Desperatly need help over Sunday worship!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Odell

Guest
I have to admit I dont know much about this and so I posted from scripture catholic support for Sunday worship. He responds to each passage in which I have no idea how to respond to his rebutal. Im sure he has many false interpritations of these passages but I just dont know enough in this area. Could someone help me respond to each rebutal?

Any help would be greatly apreciated!

Jesus had a one and seven chance of rising on Sunday what does us celebrating His resurrection on the first day have to do with Ancient Babylon?

Response:
Yeshua ( I wont use that J-word) rose on the first day of the week to fulfull His role as the first fruits, LEv 23:10,11. This is one of the days I meant when I referred to the appointments. These days are the holy days the Creator gave us, in defiance the RCC rejects these and has instituted their own holy days, i.e. Lent, Xmas, Easter etc. The moedim, literally the appointed times, are the Passover,Feast of unleavened bread, first fruits, Shavuot, day of trumpets, day of atonement and sukkot. Understanding these things greatly help us understand so much Messiah said and did.
On the flipside, the sun worshippers did use that day to honor the Sun​

Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Response:
The phrase, " God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath." Is what I meant above, I have heard this exact phrase many times. What is the source? As for the allegation itself that God began to be displeased, you simply have to compare scripture with scripture, Not only does V14 in the same chapter uses the 2nd person pronoun:
" YOUR new moons and YOUR appointed feasts MYsoul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear [them].

Compare this with Lev 23:2 where it says, “,these are MY feasts”

It would make no sense that the Creator would say without qualification that He was displeased with HIS DAYS that He set up at creation. It is what man did to those days that He was disgusted with. They had all kinds of extra biblical rules that made it a burden, His laws were NEVER meant to burden but were meant as blessings (Dt 28:2. Joshua 8:34) and they were for OUR OWN GOOD (Dt 10:13)​

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

response:
Again, the reason was to show He did indeed fulfil Yom HaBikkurim, the feast of first fruits. If you like, I can show you historically how the majority continued to keep the 7th day sabbath as the normal day of gathering well into at least the 3rd century.​

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

Response:
This, along with 1 Cor 16:1 is the normal proof text commonly thrown up. Breaking bread is NOT neccesarily reffering to communion. If it were then to be consistent you would have to say they were doing communion not only on the 1st day of the week, but every day, and doing it from house to house as we read in Acts 2:46. The fact is, in the book of Acts,which is the inspired and documented history of the first believers, the overwhelming evidence shows they consistently kept the 7th day sabbath ( and secular history confirms this). 20:7 is the ONLY mention of the first day of the week in Acts. Compare that with the dozens of times the believers were keeping the sabbath and any honest reading of the text shows the common idea that they instantly changed the day of worship to be without merit
==========================================================================================================‎1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Response:

No, that is not why. This was… most likely just an incidental reference to the day it happened. One can not determine from the text alone the motivation. In fact nowhere in scripture is there a verse that confirms your comment as to WHY they chose the first day But you can take an educated guess by looking at Nehemiah 13 that they were quite zealous against doing any type of commerce on the Sabbath, so there is at least an implication that they were collecting money on Sunday to avoid doing it on Sabbath. Im not saying that IS why, but at least there is some evidence. They did not pass the plate to take a collection as today They did not pass the plate to take a collection as today so that they were taking a collection is not evidence of a worship service​

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

Response:

And?? If Paul knew that the Sabbath was not to be kept anymore, why would he even say this? IT would be a non issue and there would be no point in the statement.​

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Response:

The tradition is 1700 years old at best, but even so, this is irrelevant, it still is a man made tradition Yeshua condemned in Mark 7. It is circular logic to say it is apostolic​

continued…
 
Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Response:

This section of scripture only refutes your position

There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 4:9
The English word “rest” is found a total of 9 times in this chapter. Many ppl will correctly point out that the word translated as such is the Greek word “katapausis” which can ( and does) refer to the spiritiual/salvational rest we have in Christ. Problem is when we come to V9, the Greek word that the author of Hebrews chose to use changes, in this verse the word is SABBATISMOS, which can ONLY refer to a literal keeping of the 7th day sabbath​

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Response:

Circular logic, You can just as easy say the new day us Wednesday, but no, that there is A CHANGE, does not mean ANYTHING and EVERYTHING changes. There is no scriptural evidence, that is not circular, that this is the change intended. The ONLY change in the law was the abrogation of the sacrificial system, everything else remains, Matt 5:17​

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Response:

This is the most in-credible, although common, verse used in defense of Sunday. Despite the numerous times I have seen both Caths and Prots sue this as a “proof” I am still amazed that this verse would be used for this purpose. If one can just look at the text, forgetting what ECFs said and just look at the text, it is plain that the context is NOT the first day of the week. Absolutely NOTHING in the surrounding text supports this view. In context it is referring to the day of the Lord, i.e. judgement day. Do a quick search on the term “day of the Lord” and you will see this is a often used phrase to refer to just that. In fact, if any specific day of the week is “the Lords day”, Isaiah 58:13 indicated that title would have to indicate the 7th day Sabbath also.
The teaching that length of this present age is 6000 years and the 7th millenial “day” will be a time of the Messianic reign is well establised in scripture, this is the day of the Lord spoken of​

