Commandments

[adrift]

adrift;7212861:

Please explain to me in detail…(Mat 16:19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

thank you

Catechism

553
Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
A foretaste of the Kingdom: the Transfiguration

 

[diggerdomer]

There are numerous verses in the NT that the day of worship was/is the Sabbath/Saturday both that of the Jews and Gentiles. Take a read in Acts 13:14-15, 44-46; 16:13;17:2; 18:4, Luke 4:16.

I can’t find in the NT about worshiping on Sunday?

Yes, the New Testament notes many time Jesus, the Apostles, and disciples went to the Temple/Synagogue. Often, this may have been for worship/prayer. We have to remember that at the time, the distinction between Christian and Jews was not clear. So of course there was an overlap, in practice, of worship.

Pope John Paul II’s Apostlic Letter “Dies Domini” (On the Day of the Lord) is an excellent resource on this topic: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html

Hope this helps!

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi everyone! Please bear with me as I am new to this forum. I found this site while I was searching for some answers about the 10 commandments.

If I may add something about the 10 commandments, I think the RC church follow these commandments but I noticed that in the catechism the Roman Catholic Church, the 10 commandments are different compared to the original 10 commandments that God gave.

The Catholic Church Ten Commandments:

1. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the LORD’S Day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
   so on and so forth…
   **
   God’s Ten Commandments:** from Exodus 20:
5. You shall have no other gods before me.
6. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
   you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,…
7. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, … for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

It seems to me that the Roman Catholic church follow a different set of 10 Commandments… Why is this so???

In Christ,
Matthew

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

 

[diggerdomer]

Paul EVERY Sabbath…(Act 18:4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Right. So, are you saying Paul was there to worship? Or to evangelize?

 

[Robbinson]

With respect, I have received scriptures about the first day of the week, but many more concrete verses about Sabbath worship, then about a verse or two that has a very weak interpretation of Sunday worship.

Was Justin Matry a prophet?

written with love

No - he was not a prophet, but a devout Chritian from the second century and this quote is evidence that (contrary to the suggestion earlier in this thread that Sabbath obervance continued until the 4th century and ended due to paganization of Christianity in the 4th century) as early as the 2nd centuray, Sabbath observance in the form of “rest” and ceasing from labors on the 7th day had already been replaced with our perptetual rest every day in Christ.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[BTTG]

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

I have visited several Catholic Churches in my area and have obtained literature regarding the 10 commandments. The literature I am reading is from the Catholic Church is in black and white. I know what it reads in the Catholic Catechism, but for the general public when they attend a Catholic church, they receive the literature that I am talking about that I have stated in the following paragraph.

I have noticed too that in Catholic literature on the 10 commandments, they do not state the first commandment as " you shall have no other gods and you shall not make for yourselves a carved image". The first commandment stated in their literature reads " you shall have no other gods" which is followed by the second commandment and continued with the rest of the commandments.

written with love

 

[BTTG]

BTTG;7215730:

Catechism

What is the “kingdom of heaven” ?

thank you

 

[BTTG]

Right. So, are you saying Paul was there to worship? Or to evangelize?

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.

 

[Robbinson]

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.

Paul said that to those under the law, he became as though under the law (although he was not under the law but under the law of Christ). So I’m confident Paul did go to the temple to evanglize, and to worship - but that has no bearing on whether the Sabbath continued as a command for observance by ceasing labors on the 7th day from and after Christ’s death and resurrection (and/or from and after the destruction of the Temple). History shows us clearly that, in fact, early Christians (starting in the late 1st century and early 2nd century) had already ceased doing this. Scripture shows us that Christians begain meeting every Sunday and supplemental writings from the late 1st century corrolate to this and show us this was for “worship” and not merely fellowship.

If you are serious about history, your perspective on the Sabbath in the ‘early church’ will not hold water.

If you want to ignore history and look only at scripture (divorsed from historical understanding or teachings of the earliest disciples of the apostles) you can find different understanding the Sabbath and just about every other doctrine of our faith — and, alas, this is the sad current state of affaris among those outside the Church . . . thousands of different “Holy Spirit filled” “reasonable” “alternative” interpretations of verses on virtually every doctrine of the Church.

