Commandments

[adrift]

The remnant church ( true people of God) will be those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. Must have both!!

Brian, what verse are you referring to of “visible” church?

(Mat 18:18) Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Above verse - It is not only the apostles that this was spoken to , but the members of the church ( a body of believers - assembly of civic matters in this case , for Jesus goes on to state that where 2 or more are gathered. Therefore, the church here is not referring to a “universal” church. Mat 16:18 is talking about God’s “universal” church) . Heaven’s ratification of the decision on earth will take place only if the decision is made in harmony with the principles in heaven. Those brethren of the church should remember that they are dealing with eternal souls.

written with love

It wasn.t spoken to all the Apostles even but to Peter alone

17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
**I will give you **the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 **Whatever you **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I beleive these versus are one of the most misused ones in Scripture because the authority of the Church must be denied in order to justify not acknowleding that Jesus established a Chruch not many and that Church is the Catholic Chruch who has authority given to her by Jesus.

 

[BTTG]

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. " Mt 18:17-18)

Craig - Here Jesus is talking about a literal and visible Church where one can take a dispute (not a spiritual Church) - where is that visible Church of authority to you? There is only one Church which is apostolic and traces its authority back to the apostles - that is the Catholic Church. The idea of a hidden underground remnant church doesn’t work with thise verse. Also, we are supposed to be a “light on the hill” not a lamp under a table - if there was a “remnant church” since the time of the apostles where has it been in history? Why did your “church” not begin until the 19th century?

My reply - - there always has been a remnant of true believers ( church- after Jesus’ resurrection) - of God’s word. Will respond in private about start date of church.

The authority to bind and lose was not given to all believers - it was given to peter and the apostles - I havent seen much (any ) serious biblical scholar propose and support the contrary view. Again - I know you seem to avoid history (perhaps a convenient viewpoint because history does not support your perspective on much of what you are suggesting in this thread), but once again, “history” shows us that the earliest Christians understood this - that is relevant because they were closest to the apostles themselves. Its logical that someone who learned directly from the apostles might have a better understanding of what the apostles meant and understood about doctrine than someone reading these words nakedly (ignoring history and historical understand) 2 000 plus years later.

Regarding the use of the word Torah (in Greek) which and the fact that this word is used at times to refer to the Decalogue and and others clearly to refer to mosaic law other than the decalogue - its a little unfair (or ironic) that you teach a “plain meaning of scripture” approach - until it doesn’t fit your doctrine and then suggest this “word” Torah (translated “law”) which clearly refers to the entire mosaic law, means only the aspects of the law other thant he Decalogue when we “died to it”, and it was “nailed to the cross”.

All of this being said – you and I agree on quite a bit - we can celebrate that. I agree that we died to the mosaic law (you agree, except for the 10 commandments). I agree that the 10 commandments is the law of Christ now written in our hearts (even if I get there differently than you), and you appear to agree. I agree that the Sabbath commandment continues - you agree. I believe that commandment is fulfilled in our rest in Christ - you beileve it is only partially fulfilled in our rest in Christ but continues as an affirmative commandment for the 7th day (saturday sabbath). I’m part of a Church that continues to honor the Sabbath not only in perpetual rest in Christ, but the solemnity of that day and pattern of resting every 7th day is repreated in the celebration of the Lord’s Day as a type of “sabbath”.

So - we agree to disagree – but in love.

Blessings,

Brian

Hi Brian

The main question in verse that the Catholic Church is God’s church is in Matt., in who the “Rock” is. Is the “Rock” the Catholic church, or is it Jesus Christ. You believe the rock is the Catholic church, I believe it is Jesus Christ. We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[adrift]

Hi Brian

The main question in verse that the Catholic Church is God’s church is in Matt., in who the “Rock” is. Is the “Rock” the Catholic church, or is it Jesus Christ. You believe the rock is the Catholic church, I believe it is Jesus Christ. We will just have to agree to disagree.

The Rock is Peter upon which Jesus built His Church. Peter means rock. In other words Jesus said your name is Rock and upon this rock I will build my Clhurch.

I beleive these versus are one of the most misused ones in Scripture because the authority of the Church must be denied in order to justify not acknowleding that Jesus established a Chruch not many and that Church is the Catholic Chruch who has authority given to her by Jesus.

