displeasure with the sabbath or the festivals, what a weird way to take it! It definitely shows YHWH's displeasure with the way they're keeping them - wicked hearts then a great show of piety that's totally hypocritical. Otherwise you're saying that God suddenly said, "That sabbath and those feasts I commanded you to keep? They're evil and horrible, how dare you listen to me by keeping them like I said!" Doesn't make sense.
Eu gosto muito de você. E não só eu.
Fique sempre aqui falando comnosco. Tá ?
(I read the topic)
What I was taught was that Shabbat is for Jews to keep and is not required of non-Jews at all, so for non-Jewish Christians to argue about who changed the Sabbath day seems a little ridiculous to me. What next? Are we going to argue about whether or not anyone changed the day of Yom Kippur?
The fact remains that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday. Believers Jewish and otherwise wished to commemorate that, so Sunday became the Lord's Day. However, Shabbat was never changed.
This sums it up. Excellent point Valerie. I would add that Shabbat (Sabbath) comes from the word for seven and according to Torah is a reference to the seventh day of the creation week. It cannot shift in function. It is a day of rest. The Shabbat or seventh will always be the seventh and that will always be the day God set aside for rest. It is also one of the big ten and there is no directive in the Old or New to change this.
It matters to anyone who still keeps the sabbath like Jesus. I disagree with changing it to Sunday since scripture says the antichrist is who or what will take it upon 'himself' to change the days and times and seasons.
I'm more convinced by the people who say there is no special day of worship since we are to live our every life as fully devoted to I AM. However, we can't refrain from work every day of our lives!
Keeping the Sabbath and gathering together to teach and study Gods words are two entirely different things. Any one can go to church any day that they choose. To go to Church in no way fulfills the definition of keeping the Sabbath. It is something that also can be done on the Sabbath or any other day.
That is my own personal opinion.
The Sabbath day has never been changed to my knowledge. It still is from Friday evening to Saturday evening if I recall correctly.
Sunday is called "The Lord's Day" if I am not mistaken. I also recall from reading the New Testament, that the disciples went into the temple on a pretty much daily basis.
Where do we get that Sunday is the Lord's Day? It's only mentioned in Revelation 1:10 and doesn't say anything about which day of the week it was.
Tminut: <<<<scripture says the antichrist is who or what will take it upon 'himself' to change the days and times and seasons.>>>>
Could you please tell me where this scripture can be found in the bible?
Daniel 7:25 is correct concerning the little horn of the fourth beast. 7:25 says that he will THINK to change times and laws. Religious leaders refer to him as the Anti-Christ.
Gabriel says that he is a king after the first ten replacing three. Sounds to me that he is to be the 14 king (Emperor) of the FOURTH kingdom (the Roman Empire). Hadrian was the 14th and last emperor to rule over the Hebrew nation. Hadrian made it unlawful to perform circumcision and he also abolished use of the Hebrew calendar. He emptied the holy Land of all Hebrews selling them into slavery through out the Empire. He attempted to wipe Judaism from the face of the earth.
Establishing Sunday as the Sabbath officially began by the Roman Catholic Church. (I think around 335)
And just what was God’s reason for ordering the Israelites to remember the Sabbath day and keep it HOLY?
The Jews developed their own set of Behavioral laws, Considerd Jeasus a profit not the Son of God, and thus they remained Under the Law, not the Grace. As I understand it. Jeasus said; "Those who practice the Law will be Judged by the Law." He was warning them they will not be able to keep their law, by human nature and actions. And if they choose this course, then God will jusge them by the laws they made for themselves.
He did not Order the Law he said Follow Gods wishes, keep the Sabbath with you, meaning keep it inside you, choose to Honor and Praise God collectively.
They, the Elders, Interpreted it as a day of worship. A day to gather, and the Pharises turned it into law.
They were told to keep the sabbath holy to commemorate creation, 'for in six days YHWH made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested the seventh day, wherefore YHWH blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8
You sound like you asked that because you already knew ionerice, is that so? I can't tell for sure.
There were actually two different sets of the Ten Commandments. Remember that the first set that Moses brought down from the mountain was destroyed when he threw them against the golden bull. They are the ones listed in the 20th chapter of Exodus that were never given to the Hebrew people.
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.
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.
That is what I believe; I said it; That is all;
I'll shuddup and sit in the corner.
Still sounds to me like one of my boys telling his brothers that they could start all having junk food for dinner instead of following my rule of real food first always. It wouldn't really change what was required, that would only happen if I said it.
But about history, I don't know much at all other than that Constantine? changed it to keep his kingdom (empire) all following the same religion.
Ionerice, the people WERE told about the sabbath specifically before Deuteronomy, back in Exodus, after the tablets were broken. Even so, adding that they should remember their creator because 'look what he's done for you', doesn't change the reason they had to keep the sabbath holy.
And if someone claims they've changed it, that doesn't mean it's really changed; you can punish someone for doing what they were told, that doesn't make it right.
Mark: Lets tackle Acts 20:7.
I know you dont like cut and paste but the language here is very polite and scholarly. Why reinvent the wheel, if someone has done adequate research we can look at it. See if it's any help. (You still haven't told me what you found slanderous in the video). Sorry if you were offended. Which video did you watch. Was it the Doug Bachelor?
Here is what I will say if it's any comfort, it must be as difficult to be a Catholic or an Adventist because we are both on opposite ends of the sola scriptura vs traditions continuum. So we are going to be hit by all the arguments in between. On both ends of this continuum we have to pray for extra measure of tolerance and love in a plural world. Let's not blow up each other like Shiites and Sunnis in Muslim world. If Martin Luther could have been given a safe pass to attend conference you can at least permit disagreement without being so personal.