If I was a Torah obersvant messianic Jew who did not accept authority of the Church - I could fairly applaud you for your view on the Sabbath and criticize you severely for your not folloiwng the balance of the entire Mosaic Law based upon a “reasonable” purely “scriptural” reading of the bible.

Don’t you see the empirical problem with saying or believing that the bible interprets itself?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[BTTG]

BTTG;7215730:

Catechism

(Mat 16:19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What is the " kingdom of heaven" ? thank you

 

[BTTG]

Paul said that to those under the law, he became as though under the law (although he was not under the law but under the law of Christ). So I’m confident Paul did go to the temple to evanglize, and to worship - but that has no bearing on whether the Sabbath continued as a command for observance by ceasing labors on the 7th day from and after Christ’s death and resurrection (and/or from and after the destruction of the Temple). History shows us clearly that, in fact, early Christians (starting in the late 1st century and early 2nd century) had already ceased doing this. Scripture shows us that Christians begain meeting every Sunday and supplemental writings from the late 1st century corrolate to this and show us this was for “worship” and not merely fellowship.

If you are serious about history, your perspective on the Sabbath in the ‘early church’ will not hold water.

If you want to ignore history and look only at scripture (divorsed from historical understanding or teachings of the earliest disciples of the apostles) you can find different understanding the Sabbath and just about every other doctrine of our faith — and, alas, this is the sad current state of affaris among those outside the Church . . . thousands of different “Holy Spirit filled” “reasonable” “alternative” interpretations of verses on virtually every doctrine of the Church.

If I was a Torah obersvant messianic Jew who did not accept authority of the Church - I could fairly applaud you for your view on the Sabbath and criticize you severely for your not folloiwng the balance of the entire Mosaic Law based upon a “reasonable” purely “scriptural” reading of the bible.

Don’t you see the empirical problem with saying or believing that the bible interprets itself?

Blessings,

Brian

Yes Brian, but if we start listening to men (early church fathers) then we are taking man’s word ( keeping the commandments of men), rather then the commands of God’s word (bible).

Up until this post, many are saying that no where in scripture is the Sabbath day the day of worship. I have provided many scriptures that indicate the Sabbath day was observed by the Jews, Gentiles and the apostles. If the Sabbath day of worship ( being so very important in the OT - in as much Jesus was charged for disobeying the Sabbath day) was to be changed to Sunday as the day of worship, Paul during his teachings, would have very clearly stated that God’s day of worship has been changed from Saturday to Sunday. keeping in mind that the Sabbath day is more than just “rest”. The Sabbath day was never a “shadow” to come. No where in the bible does it mention the Sabbath day was a “shadow”. As previously stated the Sabbath day was and is for “all people”, and “strangers” referring to non-Jews.

**you stated ** So I’m confident Paul did go to the temple to evanglize, and to worship - but that has no bearing on whether the Sabbath continued as a command for observance by ceasing labors on the 7th day from and after Christ’s death and resurrection (and/or from and after the destruction of the Temple).

You agree that Paul worshiped on the Sabbath day. If the commandment in the NT is to worship on Sunday, does this mean Paul is committing a sin? Why would Paul confuse both the Jews and Gentiles for a year and a half by worshiping on the Sabbath, if Sunday was the day of worship?

It is so clear.

written with love

 

[Robbinson]

Yes Brian, but if we start listening to men (early church fathers) then we are taking man’s word ( keeping the commandments of men), rather then the commands of God’s word (bible).

Up until this post, many are saying that no where in scripture is the Sabbath day the day of worship. I have provided many scriptures that indicate the Sabbath day was observed by the Jews, Gentiles and the apostles. If the Sabbath day of worship ( being so very important in the OT - in as much Jesus was charged for disobeying the Sabbath day) was to be changed to Sunday as the day of worship, Paul during his teachings, would have very clearly stated that God’s day of worship has been changed from Saturday to Sunday. keeping in mind that the Sabbath day is more than just “rest”. The Sabbath day was never a “shadow” to come. No where in the bible does it mention the Sabbath day was a “shadow”. As previously stated the Sabbath day was and is for “all people”, and “strangers” referring to non-Jews.

