Commandments

[adrift]

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

Dear Matthew,

You have such blinders on that I know it is impossible for you to see truth. The Chruch made no change in the Commandments. You have made up your mind that there was and you won’t let facts get in you way. You ignore that the Commandments are not numbered. You have failed to read this entire thread where this fact is discussed as well as the discussion on the Sabbath. You have not read the Catechism because if you had you would not have said that it was different than what is presented in Scripture you would also have discovered the basis for the worship on Sunday. I wish you well and pray that the blinders you have put on will be taken off.

 

[BTTG]

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

That is your interpretation, not biblically stated.

written with love

 

[BTTG]

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?

My support is the bible. Why does it have to be supported by the Catholic Church?

written with love

 

[BTTG]

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.

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.

Adrift, we are all Christ’s children. Are we not to love God and love our fellow man.

Your sarcasm response to Matthew 24 is unbelievable. Matthew, as he said, is trying to learn the truth.

I would be surprised if the monitor of this thread had not given you a warning.

As for myself, I will not be communicating with you any more.

written with love

As for myself , I will

 

[Robbinson]

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

Hi Matthew - welcome to the thread. As the substance of your post has been addressed earlier in the thread ( I realize its a long thread ), please take a read through and do write back with follow up questions. We’ve covered Saturday v. Sunday, Sabbath v. Lord’s Day and “actual history” with quotes from the 2nd century. We should move past the typical “straw man” objections and characterizations of history and the Church - but then always happy to engage on specific questions, comments or concerns, scriptural or otherwise.

Look forward to reading some follow up posts.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Robbinson]

That is your interpretation, not biblically stated.

written with love

HI Craig - in fairness to Adrift on this one, Peter’s name Cephas - means “rock”.

**Derived from the Greek petros, meaning “rock.” The name occurs 159 times in the NT. Simon was his personal name; Peter was given to him by Jesus (Matt. 16:18). Though Peter is dominant, there are three other names: the Hebrew Simeon (Acts 15:14), Simon, and Cephas (Aramaic for rock), used mostly by Paul (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal. 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) and one other time (John 1:42).**Brand, C., Draper, C., England, A., Bond, S., Clendenen, E. R., Butler, T. C., & Latta, B. (2003). Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1281). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

 

[adrift]

Adrift, we are all Christ’s children. Are we not to love God and love our fellow man.

Your sarcasm response to Matthew 24 is unbelievable. Matthew, as he said, is trying to learn the truth.

I would be surprised if the monitor of this thread had not given you a warning.

As for myself, I will not be communicating with you any more.

written with love

As for myself , I will

You are quite wrong. Matthew is not trying to learn the truth. That is obvious when he was directed to the Catechism and then states that it is different from the scripture in the Bible. It was obvious he hadn’t bothered to read it or he would of recognised it when he linked as a comparison. It was laughable. I understand why you don’t wish to communicate. Wlhen you cannot refute you must either concede or run away. There was nothing in what I wrote that was uncharitable but I do understand why you wish to make up a hurt where there is none. Matthew is bearing false witness. I will take it that you concede that you are wrong.

 

[adrift]

HI Craig - in fairness to Adrift on this one, Peter’s name Cephas - means “rock”.

**Derived from the Greek petros, meaning “rock.” The name occurs 159 times in the NT. Simon was his personal name; Peter was given to him by Jesus (Matt. 16:18). Though Peter is dominant, there are three other names: the Hebrew Simeon (Acts 15:14), Simon, and Cephas (Aramaic for rock), used mostly by Paul (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal. 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) and one other time (John 1:42).**Brand, C., Draper, C., England, A., Bond, S., Clendenen, E. R., Butler, T. C., & Latta, B. (2003). Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1281). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

Exactly.; Peter is rock. I also noticed that he made no attempt to explain why Jesus changed Peter’s name from Simon to Peter (rock). He will not answer me anymore I assume because he cannot.

 

[diggerdomer]

My support is the bible. Why does it have to be supported by the Catholic Church?

written with love

The Bible also indicates Paul, other Apostles, early Christians, recognizing the first day of the week (Sunday) as a day of worship. As the Christian tradition followed. So how do you choose?

No, your personal beliefs of course do not have to be supported by the Catholic Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

You are quite wrong. Matthew is not trying to learn the truth. That is obvious when he was directed to the Catechism and then states that it is different from the scripture in the Bible. It was obvious he hadn’t bothered to read it or he would of recognised it when he linked as a comparison. It was laughable. I understand why you don’t wish to communicate. Wlhen you cannot refute you must either concede or run away. There was nothing in what I wrote that was uncharitable but I do understand why you wish to make up a hurt where there is none. Matthew is bearing false witness. I will take it that you concede that you are wrong.

There was no Catechism in the 1st century.

 

[BTTG]

The Bible also indicates Paul, other Apostles, early Christians, recognizing the first day of the week (Sunday) as a day of worship. As the Christian tradition followed. So how do you choose?

No, your personal beliefs of course do not have to be supported by the Catholic Church.

Ok, lets take this one step at a time.