Back to topic: The text in Acts is a very weak point for Sunday as below:
"First day of the week. In Greek the expression is the same as that in Matt. 28:1. There can be no doubt that this corresponds, in general, at least, to our Sunday. Commentators have been divided, however, as to whether the meeting in question took place on the evening following Sunday, or on that preceding it. Those who favor the view that it was a Sunday night meeting point out that Luke, who most probably was a Gentile, presumably used Roman time reckoning, which began the day at midnight. On such reckoning, an evening meeting on the first day of the week could only be on Sunday night. They point out also that the time sequence of the verse, “the first day of the week,” “the morrow,” implies that Paul’s departure took place on the second day of the week; if so, then the meeting must have been on Sunday night. It may be noted, also, that John refers to Sunday night as “the first day of the week” (John 20:19), whereas, according to Jewish reckoning, it was already the second day of the week (see Vol. II, p. 101). It is possible that Luke uses the expression in the same sense here.
Other commentators, including Ellicott, Conybeare and Howson, and A. T. Robertson, have preferred to understand that the meeting took place on the evening before Sunday. Inasmuch as Jewish reckoning began the day at sunset, by that system the dark part of the first day of the week would be the night preceding Sunday, our Saturday night. Such reckoning continued for centuries among Christians, and it is reasonable to think that Luke, whether Gentile or not, may have used it in his narrative. Accordingly, Paul’s meeting at Troas would have begun after sunset on Saturday night, and would have continued through that night. The next day, Sunday, he would have walked to Assos.
Some writers have seen in this passage an indication of early Christian Sunday observance. Whether or not Luke used Jewish or Roman time reckoning is of relatively little importance to this question, for he says clearly that the meeting was on “the first day of the week.” If he was using Jewish reckoning, then the evening before Sunday was considered the first day, and if he was using Roman time, the evening following Sunday was still the first day. The significant factor here, as regards the question of early Christian Sundaykeeping, is whether this first-day meeting represents regular Christian practice, or whether it happened to fall on the first day only because of Paul’s visit.
A consideration of the whole narrative provides no support for the view that Paul held this meeting specifically because it was the first day of the week. He had been at Troas seven days; certainly he must have met with the believers there already more than once. Now he was to depart, and it was most logical that he would hold a final farewell meeting, and celebrate the Lord’s Supper with them. Luke’s remark that this occurred on the first day of the week, rather than being a notice of specific Sundaykeeping, is quite in harmony with the whole series of chronological notes with which he fills his narrative of this voyage (see chs. 20:3, 6, 7, 15, 16; 21:1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15). Therefore the simplest way to view this passage would seem to be that the meeting was held, not because it was Sunday, but because Paul was “ready to depart” (ch. 20:7), that Luke includes an account of the meeting because of the experience of Eutychus, and that his note that it was “the first day of the week” is merely a part of his continuing chronological record of Paul’s journey. In evaluating this passage as an evidence of early Christian Sundaykeeping, the eminent church historian, Augustus Neander, remarks:
“The passage is not entirely convincing, because the impending departure of the apostle may have united the little Church in a brotherly parting-meal, on occasion of which the apostle delivered his last address, although there was no particular celebration of a Sunday in the case” (The History of the Christian Religion and Church, tr. Henry John Rose, vol. 1, p. 337).
Nichol, Francis D., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 1978.
Mark I have a strong interest in maintaining a spirit of community and will appeal to you again that this forum is not the place for inter-denom controversy. In fact I wish to email you so we can discuss our differences privately.
There are numerous catholic and adventist sites with detailed discussions I am sure.
Funny thing is I did not watch most of the doug bachelor video, I merely selected it by topic. What did doug say that incensed you so much? or did you click a different link in margin? You refuse to answer.
First my name is Mike, no let's do this in public seeing you started it all on a public forum. And Glendon you know darn right well why I am ticked. You cut it from your opening post so here it is again so all can see.
And now with this web site saying this about the 7th Day Adventist I realize that your attack is not just against the Catholic faith but the entire Christian world.
From http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 039AAZ9aGS
"Due to ridicule they experienced from fellow Christians in their old denominations, they began to regard Protestantism as part of Babylon the Great, and the call to come out of Babylon added a new dimension to their missionary proclamation."
After reading this I have no doubt now that the fictitious slanderous zeitgeist video that attacks the entire Christian world was actually published by the same 7th Day Adventist denomination.
So in reality it looks like the 7th Day Adventists will attack the Catholic faith or any Christian denomination with both barrels with untruths, lies and slanders just because they think the 7th Day Adventists teachings are not Biblical. And even because they won't change from a 2,000 year old tradition of Sunday being the Lord's Day. How ridiculous.
Glendon that is not just ridiculous but it is not Christian.
I've heard enough from you. I know your stripes now.
Show me the untruths. Show me the slander. In my hubs or forum posts.
You have not given any sound biblical theology for Sunday keeping. Attacking me will not help.
No i don't know why your are ticked because I have not watched all of the video I posted. I selected it by topic and I trusted the source. So I suppose I will have to watch entire video to see what got you ticked since you refuse to state the so-called slanderous content. And I still suspect that you might have watched another video in margin for I cant imagine Pastor Doug Bachelor saying anything to provoke such a reaction.
As for other statements all I will say is look at things I say and my approach to civil discourse.
I will say again, just like you did earlier about letter from Pope, I can only 100% support communication form the official church site. Other sites I can pull select supportive data, but not support all their conclusions or use of language.
If you descend into a spirit of controversy I will shut up and forget this thread. Or is that what you want? Zeitgeist movie, indeed? Soon you'll be blaming us for 9/11 and even the Vietnam War.
Let's get back to biblical theology.
Or agree to disagree on since we don't see eye to eye on traditions vs plain thus saith the Lord.
Instead of spending time complaining why not discuss content of whatever you have a problem with.
This thread is not about 7th day adventists. It's about Sabbath to Sunday.
Why try so hard to discredit the messenger? Bible and church history will prove the point.
Sabbath, is still the same every 7th day, Sunday came from Pagan Religion, hence Sun worship .......Dies Solis day of the sun...
Shabbat is still followed by Jews.
Nobody authorized it.....because men are nobody's.
Hebrews do not have names for the days of the week.