**you stated ** So I’m confident Paul did go to the temple to evanglize, and to worship - but that has no bearing on whether the Sabbath continued as a command for observance by ceasing labors on the 7th day from and after Christ’s death and resurrection (and/or from and after the destruction of the Temple).

You agree that Paul worshiped on the Sabbath day. If the commandment in the NT is to worship on Sunday, does this mean Paul is committing a sin? Why would Paul confuse both the Jews and Gentiles for a year and a half by worshiping on the Sabbath, if Sunday was the day of worship?

It is so clear.

written with love

Paul would have been gathered with all believers (jew and gentile) on the Lords Day on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist. He also preached in the temple on the Sabbath (not because he was under the mosaic law - he was not (these, are in fact, his express words)) but that is where the jewish nonbelievers were and he went to show how jesus fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures.

In terms of scripture - do you believe in the Trinity? I know you do - and yet it took several hundred years for that doctrine to be developed and become understood by believers - particulary aspects regarding the three presons sharing one divine nature and a complex unity (echad) and Jesus being one person, but having two distinct natures. That is important doctrine - but not expressly set out in scripture, but derived from it, but it took hundreds of years to settle - Why don’t you have a problem with that (if applying “equal weights and measures”) to understanding the Sabbath and the Church’s deriving it fulfillment in our rest in Christ (which is in fact an interpretation of Hebrews - you just don’t agree with it).

You have been shown that scripture shows gathing of believers on Sunday - you have been show history and early writings (some from the early/mid 2nd century) showing this was worship (this while some of the apostles were likely still alive and certainly their “direct” disciples). You have been shown that early writings of believers again early/mid 2nd century) that even as early as then, distinctions were being made between jewish non-believers (who worshiped on the saturday Sabbath) and christians, who did not and rested everyday,perpetually in Christ.

You also have not articulated a rationale or basis for your distinction between your belief in the need to follow the Sabbath of the mosaic law but not necesarrily the dietary laws or balance of the commandments in the Torah.

It seems to me that you belong to a church that holds a "view’ regarding the Sabbath and are really not willing to reassess that thinking no matter what evidence is presented.

As to your perspective - I’m happy to acknowledge your “liberty” to celebrate the saturday Sabbath or any sabbath you like if done for the glory of God.

As to “authority” - do you think your church has “authority” and, if so, what is your “scriptural basis”?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[adrift]

What is the “kingdom of heaven” ?

thank you

Catechism

567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. “This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ” (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

 

[BTTG]

(Mat 16:18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter himself disclaims that the “rock” which Jesus spoke of is not himself….(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.

AND…(1Pe 2:4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, (1Pe 2:5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (1Pe 2:7) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (1Pe 2:8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Jesus himself uses the same figure of speech to describe who the chief is…(Mat 21:42) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Luke 20:17-18

The term “rock” used by the Hebrews always referred to God…(Deu 32:4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
AND…(Psa 18:2) The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

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. AND…(2Sa 22:32) For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

Only Jesus Christ is “the rock of our salvation”. Only Jesus alone is the foundation of the church, for (1Co 3:11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Therefore, Christ is the “rock”. A “living stone” is chosen by God, all who believe in Him (1Pe 2:4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, (1Pe 2:5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
The “living stones”, such as the apostles ( a holy priesthood) will build up a spiritual house.

Jesus is the “Rock” , the chief cornerstone, on which the entire structure rests….(Eph 2:20) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Eph 2:21) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: (Eph 2:22) In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

In Mat. 16:16, Peter answered on behalf of the 12 disciples as the spokeperson ( as Peter has done on past occasions…John 6:69; Matt. 14:28; Mark3:16)

The scriptures tell us beyond a doubt why Christ did not appoint Peter as the “rock”.

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”.

written with love to all my friends responding

 

[BTTG]

you stated Paul would have been gathered with all believers (jew and gentile) on the Lords Day on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist.