Show me/indicate the verses in the bible that show Paul preached/worshiped on Sunday?

thank you

written with love

 

[BTTG]

HI Craig - in fairness to Adrift on this one, Peter’s name Cephas - means “rock”.

**Derived from the Greek petros, meaning “rock.” The name occurs 159 times in the NT. Simon was his personal name; Peter was given to him by Jesus (Matt. 16:18). Though Peter is dominant, there are three other names: the Hebrew Simeon (Acts 15:14), Simon, and Cephas (Aramaic for rock), used mostly by Paul (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal. 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) and one other time (John 1:42).**Brand, C., Draper, C., England, A., Bond, S., Clendenen, E. R., Butler, T. C., & Latta, B. (2003). Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1281). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

I agree that Petra/Petros in Greek is “rock” as such in Matt.16:18.

How come in my KJV it reads … (Joh 1:42) And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

thanks

 

[BTTG]

Hi Matthew - welcome to the thread. As the substance of your post has been addressed earlier in the thread ( I realize its a long thread ), please take a read through and do write back with follow up questions. We’ve covered Saturday v. Sunday, Sabbath v. Lord’s Day and “actual history” with quotes from the 2nd century. We should move past the typical “straw man” objections and characterizations of history and the Church - but then always happy to engage on specific questions, comments or concerns, scriptural or otherwise.

Look forward to reading some follow up posts.

Blessings,

Brian

well put Brian:thumbsup:

 

[adrift]

I agree that Petra/Petros in Greek is “rock” as such in Matt.16:18.

How come in my KJV it reads … (Joh 1:42) And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

thanks

A name change which in the Greek means rock not stone.

 

[adrift]

A name change which in the Greek means rock not stone.

Why is there no explanation for the name change.

 

[Robbinson]

I agree that Petra/Petros in Greek is “rock” as such in Matt.16:18.

How come in my KJV it reads … (Joh 1:42) And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

thanks

Craig - Adrift is correct, again. Cephas (“Kepha”) is Aramaic for “rock” - not stone. elsewhere Peter’s name is translated into greek as “Petros”. Petras in ancient greek means rock, “petros” in ancient greek means “pebble or small stone” . . . . BUT, as acknowledbed by greek scholars across denomination lines, by the first century, in Greek the meanings wer synomomous - “rock”.

The likely and understandable translation of Cephas (aramaic for Rock - not pebble or stone) into Petros in the first century greek was that Petras was the feminine and Peter was a man.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[pablope]

Craig - Adrift is correct, again. Cephas (“Kepha”) is Aramaic for “rock” - not stone. elsewhere Peter’s name is translated into greek as “Petros”. Petras in ancient greek means rock, “petros” in ancient greek means “pebble or small stone” . . . . BUT, as acknowledbed by greek scholars across denomination lines, by the first century, in Greek the meanings wer synomomous - “rock”.

The likely and understandable translation of Cephas (aramaic for Rock - not pebble or stone) into Petros in the first century greek was that Petras was the feminine and Peter was a man.

Blessings,

Brian

May I interject a little bit…from what I can remember…

A name change, in Jewish practice at the times, meant one was given honor, authority or a change in status…hence, there is Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel…there are others but cannot recall them now…

So, changing Simon’s name to Cephas (Aramaic) or Petros/Petra (Greek) meant Cephas or Petros or Peter (english) is being given a new assignment or given new authority, a change in his status from ordinary to special…This is one of the implications of Matt 16: 18 that is not apparent reading the verse…but with a little knowledge of ancient practice of the times…it puts the verse in another perspective to prove that primacy or authority was conferred on Peter.

Also, the scene where this took place also plays a part. I will quote a tract from CA:
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when “Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi” (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, “You are Peter” (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

There, my two cents worth…

 

[adrift]

May I interject a little bit…from what I can remember…

Thank you for your :twocents:
I do want to clarify that I have never heard an explanation from those who claim that the Rock that the Church is built on was either Jesus or what was said. They are the ones that ignore or even deny the name change.

 

[pablope]

Thank you for your :twocents:
I do want to clarify that I have never heard an explanation from those who claim that the Rock that the Church is built on was either Jesus or what was said. They are the ones that ignore or even deny the name change.

You are welcome, glad to be of help. I just suddenly recalled the significance of the name change, after going through the circles of post and counter posts regarding Peter’s primacy.

Silence is a typical tactic I learned from those faced with something they cannot refute anymore.

Blessings…

Pablo

 

[BTTG]

Craig - Adrift is correct, again. Cephas (“Kepha”) is Aramaic for “rock” - not stone. elsewhere Peter’s name is translated into greek as “Petros”. Petras in ancient greek means rock, “petros” in ancient greek means “pebble or small stone” . . . . BUT, as acknowledbed by greek scholars across denomination lines, by the first century, in Greek the meanings wer synomomous - “rock”.

The likely and understandable translation of Cephas (aramaic for Rock - not pebble or stone) into Petros in the first century greek was that Petras was the feminine and Peter was a man.

Blessings,

Brian

Wow, way past my intellect, no comment. I just go by what the bible says in the verse that Peter called stone.