Yom (Day) 1~2~3~4~5~6~ Shabbat (Rest)
Actually it was the pagan Roman Emperor Hadrian who changed to Sunday keeping after he ran the Jews out of Rome in 135 A.D..He replaced it with the teachings of Mithra a well known pagan deity. The priesthood of Mithra was called fathers (Do you know any Church that calls its priests fathers?). later on in about 160 A.D., a well known Gnostic named Valentinus contibuted his Gnostic Trinty to co-inside with the teachings of Mithra. Yes Constantine the Great made Sunday the official day for the Romans and all the nations where they ruled. He was known as "Sol Invicto Comiti" or "Pontifus Macximus" the high priest of paganism. Sun worship was their game, read "Too long in the Sun"by Richard Rives- www.toolong.com. It is also interesting to point out that Constantine was baptized a 7th Day Arian on his death bed.
Another place to look is the work of the late Samuele Bacchiocchi, the 7th Day Adventist researcher who was one of the only Protestants that attended the Gregorian University at Rome. His study of the Catholic Archives proves that Sunday never replaced the 7th Day Sabbath in 31 A.D..You can get a copy of his famous book "From Sabbath to Sunday", by Dr. Sam. It is a historical investigation of the rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. Try: www.biblicalperspectives.com .
That seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me lionswhelp. I don't see much of a connection between the 7th Day Adventists that started in the 19th century and the Arian heresy of the 3rd and 4th centuries. The Arian heresy was that they didn't believe Jesus is God but 7th Day Adventists do believe that Jesus is God, don't they.
The only thing that I could find that might connect the 7th Day Adventists and the Arian heresy is this article that shows that the Jehovah's Witnesses is a break away sect of the 7th Day Adventists, but the only connection being, like the Arians the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is God. With the time lapse between the Arian heresy and the start of the 7th Day Adventists in the 19th century I don't see much of a connection at all.
From http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 039AAZ9aGS
The Eastern Orthodox and the Anglican Churches.
And Catholic priests.
Valerie you know just last week I seen on the news that the Catholic Church is making accommodations, whether individually or en mass for the many Anglicans that have shown interest in becoming Catholic. I seen this on the Canadian news. The Church of England is called the Anglican Church in Canada so I'm not sure if it is referring also to the Church of England and the Episcopalians which they call themselves in the US too.
Hadrian truly was the "little horn" described by Daniel.
I can not understand why "Christians" can not accept this.
Yea I can! They would have to reevaluate their callander concerning everything.
Well let's see what Rev. Ken Collins, a minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has to say about this.
I like this.
But every student of church history knows that there were pre-Constantine Christian observance of Sunday for good motives too (resurrection).
But we ought to obey God rather than men. Jesus expected his followers to obey sabbath at fall of Jerusalem. "flight not be on sabbath".
Constantine made Sunday keeping an imperial edict. Thus setting the way for Roman Church.
Looking at the other religious traditions a very good move. Keep looking and you will find 7th day Saturday Sabbath observance in some places, did you check Ethiopia?
BTW the discussion is about Sabbath the sacred day, not about worship in general. We ought to live a life of devotion. Thomas a Kempis in Imitation of Christ.
I would love to query the historical correctness of claim that the separate orthodox communities evolved in isolation.
Will get an expert response on that.
Meanwhile look at what Tertullian, a notable church father had to say about Sunday vs Sabbath. He lived in 2nd century and could not find a scripture or apostolic example for Sunday Sabbath. In defence of Sunday rituals he said "tradition will be held forth as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener and faith as their observer."
Writing against Marcion ( who was against OT and Jews), Tertullian said "Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath."
"The Roman Catholic church must not be confused with the Church of Rome to which the apostle Paul addressed his epistle. That one ended at that august Council of Nicae in AD 325. The foundation was laid for the Roman Catholic Church, and it was consummated in AD 328 after Arius, the last of the 318 bishops who were at the Council, signed the Creed."
"When Constantine brought the groups together, purity of doctrine was never his interest. He had one goal and one only: unity of the empire."
John O. Hines, Christianity's Two Sabbaths, 2005.
"In section 64 of his letter, Pope John Paul II concedes that the keeping of Sunday by Christians was not recognized until the civil law of AD 321, of the Roman empire, recognized "the day of the sun." "Christians", he said, "rejoiced to see thus removed the obstacle which...made observance of the Lord's Day heroic. they could now devote themselves to prayer in common without hindrance." That declaration and the subsequent signing of the Nicaean Creed meant that the churches could no more be open on Saturday for Sabbath worship. The final conquest of the God of the Jews and the establishment of the Roman Beast were accomplished. Heresy had now assumed the legal status of orthodoxy, and the teachers of heresies became official bishop of the church. It was the heretic, Marcion, a successor of Simon Magus, who advocated in blasphemous language that Christians should acknowledge Sunday worship, to show disrespect to the God of the Jews who created the world."
John O. Hines, Christianity's Two Sabbaths, p. 134.
This wonderful little book by my friend John goes on to point out that the bishop of the British isles had not signed the creed so they kept 7th day sabbath until subjugated by Romans.
Up to 11th century the Christian churches of British isles celebrated Sabbath.
Glendon you have to keep things in context otherwise you could make something mean something completely different like you and Hines have done here.
In what letter did Pope John Paul II say this above? If you can not mention what letter it is quoted from then don't attempt to quote Pope John Paul II. Without the quote coming from the official Vatican web site it could be just made up. What you posted does not draw a distinction as to where Pope John Paul II quote ends and where yours or Hines' quotes begin, thus adding to the confusion that you are trying to create.
I guess you are not aware that the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD wrongfully upheld the Arian heresy. It wasn't until the Second General Council in 381 AD that this got corrected. From this moment Arianism in all its forms lost its place within the Empire. Its developments among the Germanic barbarians were political rather than doctrinal. This is the last paragraph of this page on Arianism.
Glendon I understand why the Jehovah's Witnesses would want to keep going back to Arius and the Arian heresy, you know because they do not believe Jesus is God like Arius did.