 

[Robbinson]

Hi Brian

The main question in verse that the Catholic Church is God’s church is in Matt., in who the “Rock” is. Is the “Rock” the Catholic church, or is it Jesus Christ. You believe the rock is the Catholic church, I believe it is Jesus Christ. We will just have to agree to disagree.

But Craig - that is not the "only’ verse. Yes, I believe the natural reading, gramatically and in context in that verse is that Peter is the rock. But Peter was also (separate from being called the Rock - so we can put that to the side) given the “keys to the kingdom”. The only other place “keys” is mentioned is in Isaiah 22 - it represented the Keys given to the prime minister - keys of authority second only to the King and it was an “office” which passed on to the next prime minister.

In addition, Peter was given expressly the authority to bind and lose in heave and on earth.

Also, in every single instance in scripture where the apostles are listed, Peter is listed first.

Also - it was Peter whom Jesus commanded to “feed my sheep”.

It is clear from scripture that the apostes, led by Peter, were given special authoirty by Jesus - the sins they forgave would be forgiven, those they did not forgive would not be forgiven, etc.

Would you think about all of those relevant verses before “moving on” based solely on your “disagreement” with whether Peter was the rock?

Also - where is that visible Church in your understanding?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[BTTG]

It wasn.t spoken to all the Apostles even but to Peter alone

I beleive these versus are one of the most misused ones in Scripture because the authority of the Church must be denied in order to justify not acknowleding that Jesus established a Chruch not many and that Church is the Catholic Chruch who has authority given to her by Jesus.

Stated in previous posts:

Had Christ made Peter chief among the disciples, then they would not thereafter been involved in repeated arguments about which of them “should be accounted the greatest”… Luke 22:24; Matt. 18:1; Mark 9:33-35.

As I researched, Leo I was the first Roman pontiff to claim that his authority came from Christ through Peter. There is no historic facts in which prior to Leo I ( in about AD445) , that Peter was referred to as the “rock”.

Paul affirms that Jesus was the “rock” in ancient times …. (1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

your thoughts?

I really don’t know… why is the Catholic Church in the context of a female connotation?

written with love

 

[Robbinson]

Stated in previous posts:

Had Christ made Peter chief among the disciples, then they would not thereafter been involved in repeated arguments about which of them “should be accounted the greatest”… Luke 22:24; Matt. 18:1; Mark 9:33-35.

As Matt 18:1 frames more precisely, I believe this was a debate about who would be the greatest in heaven - that has nothing to do with what role the apostles played respectively on earth. A secondary purpose of these verses was to establish the principle that we are to “serve” one another as Christ served. In any event, the fact that Peter alone was given the keys to the kingdom, alone was instructed to feed Jesus sheep and alone is cited first among all the apostles in every instance is indisputable.

As I researched, Leo I was the first Roman pontiff to claim that his authority came from Christ through Peter. There is no historic facts in which prior to Leo I ( in about AD445) , that Peter was referred to as the “rock”.

This is inaccurate - I’m certain that Teruullian (AD 200) made reference to apostolic authority and specifically to Peter well before (200 years before) Leo I. In addition, many other early church fathers from before 200AD expressed their “authority” more generally by reference to their having been appointed by the apostles or their successors (including Pope Clement of Rome (80AD), Hegesipuss (180AD), and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 189 - to name but a few.

Paul affirms that Jesus was the “rock” in ancient times …. (1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Of course - Jesus is the Rock and the cornerstone, but the Church is also described as being built on the foundation stones of the apostles.

**“built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” (Eph 2:20–21). **

**And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Re 21:14). **
your thoughts?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[adrift]

€

Stated in previous posts:

Had Christ made Peter chief among the disciples, then they would not thereafter been involved in repeated arguments about which of them “should be accounted the greatest”… Luke 22:24; Matt. 18:1; Mark 9:33-35.

I don’t see your reasoning. I might say I am greater than President Obama but that does not mean that I am a leader. It doesn’t follow that because they argue among themselves which is greater that they dispute who leads. They were doing this with Jesus. Do you believe they didn’t know Jesus was greater? This was a very human dispute one that as not of the Holy Spirit. Their arguments have no bearing on what Jesus intended. Remember that Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep.

As I researched, Leo I was the first Roman pontiff to claim that his authority came from Christ through Peter. There is no historic facts in which prior to Leo I ( in about AD445) , that Peter was referred to as the “rock”.