My reply - please show in scripture

**You stated ** He also preached in the temple on the Sabbath (not because he was under the mosaic law - he was not (these, are in fact, his express words)) but that is where the jewish nonbelievers were and he went to show how jesus fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures.

**My reply ** I provided scriptures that Paul preached to both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles asked Paul to preach to them the next Sabbath day. Paul could have said wait a minute we will worship on the Lord’s day as the commandment reads… but Paul didn’t, was Paul breaking a commandment?

**You stated ** In terms of scripture - do you believe in the Trinity? I know you do - and yet it took several hundred years for that doctrine to be developed and become understood by believers - particulary aspects regarding the three presons sharing one divine nature and a complex unity (echad) and Jesus being one person, but having two distinct natures. That is important doctrine - but not expressly set out in scripture, but derived from it, but it took hundreds of years to settle - Why don’t you have a problem with that (if applying “equal weights and measures”) to understanding the Sabbath and the Church’s deriving it fulfillment in our rest in Christ (which is in fact an interpretation of Hebrews - you just don’t agree with it).

My reply Brian, with respect, are you now saying that it took the Catholic church some centuries to determine that the Sabbath was to mean a sabbath rest in Christ?

**You stated ** You have been shown that scripture shows gathing of believers on Sunday - you have been show history and early writings (some from the early/mid 2nd century) showing this was worship (this while some of the apostles were likely still alive and certainly their “direct” disciples). You have been shown that early writings of believers again early/mid 2nd century) that even as early as then, distinctions were being made between jewish non-believers (who worshiped on the saturday Sabbath) and christians, who did not and rested everyday,perpetually in Christ.

**My reply ** The problem I see with your statement above is that more emphasis is on the writings of the early church fathers, then on the word of God. Does not the bible tell us ALL we need to know about Jesus Christ?

**You stated ** You also have not articulated a rationale or basis for your distinction between your belief in the need to follow the Sabbath of the mosaic law but not necesarrily the dietary laws or balance of the commandments in the Torah.

**My reply ** I am surprised you would state this. I hope my responses are being read. Post #290 , i explain the 2 laws within the Torah. The temporary Jewish law nailed to the cross…Col 2:14-17, the Sabbath Day was not a “shadow” as I reported it was for “all people” and “strangers”, not just Jews.

**you stated ** It seems to me that you belong to a church that holds a "view’ regarding the Sabbath and are really not willing to reassess that thinking no matter what evidence is presented.

As to your perspective - I’m happy to acknowledge your “liberty” to celebrate the saturday Sabbath or any sabbath you like if done for the glory of God.

As to “authority” - do you think your church has “authority” and, if so, what is your “scriptural basis”?

**My reply ** No, not any church I attend has authority over God’s word. God’s remnant people will be from all tribes, tongues and nations.

written with love

 

[Robbinson]

you stated
**My reply ** No, not any church I attend has authority over God’s word. God’s remnant people will be from all tribes, tongues and nations.

Craig - thank you for the sincere reply - then what did God mean when he gave the apostles the authority to bind and lose (on heaven and on earth)? And what did He mean when he told the apostles there would be a “visible” Church with authoroity to resolve disputes? Where is that “visible” authoritative Churhc (in your mind)?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Robbinson]

you stated Paul would have been gathered with all believers (Jew and gentile) on the Lords Day on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist.

My reply - please show in scripture

When Paul instructed the Corinthians each to contribute to the collection for the saints in Judea on the first day of every week, he presupposed a gathering for worship on that day (1 Cor. 16:2)

**You stated **He also preached in the temple on the Sabbath (not because he was under the mosaic law - he was not (these, are in fact, his express words)) but that is where the Jewish nonbelievers were and he went to show how Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures.

**My reply ** I provided scriptures that Paul preached to both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles asked Paul to preach to them the next Sabbath day. Paul could have said wait a minute we will worship on the Lord’s day as the commandment reads… but Paul didn’t, was Paul breaking a commandment?