But why is it so important for 7th Day Adventists to also go back to Arius and the Arian heresy? You do believe that Jesus Christ is God don't you?
This is also a quote from the above web site on Arianism "summing up the doctrine of St. John, St. Paul, and Christ Himself, "I and the Father are one". Heresy, as St. Ambrose remarks, had furnished from its own scabbard a weapon to cut off its head."
Check your history Mike. Arius was excommunicated at Nicene council.
How did Arianism get into discussion? Arius was excommunicated at Nicae at first council in 325. Later on he was last of bishop to sign creed.
The Nicene Creed does not uphold Arianism.
The council was a political and ecclesiastical watershed which assists our discussion on when Sunday keeping was set forth by a powerful church and state.
I have - Arius.
Like I say, the Arian heresy was not completely corrected and purged from the Church until the Second General Council in 381 AD.
After his excommunication in 325 Arius was convinced to eventually sign Nicene Creed, which by the way was a great document.
I feel like a teacher in a classroom of disobedient children. The only reason we are discussing Nicaea is significance of that Council for the formation of the Roman Catholic Church and the legitimising of Sunday keeping. Arianism itself is an important corollary but not vital to discussion. This thread is history of Sunday Sabbath.
Sunday keeping political and religious expedience. Not apostolic tradition.
Mike you have me running into so many rabbit holes we will soon forget that we are talking about Sabbath.
The quotation marks are there plain as day where Hines quoted Pope Paul II.
But you are correct about the letter, Dies Domini of 1998.
Simply the most recent powerful papal statement on Sunday Sabbath.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ … ni_en.html
Here is full section.
64. For several centuries, Christians observed Sunday simply as a day of worship, without being able to give it the specific meaning of Sabbath rest. Only in the fourth century did the civil law of the Roman Empire recognize the weekly recurrence, determining that on "the day of the sun" the judges, the people of the cities and the various trade corporations would not work. (107) Christians rejoiced to see thus removed the obstacles which until then had sometimes made observance of the Lord's Day heroic. They could now devote themselves to prayer in common without hindrance. (108)
It would therefore be wrong to see in this legislation of the rhythm of the week a mere historical circumstance with no special significance for the Church and which she could simply set aside. Even after the fall of the Empire, the Councils did not cease to insist upon the arrangements regarding Sunday rest. In countries where Christians are in the minority and where the festive days of the calendar do not coincide with Sunday, it is still Sunday which remains the Lord's Day, the day on which the faithful come together for the Eucharistic assembly. But this involves real sacrifices. For Christians it is not normal that Sunday, the day of joyful celebration, should not also be a day of rest, and it is difficult for them to keep Sunday holy if they do not have enough free time.
I think I may have missed the point of this forum but meh, what the heck...
Chose whatever day suits you best. I've been to churches that worship on a saturday, sunday and tuesday. They all call their day of worship Sabbath with all good reasons. Because the Bible makes no clear cut specific day, interpret your day of Sabbath and stick to it. As long as you keep your day Holy it shouldn't matter
I should have added this to my last post:
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
If a person adheres to the whole Bible they will understand that they are free to participate in the holy days or to acknowledge that even when they don't the holy days and their meaning are fulfilled for them and in them by the work and ministry of Messiah.
That's also written this way though:
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]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.
So it would be: Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath but the body of Christ.
The part "which are a shadow of things to come" describes those things people are keeping and I've seen it as future (as above). Not all the feasts have been fulfilled after all. Like the Feast of Trumpets and the Last Great Day.
SirDent, you are right. The sabbath was not changed. Also Christ probably didn't rise on Sunday. The bible just says they came to the tomb on the first day, some of them saw Him on the first day. it didn't say he rose on the first day. But since Christ came, it doesn't make any difference which day you worship. I know that's controversial, but let's do this. Let's go to the ones we can all agree upon. Stop lying, stop committing adultery, stop stealing, stop lusting, love somebody, feed somebody, clothe somebody. i bet if we do all the things we can agree upon, God would be well pleased.
I'd have to agree with you joque other than it doesn't just say "first day" but "first day of the week" in Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:2, Mark 16:9, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, John 20:19, Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2. We know the "first day of the week" is Sunday. That's why the Lord's Day has been Sunday for 2,000 years.
Jerami the forty two months have not even started yet. We know for sure that one of the two witnesses from Revelation 11 that will prophesy for 1260 days in Jerusalem will be Elias (or Elijah) from Malichi 4, Paul also mentions Elias in Romans chapters 9, 10 and 11. It's believed the other witness will be Henoch. You might want to read Revelation 11 again and compare it to Malichi 4. The two and forty months (42 months) that "the holy city they shall tread under foot" and the thousand two hundred sixty days (1260 days divided by 30 = 42 months) that the two witnesses shall prophesy for in Revelation 11 are both talking about the same period of time. It should be very clear from Revelation 11 that the two witnesses are sent to Jerusalem, "where their Lord also was crucified" for a testimony for Jesus Christ. After 42 months they are killed by the beast, they lie in the streets for three days and a half then they are told to "Come up hither" for judgment day has come.
The text is clear as you pointed out that according to the timetable provided the 42 months have not begun. I couldn't find an eschatological reference to Elijah in Romans 11 and the Malachi passage seems to be referring to John (Matthew 11:14, 17:12).
There is no scriptural prohibition to suggest that the two Prophets of Revelation won't be naturally born into this world and called out from among the righteous. There is no passage that reveals their identity.
Although offhand I can say nothing about Elijah being one of the two, there is scripture saying who the other is or will be.
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Does this passage say that Enoch will be one of the two or does it say that he once prophesied about Messiah's return?
It is a future reference. Read before it and look at the timeline as it goes down the chapter.
Also look through the Old testament and see if you can find anything that shows that Enoch Prophesied. You will not find any. Pray before reading. Also remember that everything is finished according to God, even though we haven't seen the end of it all.
The passage in Jude refers to future things as I said but Enoch's prophesy is past tense. Notice the verb in the following quote:
"Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied"
Enoch "prophesied" (past tense) in the past. See Enoch 1:9.