I am not in a place where I have my research so I cannot address this. What I do have is the Scripture that disputes you. It is Scripture that calls Simon Peter. It is Jesus who names him Peter. Address the change of name. I have never seen the name change explained. A name change was always important and yet it is glossed over as if it didn’t exist.

Paul affirms that Jesus was the “rock” in ancient times …. (1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

There are layers in Scripture. It applies to multiple things. I do not dispute that the rock refers to Jesus at times. NOT in the context that obviously refers to Peter. Your name is Peter and upon this peter I willl build my Church.

 

[adrift]

Of course - Jesus is the Rock and the cornerstone, but the Church is also described as being built on the foundation stones of the apostles.

**“built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” (Eph 2:20–21). **

**And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Re 21:14). **
your thoughts?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[BTTG]

**You stated **

But Craig - that is not the "only’ verse. Yes, I believe the natural reading, gramatically and in context in that verse is that Peter is the rock. But Peter was also (separate from being called the Rock - so we can put that to the side) given the “keys to the kingdom”. The only other place “keys” is mentioned is in Isaiah 22 - it represented the Keys given to the prime minister - keys of authority second only to the King and it was an “office” which passed on to the next prime minister.

**My reply ** The “keys” to the kingdom of heaven are the “words of Jesus Christ”, the knowledge of His word. When we have the knowledge of Christ we will know how to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Luk 11:52) Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
By the word of God and the knowledge of His word…(1Pe 1:23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

The kingdom of heaven is referring to the divine grace in the hearts of those that become its citizens. (Mat 4:17) From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Mat 5:3) Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

**You stated ** In addition, Peter was given expressly the authority to bind and lose in heave and on earth.

My reply Yes, but whatever, the church on earth is to only permit what heaven will permit and the church will prohibit whatever heaven prohibits. Matt. 7:21-27

Christ’s representatives on earth do not have the right to bind or loose whatever they so desire. There is no human authority over God’s authority…(Mar 7:7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mar 7:8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. (Mar 7:9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

**You stated ** Also, in every single instance in scripture where the apostles are listed, Peter is listed first.

My reply Peter was the spokesperson.

**You stated ** Also - it was Peter whom Jesus commanded to “feed my sheep”.

**My reply ** We read in John 21: 12-20 , I believe that Jesus is not talking about giving Peter authority, but rather asking Peter if he does really love Him. He had already denied Jesus three times at this point. Now three times Jesus’ asks Peter if he loved Him. Jesus asked not only Peter to feed His lambs, but all His disciples.
If Peter was already the “rock”, why would Jesus now be asking Peter if he loves Him?

You stated - It is clear from scripture that the apostes, led by Peter, were given special authoirty by Jesus - the sins they forgave would be forgiven, those they did not forgive would not be forgiven, etc.

My reply - will leave this one for now

Peter denies he is the" rock"…(Act 4:8) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (Act 4:9) If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; (Act 4:10) Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. (Act 4:11) This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (Act 4:12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

If Peter was now represents the Catholic Church and "the gates of hell are not to prevail against Peter, why did Peter, after this meeting with Jesus, deny the Lord three times and literally at his death?

written with love

 

[BTTG]

Of course - Jesus is the Rock and the cornerstone, but the Church is also described as being built on the foundation stones of the apostles.

**“built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” (Eph 2:20–21). **

**And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Re 21:14). **
your thoughts?

Blessings,

Brian

Yes Brian, that is what I am saying . The rock is Christ, head of the church and the foundation of the church are the apostles, all of them. All the apostles are all stones, including Peter. Peter is not the Rock and the stone. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
The Rock/Jesus will come down and destroy the wicked at the end of the age.

Is there any other verse in which Peter is called the “rock”?

written with love

 

[adrift]

Is there any other verse in which Peter is called the “rock”?

written with love

Everytime Simon is referred to as Peter, he is being called the Rock.

It is Scripture that calls Simon Peter. It is Jesus who names him Peter. Address the change of name. I have never seen the name change explained. A name change was always important and yet it is glossed over as if it didn’t exist.

 

[adrift]

Peter denies he is the" rock"…(Act 4:8)

Of course - Jesus is the Rock and the cornerstone, but the Church is also described as being built on the foundation stones of the apostles.

“built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” (Eph 2:20–21).