I didn’t say or suggest that Paul didn’t preach to the Gentiles on the Sabbath and only preached to the Jews on the Sabbath - but the Jews were at the temple every Saturday for the Sabbath - some Gentile would be in “outer court” there - but not all Gentile believers would be at the temple at the Sabbath - we know per the Jerusalem counsel in acts that the Gentiles were not under the mosaic law.

**You stated ** In terms of scripture - do you believe in the Trinity? I know you do - and yet it took several hundred years for that doctrine to be developed and become understood by believers - particularly aspects regarding the three presons sharing one divine nature and a complex unity (echad) and Jesus being one person, but having two distinct natures. That is important doctrine - but not expressly set out in scripture, but derived from it, but it took hundreds of years to settle - Why don’t you have a problem with that (if applying “equal weights and measures”) to understanding the Sabbath and the Church’s deriving it fulfillment in our rest in Christ (which is in fact an interpretation of Hebrews - you just don’t agree with it).

My reply Brian, with respect, are you now saying that it took the Catholic church some centuries to determine that the Sabbath was to mean a sabbath rest in Christ?

Not at all - I’m merely responding to your objection that the Scriptures don’t expressly state - “the Saturday Sabbath observance is no longer necessary” - and pointing out that this is a question of interpretation of scriptures which did evolve over time. I"ve already shown this behavior (moving away from the Sabbath was apparent by the mid second century with the context of those quotes suggestive this was “already by that time” understood. Similarly, the debate over whether Gentiles were subject to the mosaic law continued well after the death of Christ - thus the debate in the book of acts.

**You stated ** You have been shown that scripture shows gathing of believers on Sunday - you have been show history and early writings (some from the early/mid 2nd century) showing this was worship (this while some of the apostles were likely still alive and certainly their “direct” disciples). You have been shown that early writings of believers again early/mid 2nd century) that even as early as then, distinctions were being made between Jewish non-believers (who worshiped on the Saturday Sabbath) and Christians, who did not and rested everyday,perpetually in Christ.

**My reply ** The problem I see with your statement above is that more emphasis is on the writings of the early church fathers, then on the word of God. Does not the bible tell us ALL we need to know about Jesus Christ?

Actually - no - I believe the deposit of faith includes the scriptures and the oral traditions/teachings of the Church. Scripture tells us that it does not contain everything Jesus taught. All scripture is valuable - but scripture itself doesn’t say "scripture alone’ - that is the great irony “scripture alone” as a doctrine proves that scripture alone is incorrect because scripture does not say “scripture alone” - rather mentions as well the oral teachings of the apostles. Can you show me where you think scripture supports “scripture alone”? Does scripture “alone” define what is the cannon? Is there an inspired/inerrant table of contents written by the apostles into the scriptures?

**You stated ** You also have not articulated a rationale or basis for your distinction between your belief in the need to follow the Sabbath of the mosaic law but not necessarily the dietary laws or balance of the commandments in the Torah.

**My reply ** I am surprised you would state this. I hope my responses are being read. Post #290 , i explain the 2 laws within the Torah. The temporary Jewish law nailed to the cross…Col 2:14-17, the Sabbath Day was not a “shadow” as I reported it was for “all people” and “strangers”, not just Jews.

Apologies - you did write that, and then I had refuted it with “silence” from you by pointing out that nothing in Scripture suggests there are “two” different laws and that the word “Torah” used in the verses you cite is the same word used elsewhere to expressly refer to laws other than those contained within the Decalogue. You show a tendency to ignore what doesn’t fit with your theory without rebuttal and then return to the same points (which have been rebutted without reply) over and over again in the thread.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[BTTG]

**You stated **

When Paul instructed the Corinthians each to contribute to the collection for the saints in Judea on the first day of every week, he presupposed a gathering for worship on that day (1 Cor. 16:2)

**My reply ** - Hi Brian, I hope all is well with you.

Where do you read in scripture that Paul “presupposed a gathering for worship on that day”.

Re: 1Co 16:1) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. (1Co 16:2) Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.(1Co 16:3) And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

Paul was writing special appeals to the churches in Asia Minor, because many of the Christians in Jerusalem were suffering greatly for lack of food and daily necessities. Paul asked the church at Corinth to gather food, clothing, etc., and store it up at home until he could send men to transport it to Jerusalem. The expression “lay by him in store” in the original Greek gives the clear connotation of putting aside at home.