There is no passage of scripture that names the two prophets from Revelation. But we are told to watch and understand the times, to be prepared and not be caught off guard when the times reach their fulfillment. Great advice on approaching the Word prayerfully. Thanks.
Rev. 1:8 I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Everything in the Word of God is already done and sealed. Nothing can change it and no one can stop it. God sees the end of things as already done. We only see in part and then as we go along our journey.
Enoch preached to his audience in OT.
Please open a new thread on eschatology. This thread is change of sabbath.
Actually Marc the verses that I am referring to in Malachias 4 are verses 5 & 6
Malachias 4:5-6 "5 Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers: lest I come, and strike the earth with anathema."
Then in Revelation 11 we see the two witnesses prophesy for a testimony of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem. This is to turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, the Jews to the Christians and the Christians to the Jews.
Revelation 11:3-8 "3 And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, that stand before the Lord of the earth. 5 And if any man will hurt them, fire shall come out of their mouths, and shall devour their enemies. And if any man will hurt them, in this manner must he be slain. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and they have power over waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues as often as they will. 7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast, that ascendeth out of the abyss, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified."
In Romans 9, 10 and 11 Paul is lamenting for his Jewish brethren then in Romans 11:2 he says "God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew. Know you not what the scripture saith of Elias; how he calleth on God against Israel?"
To show that God allowed Elias to stop the rain in the days of his prophecy see 3 Kings 17:1, 3 Kings 18:1 and James 5:17.
3 Kings 17:1 "And Elias the Thesbite of the inhabitants of Galaad said to Achab: As the Lord liveth the God of Israel, in whose sight I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to the words of my mouth."
3 Kings 18:1 "After many days the word of the Lord came to Elias, in the third year, saying: Go and shew thyself to Achab, that I may give rain upon the face of the earth."
James 5:17 "Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth, and it rained not for three years and six months."
No matter how I read it the Malachi passage seems to be a reference to John the Immerser and I think it's a stretch to use the Roman's passage outside of it's immediate context which simply states that God has not abandoned Israel but has kept a remnant of national, ethnic Jewish believers (just as in Elijah's day).
Having said that, I can see that in the same way John "was" Elijah so another prophet may be called from among the righteous to minister by the same spirit of God as "the Elijah". In that way, as with John the future prophet could be called Elijah. I just don't see a Biblical statement that states or even suggests the Elijah of the Ancient Northern portion of the kingdom will return in any physical way. But as Glendoncoba suggested earlier this is probably not the post for this discussion.
(hand in air)
Please could we use another thread for eschatology and keep on topic here.
The year was 321 A.D. when Constantine decreed, "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed"
This is the same Constatine that babtized the entire Roman Army and the horses on which they rode.
The Roman empire was falling, Christianity was on the rise. Constatine had no authority to change the day but he did.
The Mother Harlot Church was formed.
I have to agree with you on that. Approx. 40 years after that mother was formed, she was given forty two months to blaspheme. That forty two months are almost over.
It is written that the beast will be so convincing that if it were possible even the very elect might be fooled.
I must add that about the same time as the forty two months were begun that the Lord sent down his two witnesses that they would prophesy for 1260 days. I believe that they operate out of the Christianity and Islam religions. I am not accusing all of the membership of these two faiths. These two witnesses make up for the radicals.
Satan gave his power and his seat to this beast 13:2
Power was given to the beast to continue for 42 months to blaspheme the Lord. 13:5
It is written that at the time of the first resurrection those that were beheaded for their testimony of God and that they did not worship the Beast are the first to be resurrected.
At that time Satan is bound in the pit for 1000 years and after the 1000 years are fulfilled he shall be loosed to gather together the nations together for the great battle.
When the sixth vial is poured out, the Euphrates is dried up and frogs are seen coming out of the mouth of Satan, the Beast and False prophet that gather together the kings of the earth to the great battle 16:13.
Logically analize these statements and you see that the 1000 years that Satan is bound and the millinial reighn are contained within the 42 months that the beast is given to blaspheme. This 42 months deffinatly are not 3 1/2 earth years. Most all theologians teach that this 42 months = 1260 years. As we have discussed before; I strongly disagree with them. A day = approx 1.3 of our years. Either way, if we are watching the kings gathering together in this generation for the battle of Armageddon, this beast has already been with us for well over 1000 years.
as I have said... Analize this
I will attempt to use Bible and church history and simply ignore the ad hominem attacks.
Sunday observance did not originate as a substitute for Sabbath. Not until 4th century did Sunday begin to replace Sabbath as rest day.
From late in second century Clement of Alexandria had referred to sunday as 'Lord's Day'.
During 3rd century Christian observance of sunday became widespread but 7th day Sabbath had not disappeared.
Constantine's edict of 321 even used pagan wording "Venerable Day of the Sun.".
The earliest known ecclesiastical enactment rejecting Sabbath observance and replacing it with weekly Sunday observance comes from a regional council in Laodicea about AD 364. "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but they shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour..."
Loyalty to seventh-day sabbath persevered despite opposition. So in contrast to Council of Laodicea we find Apostolic Constitutions:
"Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord's day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety (8:33) and, "But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord's day festival; because the former is the memorial of creation, and the latter of resurrection" (7.23).
OMG, this thread is so ridiculous, I've passed it by for days but finally felt that I had to respond. Do any of you guys really think that God cares when you worship as long as you do it? I mean really, how stupid to you think she is? Worship on Sunday? Pass to heaven. Worship on Friday? Ooops. Hellfire and brimstone for you. Come on!
You are absolutely correct with one little exception. Imagine that you have told your child to mow your grass every Saturday. He has been doing it on Saturday until your neighbor told your child that it would be OK to wait until Monday after school to do it. It really does not matter when the grass gets cut really does it? BUT what right does your neighbor have to counter send your wishes? The child is not to blame or ?