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Re 21:14).
your thoughts?

Blessings,

Brian

There are layers in Scripture. It applies to multiple things. I do not dispute that the rock refers to Jesus at times. NOT in the context that obviously refers to Peter. Your name is Peter and upon this peter I willl build my Church

.
.

If Peter was now represents the Catholic Church and "the gates of hell are not to prevail against Peter, why did Peter, after this meeting with Jesus, deny the Lord three times and literally at his death?

Because he was human and afraid. Peter had not yet recieved the Holy Spirit. Note that he and the other apostles were hidding in the upper room unit the Holy Spirit came. They then were able to go and preach the gospel even to death.

 

[diggerdomer]

Strong’s concordance for the word “reasoned” is " to say thoroughly", “to reason”, “to preach unto”. I am sure Paul was preaching the word of God. The other verses I provided assure us that Paul worshiped on the Sabbath.

Notice it said that Paul “reasoned” to the Greeks “every Sabbath”. Paul was in Corinth. for a year and six months. No where does it say that Paul preached, taught the Jews , or Greeks for three Sundays, every Sunday. I believe that the indication of “every Sabbath” was stated for a reason.

So…your opinion is that Paul worshiped on the Sabbath? Do I understand you correctly?

If so, is this supported by any Catholic Church teaching?

 

[wangboot]

coachsale.us/
New Coach Handbags, Coach Handbags, Coach sunglasses, coach wallets, Coach Purses, Coach Sneakers, Coach Boots, Coach jewelry, Save 80% off, Free shipping & No Tax!

columbia-sportswear.us/
columbia sportswear, columbia jackets,columbia sportswear jackets,Ccolumbia jackets women,columbia jackets men,columbia clothing

 

[Robbinson]

**My reply ** The “keys” to the kingdom of heaven are the “words of Jesus Christ”, the knowledge of His word. When we have the knowledge of Christ we will know how to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Luk 11:52) Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
By the word of God and the knowledge of His word…(1Pe 1:23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

The kingdom of heaven is referring to the divine grace in the hearts of those that become its citizens. (Mat 4:17) From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Mat 5:3) Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

but that reference to “keys” in context has nothing to do with the “keys to the kingdom” given to Peter which is coupled with the authority to “bind and lose” in heaven and in earth. Compare, by contrast, Isaiah 22 where the prime minsiter, like Peter, was given the “keys” with “authority” to open and shut (ala, bind and lose):

" In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open" (Isaiah 22)

**You stated ** In addition, Peter was given expressly the authority to bind and lose in heave and on earth.

My reply Yes, but whatever, the church on earth is to only permit what heaven will permit and the church will prohibit whatever heaven prohibits. Matt. 7:21-27

Christ’s representatives on earth do not have the right to bind or loose whatever they so desire. There is no human authority over God’s authority…(Mar 7:7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mar 7:8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. (Mar 7:9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Of course - the authority of the Peter and the apostles and their successors is subject to the King - the binding and loosing will always accord with the gospel - but the “authority” of the apostles is clear.

**You stated ** Also, in every single instance in scripture where the apostles are listed, Peter is listed first.

**My reply ** We read in John 21: 12-20 , I believe that Jesus is not talking about giving Peter authority, but rather asking Peter if he does really love Him. He had already denied Jesus three times at this point. Now three times Jesus’ asks Peter if he loved Him. Jesus asked not only Peter to feed His lambs, but all His disciples.
If Peter was already the “rock”, why would Jesus now be asking Peter if he loves Him?

Because Peter, liket he popes today, are human and capable of sin - as Peter did in denying Christ. What Jesus promised is that even as a sinful imperfect man, Peter was given authority to feed his sheep (authority to teach and lead). Just as Peter was errant and fallible in his every day life, but made “infallible/inerrant” in writing his epistle, so Jesus by promising his Church would withstand until the end of time, has preserved the truth by ensuring infallible teaching when limited to official proclamations of faith and morals by the Pope (peter’s successor) . That doesn’t make Peter or the Popes inerrant in their lives, only in the limited role of formal teaching.

Peter denies he is the" rock"…(Act 4:8) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (Act 4:9) If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; (Act 4:10) Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. (Act 4:11) This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (Act 4:12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

If Peter was now represents the Catholic Church and "the gates of hell are not to prevail against Peter, why did Peter, after this meeting with Jesus, deny the Lord three times and literally at his death?