There was no service held on the first day of the week. The gathering up and storing was to be done on that day. Why did Paul suggest that this work be done on Sunday, and what was involved in getting it done?

First of all, the letter would have been shared with the church on the Sabbath when they were all gathered for worship. The first opportunity to do the work would be the next day - the first day of the week. Keep in mind that there was an apparent food shortage in Jerusalem, and the need was not primarily for money. Such famine conditions were not unusual in areas of the Middle East, as Luke reminds us in Acts 11:28-30.

I didn’t say or suggest that Paul didn’t preach to the Gentiles on the Sabbath and only preached to the Jews on the Sabbath - but the Jews were at the temple every Saturday for the Sabbath - some Gentile would be in “outer court” there - but not all Gentile believers would be at the temple at the Sabbath - we know per the Jerusalem counsel in acts that the Gentiles were not under the mosaic law.

**You stated ** Actually - no - I believe the deposit of faith includes the scriptures and the oral traditions/teachings of the Church. Scripture tells us that it does not contain everything Jesus taught. All scripture is valuable - but scripture itself doesn’t say "scripture alone’ - that is the great irony “scripture alone” as a doctrine proves that scripture alone is incorrect because scripture does not say “scripture alone” - rather mentions as well the oral teachings of the apostles. Can you show me where you think scripture supports “scripture alone”? Does scripture “alone” define what is the cannon? Is there an inspired/inerrant table of contents written by the apostles into the scriptures?

**My reply **- God says that He’ll have an everlasting gospel that will be preached in all the world right up until Jesus comes in the clouds of heaven. The everlasting gospel is none other than the pure unchanged gospel that Jesus taught and lived with nothing added to it and nothing taken away. It will be the full gospel as Jesus taught it and it will be taught and lived in this world until the time of the end and the return of Jesus.

**You stated ** Apologies - you did write that, and then I had refuted it with “silence” from you by pointing out that nothing in Scripture suggests there are “two” different laws and that the word “Torah” used in the verses you cite is the same word used elsewhere to expressly refer to laws other than those contained within the Decalogue. You show a tendency to ignore what doesn’t fit with your theory without rebuttal and then return to the same points (which have been rebutted without reply) over and over again in the thread.

**My reply ** - First of all I am sorry about my debate techniques. I have never had a serious debate like this before. I am not aware of how to debate. If you can assist me on the etiquette of debate please do so.

As for "two’ different laws specifically stated in the bible, it does not clearly state. However, as my previous response you can see that there are two very distinctive commands given by God. As you previously provided an example about the “Trinity”, we believe in the three persons, but it does not use the word "Trinity " in the bible.

When we read (Deu 4:13) we read a command by God of the 10 commandments " And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." and 2 Chron. 33:8 ( here we read the whole law ( 10 commandments given direct from the finger of God) and the " 2nd command consisting of the statutes and ordinances.
Then we read (Deu 4:14) about the Jewish “ceremonial/ordinances” laws “And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.” and Lev 23.

written with love

 

[BTTG]

Craig - thank you for the sincere reply - then what did God mean when he gave the apostles the authority to bind and lose (on heaven and on earth)? And what did He mean when he told the apostles there would be a “visible” Church with authoroity to resolve disputes? Where is that “visible” authoritative Churhc (in your mind)?

Blessings,

Brian

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

 

[Robbinson]

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?

"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?

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.

The biggest point of disagreement is I accept that Jesus gave Peter and the Apostles authority (that is right in scripture) as well as supported by the earliest writings of believers and respect that authority today in the Catholic Chuch. You believe you have as much authority as anyone else and believe scripture interprets itself with the Holy Spirit. On that last point — please explain to me how our Holy Spirit filled brothers and sisters in the other 40,000 denominations (other than yours) have different “authoritative” interpretations of the same verses you do? This is why Jesus left us an authoritative Church. He did it for the Old Covenant (in Moses) and he did it in the new covenant (Peter and the apostles).

Blessings,

Brian