The neighbor? GERrrr
Well I was at that meeting and there was a show of hands for the change. It was unanomous..."SUNDAY" We all shouted. Apparently some didn't get the memo. my bad.
Irohner - very ignorant post. I can see you are a very ignorant person for even attempting to come in here and have a real conversation and I can see from your post count, you are a post whore.
The true sabbath is from Friday sundown to Saturday Sundown. (Sir Dent made a comment on this) It is very easily figured from the holy days listed in Leviticus. All the (Jewish) months begin at sundown with the siting of the new moon. I am trying to figure out in this thread, how no one knows this or have mentioned it. I am not Jewish and I know all Catholics and Christians follow Sunday as their sabbath and 99% of them that I talk to, know this is not the true sabbath. They never tell me when it is or what they think, they just know its not Sunday, when I ask the question.
Make Money, the bible never said that Sunday is the sabbath day. You need to learn a little more about your faith/religion. Sunday - worship of the sun? The Catholics have changed the sabbath day and the calendar to fit in their worship time and days. All religions fall under Catholicism if you believe in Christ and most follow the Catholic ways. Christmas - Easter, if you celebrate these days you are Catholic.
The next question is who changed the calendar? Why do our months not line up with the new moon? Why does the Jewish calendar work according to the bible and always has.
The Catholics knew that the biggest market days were Friday after sundown and Saturday during the day - it only fits in with breaking Gods request to obey the sabbath and to keep it holy. They could only find Sunday to make it all work out.
Hope this helps with your question about Who Authorized the Change of the Sabbath.
agreed sprinkler man,
There is more to it than many know. I am a sabbath keeper and have learned that there is great joy in "keeping the sabbath". It is interesting that the word "keep" was used to describe the sabbath prior to 321AD. Another prophecy fulfilled.
Arians actualy believe that God the Father created Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Arians would be considered Unitarians today. They believe in One God.
The Semi-Arians or Binitarians who were some of Dr Arius' disciples accepted Jesus Christ as God but do not see the Holy Spirit as a person. Only two Gods the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is believed to be the Father's nature and power. This idea really came down from Simon Magus the Gnostic dualist, who though he could buy the power of the Holy Spirit, Acts 8:13-19.
JV's and Mormons are more like Arians and dualist or Semi Arians and so are many 7th Day Churches.
The Seventh Day Adventist were once dualistic, Semi- Arians. However, Ellen White read the Scripture given by Jesus Christ and counted Three Gods. She changed to the Trinity but some seperated and became the Church of God 7th Day. These people are dualistic Semi-Arians.
The nature of Christ, itself an holy and substantive topic, is not theme of this thread. For the most part we all on this thread believe that Christ is one with Father and Holy Spirit.
Seventh-day Adventist Church is not topic of this thread.
The true history of who changed the Sabbath day is what we are after.
And to be kind to the Roman Catholics, they did not originally change the day, they simply used their power to enforce the change. So Make Money you could honestly concede that Roman Catholics did not change the day, they simply bowed to historical convenience by legitimising and popularising the change within the Christian religion, and as such are responsible for the wide adoption in Christendom. Then we could have a real discussion. In fact I can adduce evidence to show that the Roman Catholic church does not deny the responsibility but sees it as a mark of her authority.
I know that I am sounding like a forum police but if I begin a thread i believe that i have the right to suggest that we stay on topic.
We want to successfully trace the political and ecclesiastical changes to the Sabbath which were later attributed to the Bible.
It really does not matter much who changed the day. Satan is the author of lies, and if we imitate him and tell lies, we are guilty. Following after error, even if we did not do it, makes us equally guilty.
Where did the notion that some people hate Catholics come from? Some of my family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers are Catholic. I love these people.
Yes, you have the right to guide your topic, but you opened a big can of worms, and they are crawling everywhere!!
EG White as the prophetess to church gave blessing to Trinitarian viewpoint, but the credit should be given to E.J. Waggoner (1855-1916) who after landmark 1888 righteousness by faith emphasis started to stress the Incarnation as dwelling of divine Word in sinful flesh, to live as divine Word a perfect human life.
Since 1931 Trinitarian understanding a part of SDA fundamentals.
But again I say let's get back on topic.
As several of us have noticed from time to time, whenever a discussion becomes civil and fact-based there is less interest. For example this thread may deteriorate into an attack on my church and divert attention away from the topic of the thread.
Again, we are not discussing Arianism, Semi-Arianism, the Chalcedonian definition. Arius is important only because he was condemned at the first council of Nicaea in 325.
The way in which I am proceeding is not an attack on Catholic. Just the historical truth. Which Catholic leaders do not deny.
Many Protestants are following Catholics without knowledge of real origin of change of Sabbath, so with poor exegesis they fish around for NT texts.
Once we can agree on real reasons for change then we can stop using those weak proof texts that any first year Greek student can tell you are inadmissible.
You mess up your own hub by insulting people and being judgmental. You also knew that this topic would get out of hand. You ae reaching a variety of characters from one end of existence to another. You should have expected a varety of comments, even off topic.
This is a great topic, and I admire your courage to tackle it.
Mike do you have a response for Dies Domini? You can access it on any good Catholic site. The pope was serious about Sabbath. Just day was different.
Glendon don't puff yourself up to think that I would consider you as my teacher. I really don't get what you are doing now cause Dies Domini proves exactly what I have been trying to tell you. Have you read it yourself?
First of all Dies Domini is an Apostolic Letter. That should tell you something in itself, you know, apostolic succession and all. Dies Domini is broken down in numbered parts from 1 to 87. I will just highlight some quotes from Dies Domini by placing the number before each quote so you can verify it yourself. I won't have to quote many to show that it proves what I have been saying.
1. "The Lord's Day — as Sunday was called from Apostolic times"
8. Second paragraph. This one is so important you would think JPII was speaking directly to you Glendon, so I'll bold it.