Answered immediately above. There is a distinction between Peter or today’s Pope’s everyday behavior which can be errant and sinful, and their formal proclamations and teaching with authority on faith and morals - in that limited context they are infallible as God’s way of preserving the “truth”.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Matthew_24]

We also accept the Ten Commandments from Exodus chapter 20, but Catholics and Lutherans usually divide the verses one way, Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants a second way, and Jews a third way.

pantheon.org/articles/t/ten_commandments.html

Mike,

Thanks for the link. After reading it, I’m quite disturbed why other people changed, divided and combined some of these commandments. I didn’t find any verse in the bible that God instructed them to do so. Instead I found these verses:

Deuteronomy 4:2 - “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you”.

Luke 16:17 - “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail”

Here is the link I found where the commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 differ with those in the Catholic Cathecism:
scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm

I will keep on searching for some answers,
Matthew

 

[Matthew_24]

I don’t know what literature you are reading but try the Catechism

Brother,

This is the link that I was referring to scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm

But this link that you gave me, usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1ind.shtml, which does not reflect the commandments written in the bible. What it does however is, the author elaborated how, from his opinion Jesus can be loved. I have noticed that he mentioned the Sabbath Day and “Lord’s” Day in Article 3 as if he wanted to make two entities. It is very clear to me that only the “Sabbath Day” was mentioned in Exodus and Deuteronomy passages about the 10 commandments.

I’m not saying though that Sabbath Day is not the Lord’s Day. Because when God said in Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy”, only the 7th-day was made holy. Holy because God’s presence is in it. Just like “Holy Bible”, holy because God’s presence is there. I haven’t encountered though any verse in the bible in the course of my search for truth that Sunday or the 1st day of the week was referred to the “Lord’s Day”. Only some men said it but the bible speaks otherwise.

still searching for the truth,
Matthew

“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” - 1 John 2:4

 

[Matthew_24]

The 10 commandments are also given in Deuteronomy 5. Compare the two versions.

Here is a good comparison of the ten commandments written in Exodus, Deuteronomy and by Catholic Church: scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm

in Christ,
Matthew

 

[adrift]

Here is a good comparison of the ten commandments written in Exodus, Deuteronomy and by Catholic Church: scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm

in Christ,
Matthew

You have no idea of what you are reading. The first Exodus is what is in the Catechism. That is why it says PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
it then shows the commandment is Deuteronomy. It than shows a traditional rendering. Which is a shorten way of saying a very long passage.

But this link that you gave me, usccb.org/catechism/text/…chpt1ind.shtml, which does not reflect the commandments written in the bible.

If you read the link, I beleive you failed to understand what you read. Your understanding is so faulty and you are so unwilling to learn that I doubt if you could ever find truth.

 

[Matthew_24]

it then shows the commandment is Deuteronomy. It than shows a traditional rendering. Which is a shorten way of saying a very long passage.

Brother Adrift,

Praise the Lord for your eagerness in looking at the differences of the RC commandments from the law of God. Your observation is correct that this change, the RC version of Ten Commandments, is based on TRADITIONS of men. That is why it is stated as “A Traditional Catechetical Formula”

But here’s what I find from the Bible…
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” - Matt 15:9

Brother, the difference is very obvious. Even an elementary student can notice it.

While I was searching for the truth on this matter, I found this …
"We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” — Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.

I was shocked to know that the Catholic Church really admits it that they really made this change. But I didn’t see from the bible giving them authority of this change. It is again because of the doctrines and traditions of men.

I am curious now if this act by the Roman Catholic Church was predicted by the apostles or Jesus Christ… When and How did it start… Maybe the bible already told us something about this. Or the history of the early church? How about the early persecution of Christians under Nero until Constantine became Christian? How did this change of worship happen? We all know that those emperors were really pagans… I smell something fishy here… A conspiracy? I have heard this before but I haven’t totally look at this… Very interesting revelations!

The question then is, would we rely our salvation on these doctrines and traditions of men? Or would we surrender ourselves to the truth the is plainly being shown to us by His word? The Holy Spirit won’t live in our hearts and minds if we won’t let Him come in. Hear Him now.

In the end it is not the men who will judge us, but it is God.
For He says… “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man” - Psalms 118:8

in Christ,
Matthew