"Already at the dawn of creation, therefore, the plan of God implied Christ's "cosmic mission". This Christocentric perspective, embracing the whole arc of time, filled God's well-pleased gaze when, ceasing from all his work, he "blessed the seventh day and made it holy" (Gn 2:3). According to the Priestly writer of the first biblical creation story, then was born the "Sabbath", so characteristic of the first Covenant, and which in some ways foretells the sacred day of the new and final Covenant. The theme of "God's rest" (cf. Gn 2:2) and the rest which he offered to the people of the Exodus when they entered the Promised Land (cf. Ex 33:14; Dt 3:20; 12:9; Jos 21:44; Ps 95:11) is re-read in the New Testament in the light of the definitive "Sabbath rest" (Heb 4:9) into which Christ himself has entered by his Resurrection. The People of God are called to enter into this same rest by persevering in Christ's example of filial obedience (cf. Heb 4:3-16). In order to grasp fully the meaning of Sunday, therefore, we must re-read the great story of creation and deepen our understanding of the theology of the "Sabbath".
13. "The Sabbath precept, which in the first Covenant prepares for the Sunday of the new and eternal Covenant, is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan."
14. "In the first place, therefore, Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day "blessed" by God and "made holy" by him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, "the Lord's Day".
18. "This is why the joy with which God, on humanity's first Sabbath, contemplates all that was created from nothing, is now expressed in the joy with which Christ, on Easter Sunday, appeared to his disciples, bringing the gift of peace and the gift of the Spirit (cf. Jn 20:19-23). It was in the Paschal Mystery that humanity, and with it the whole creation, "groaning in birth-pangs until now" (Rom 8:22), came to know its new "exodus" into the freedom of God's children who can cry out with Christ, "Abba, Father!" (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi!"
19. "We celebrate Sunday because of the venerable Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and we do so not only at Easter but also at each turning of the week": so wrote Pope Innocent I at the beginning of the fifth century,(15) testifying to an already well established practice which had evolved from the early years after the Lord's Resurrection. Saint Basil speaks of "holy Sunday, honoured by the Lord's Resurrection, the first fruits of all the other days";(16) and Saint Augustine calls Sunday "a sacrament of Easter".
22. "In those early Christian times, the weekly rhythm of days was generally not part of life in the regions where the Gospel spread, and the festive days of the Greek and Roman calendars did not coincide with the Christian Sunday. For Christians, therefore, it was very difficult to observe the Lord's Day on a set day each week. This explains why the faithful had to gather before sunrise.(20) Yet fidelity to the weekly rhythm became the norm, since it was based upon the New Testament and was tied to Old Testament revelation."
25. "In effect, Sunday is the day above all other days which summons Christians to remember the salvation which was given to them in baptism and which has made them new in Christ. "You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col 2:12; cf. Rom 6:4-6). The liturgy underscores this baptismal dimension of Sunday, both in calling for the celebration of baptisms — as well as at the Easter Vigil — on the day of the week "when the Church commemorates the Lord's Resurrection",(24) and in suggesting as an appropriate penitential rite at the start of Mass the sprinkling of holy water, which recalls the moment of Baptism in which all Christian life is born.(25)"
26. "Sunday symbolizes that truly singular day which will follow the present time, the day without end which will know neither evening nor morning, the imperishable age which will never grow old; Sunday is the ceaseless foretelling of life without end which renews the hope of Christians and encourages them on their way.(26) Looking towards the last day, which fulfils completely the eschatological symbolism of the Sabbath, Saint Augustine concludes the Confessions describing the Eschaton as "the peace of quietness, the peace of the Sabbath, a peace with no evening".(27) In celebrating Sunday, both the "first" and the "eighth" day, the Christian is led towards the goal of eternal life.(28)"
29. "Given these different dimensions which set it apart, Sunday appears as the supreme day of faith. It is the day when, by the power of the Holy Spirit, who is the Church's living "memory" (cf. Jn 14:26), the first appearance of the Risen Lord becomes an event renewed in the "today" of each of Christ's disciples. Gathered in his presence in the Sunday assembly, believers sense themselves called like the Apostle Thomas: "Put your finger here, and see my hands. Put out your hand, and place it in my side. Doubt no longer, but believe" (Jn 20:27). Yes, Sunday is the day of faith. This is stressed by the fact that the Sunday Eucharistic liturgy, like the liturgy of other solemnities, includes the Profession of Faith. Recited or sung, the Creed declares the baptismal and Paschal character of Sunday, making it the day on which in a special way the baptized renew their adherence to Christ and his Gospel in a rekindled awareness of their baptismal promises. Listening to the word and receiving the Body of the Lord, the baptized contemplate the Risen Jesus present in the "holy signs" and confess with the Apostle Thomas: "My Lord and my God!" (Jn 20:28)."
I don't need to go any further. Glendon this case is closed. In fact it has been closed for 2,000 years.
Following on Lionwswhelp's last post, another 7th Day Adventist, you guys are following the historical Germanic barbarians which were political rather than doctrinal. "The Gepidae, Heruli, Vandals, Alans, and Lombards received a system which they were as little capable of understanding as they were of defending, and the Catholic bishops, the monks, the sword of Clovis, the action of the Papacy, made an end of it before the eighth century."
The teacher statement was because of my frustration with keeping you guys on topic. Dont be so quick to attack what i am not saying. Tut. Tut.
The entire paragraph was about me getting annoyed with begging you guys to stay on topic.
The teacher statement was because of my frustration with keeping you guys on topic. Dont be so quick to attack what i am not saying. Tut. Tut.
The entire paragraph was about me getting annoyed with begging you guys to stay on topic.
Re Dies Domini
Do you see the use of strong texts to show that prophets, or Christ, or apostles changed the day?
The church has changed the day. Full stop!
Now you say that the church has the power to do it. And the case is closed. In fact from the point of view of answer to question of thread we both share same answer. The roman empire made the political decree and the Roman Catholic Church made the ecclesiastical ordinance beginning with Nicene council, then at Laodicea.
Mike, what I dont understand is why in this enlightened age we cant disagree politely without you associating me with zeitgeist movie or other forum members in an effort to disqualify my views.
Pretend that I am an atheist and just doing an investigation. (Becoming an atheist or agnostic is not too far-fetched because of the hypocrisy of Christians. Not directed at you just my general observation). Pretend that you must not attack me, my race, my creed, my person. Just stick to facts.
Jesus expects His remnant church at end time to keep faith of Jesus and commandments (Revelation 14:12).
So without getting into personal attacks. Where we part is on the authority of church to assume power to change what Scripture plainly expects followers of Christ to obey.
Dies Domini is a strong case for Sabbath observance, with a theology of change of day interposed. Nowhere in Dies Domini does pope claim Christ or apostles changed day.
I believe that what we have is a communication or perception problem. It is very difficult for you to perceive my angle which does not admit authority of tradition over Scripture. It's like using word 'God' to militant atheists on this forum.
I am sorry if I offend your personal beliefs by not accepting traditions like you do, but that was what the Protestant Reformation was all about. And it is neither safe nor right for a Christian to go against his conscience.
As far as you and I are concerned this issue ends here, and believe me I have profound respect for your piety and Christian loyalty to your beliefs; but for the purpose of clarity I will now revisit the texts you had posted and explain each one.
And I do love you and wish the best for your spiritual journey in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Under Emperor Constantine's reformed Christianity religion, the Lord Jesus Christ was an adaptation of the Egyptian Pagan GOD Horus, son of Osiris, god of the sun. For this reason The reformed Catholic Church made SUN - day the day of worship for Jesus Christ.
The change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday had nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus. That said occurrence happened to fall on that day is a coincidence. The early Christians continued observing the Sabbath on Saturday until well into the 4th Century when Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to that switch, the primary religion of Rome was Sol Invictus, worship of the "Undying, or Everlasting Sun." Their high holy day was SUNday, the "day of the Sun." They celebrated the birth of their Sun God on December 25th, exactly 3 days after it passed the Winter Solstice. In his best effort to assimilate the 2 competing religions peacefully, Constantine merged the days and dates of Sol Invictus with the doctrines of Christianity. The Christian Sabbath was moved to the already-established Roman holy day of the week, and December 25th was adopted to celebrate the birth of their own God. Prior to this merger, there was no annual observation at all of Jesus' birthday, and early Church fathers even freely admitted that nobody had any idea when he was actually born.
My understanding has always been that the Sabbath is changed to Sunday mostly for symbolic reasons. The Jewish "Sabbat" was originally practiced to celebrate Creation. The fact that the sabbath was moved to Sunday has everything to do with the resurrection of Jesus, especially if we're talking in Roman Catholicism (which was the denomination of the original author to write the hub). In Roman Catholicism Mass is celebrated on Sunday because it was traditionally the day of Jesus' resurrection. This, coupled with the Eucharist as a celebration of Jesus' Crucifixion, and the proclamation of the Gospel (Jesus' life) makes the Sunday mass especially a celebration of Jesus' "Paschal Mystery". Back to the point... Creation. When Christ rose he rose on the "8th day" and through his resurrection (which prefigures ours) we celebrate "new creation". (This is why many Catholic Baptismal fonts are 8 sided). Therefore, in honor of Jesus' resurrection, and resting in honor of new creation, we celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. Incidentally... I don't think it should be a matter of division when its celebrated, just as long as it is. To let such debates fill our hearts with disunity is petty.
Thanks for allowing me to have my 2 cents!
The point is that God/Jesus did not authorize this change. Man did it. Man thought that it would be nice to change Sabbath to Sunday to honor Jesus' resurection. The Word says that if we "break the least of these commandments (10), we are guilty of all." I believe the least of these commandments is the fourth commandment regarding the Sabbath. Most of the world ignore it. The Word warns us about following the traditions of man, and Sunday for Sabbath is a tradition. "We ought to obey God rather than man."
The Sabbath was so important to Jesus, His friends, and family that they rushed from the tomb, leaving the body, to prepare for the Sabbath and did not return on the Sabbath to finish dressing his body. They observed the Sabbath and returned early Sunday morning before day.
The Sabbath is mentioned many, many times in the Bible, but Sunday only about 8 times. Jesus always stressed and reinforced the important things.
No one has the power to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, they may think they have but their are still very many people who honor the real Sabbath on Saturday.
Now, before I go on I must state that I have nothing against Catholic people but I do heavily disagree with their religion. They have openly stated that they were the ones who changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Jesus said he did not come to break the law but to fulfill the law. The fourth Commandment says to "Remember the Sabbath" God new that people would forget his Sabbath and therefore instructed to "Remember" the Sabbath. Another thing, out of all 8 scripture versus in the NT regarding Sunday, not one of them says that this is the day to keep holy. Remember the Sabbath is very important because that is the day to recognize God as our loving creator.
Jesus said that he is the Lord of Sabbath.
Man is not made for Sabbath. Sabbath is made for man. Basically the aim is to have a day separated for the Lord. So as per the situation the Sabbath day can be changed. In Muslim countries where weekly holy day is given on Friday. The Christians live there observe Sabbath on Friday.
You need to separate one day of the week for rest and worshiping God.
by Disappearinghead2 years ago
If a doctrine or belief that is taught by the Church today was unknown to the 1st century Apostolic Church, is it a valid doctrine? Is it inspired by God, or is it a false manmade doctrine?
by haj33967 years ago
The Catholic church admit that it brought about sunday worship not God, therefore you are worshipping this church when you worship on sunday, not God.Pope Gregory I "It has come to my ears that certain men of...
by Gous Ahmed7 years ago
What is the role of the pope and how is he seen in terms of holiness and closeness to Jesus or God?
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
Beautiful warm day here in Ireland, just wondering if it would be ok to have a little love in the garden?
by Adrian McDonald4 years ago
This is not a discussion about discrediting the existence of God or discrediting the church as an institution of God. This serves to provide clarity on the issue of Sunday worship and it's legitimacy.
by haj33966 years ago
Yes!!!!!!!!!! Hebrew 4-1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.