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

Response

There are a couple of problems with this interpretation. Primarily that there is no real evidence that the RCC even is the church referenced in Matt 16/18. In fact I would say that their behavior specifically precludes that possibility. Any attempt to changes the given laws are a direct violation of several scriptures, Dt :4:2 / Dt 13 for instance.
Second, the future tense of the verbs in Matt 16:19 are mistranslated. It should read, “what you bind on Earth WILL HAVE BEEN bound in Heaven” . In other words the church would not make any pronouncements not previously established. See Amos 3:7. If such a major change was to take place as the abrogation of the weekly and yearly sabbaths, a prophecy would have announced this.
Also the Greek words used in Matt 16:19 prohibit this interpretation. What I mean is that the word “loose” here is the same word translated as “break” in Matt 5:19. So unless you think the papacy is gonna be considered the least i nthe kingdom of heaven, they have no authority to change anything!See MoreJune 19 at 8:03pm · LikeUnlike
 
He has taken the time to respond to each passage and my silence has given him the comfort of believing he is right!
 
Hello, I hope I’m doing this right as I 'm new to this… I have never been in a forum before but I want to respond to this question of Sunday Worship because i have friends who are SDA and we debate this often. I just want to say first that we know Jesus is the Son of God and He rose on the first day of the week-- now think about this first day is of the week is Sunday and the name Son comes from the word Sun. I have lots more but this is a start for you to ponder on.
 
Circular logic, You can just as easy say the new day us Wednesday, but no, that there is A CHANGE, does not mean ANYTHING and EVERYTHING changes. There is no scriptural evidence, that is not circular, that this is the change intended. The ONLY change in the law was the abrogation of the sacrificial system, everything else remains,
Click to expand...
Wrong.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:1-12[/BIBLEDRB]

This person (probably an SDA) is seeking to re-impose that yoke on everyone. It’s gone. Its purpose, the segregation of Israel as God’s people, has been fulfilled.

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 10:12[/BIBLEDRB]
 
Odell,

Maybe you are called to respond to people who make such claims, maybe not.

I know that I am not, and I can only suggest that if it is upsetting to you then don’t do it. When people are unreasonable and have no desire to discuss reasonably with someone who differs with them, just let it go and pray for them.
 
Dorothy I’m sure I’m not going to do any convincing on his part; I’m doing this mostly for my own benifit. I usually have an answer but this is the first I have come across this argumentation so it’s a challenge that I will accept. 🙂 Besides you never know who’s watching. 😉
 
SDA or whatever, the person is a Judaizer with no authority whatsoever to declare what is and is not Christian belief. No authority to interpret Scripture; no authority to interpret the Church’s own history.

I’m sure that Sunday isn’t his only issue.

God is not a God of confusion and the Holy Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. It isn’t “man made” but built by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

These guys effectively reject Christ, who for them…at best…can only be a figure head or symbolic head of His Church. While they build true, man-made Churches.

You can get most Protestants who would defend Sunday.

You’ve possibly went over most of the Scriptural matters.

Perhaps best to focus on authority. That would be the Christ-built and Holy Spirit-led Holy Catholic Church vs his man-made denomination and personal interpretation and opinion.
 
The seventh day was God’s rest, and the Jews rested from their work.

Christians worship on the eighth day, the day of the new creation, the second creation, the day of the redemption of the world.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:9)

God seperated light from darkness on the first day of creation. Jesus is the true light which entered the world, and we enter into that light, that first day of a new creation, by worshipping not on the last day of an old creation, but on the first day of a redeemed creation.

The SDA can worship on Saturday if they want. That’s their choice, and we can argue scriputure all day with them, but it really isn’t going to get us anywhere. I prefer to simply point out how I worship in the dawn of a creation redeemed by Jesus Christ, rather than the last day of an unredeemed creation, and invite them to do the same.

And it’s just that, an invitation. They are free to take it or leave it.

-Tim-
 
Odell said:
Dorothy I’m sure I’m not going to do any convincing on his part; I’m doing this mostly for my own benifit. I usually have an answer but this is the first I have come across this argumentation so it’s a challenge that I will accept. 🙂 Besides you never know who’s watching. 😉
Click to expand...
True! Maybe someone will learn something. 🙂
 
Thanks thus far! I am building up my arsenal. Does anyone have any experience dealing with this first passage? And some help addressing the second?

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Response:

This section of scripture only refutes your position

There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 4:9
The English word “rest” is found a total of 9 times in this chapter. Many ppl will correctly point out that the word translated as such is the Greek word “katapausis” which can ( and does) refer to the spiritiual/salvational rest we have in Christ. Problem is when we come to V9, the Greek word that the author of Hebrews chose to use changes, in this verse the word is SABBATISMOS, which can ONLY refer to a literal keeping of the 7th day sabbath

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Response:

This section of scripture only refutes your position

There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 4:9
The English word “rest” is found a total of 9 times in this chapter. Many ppl will correctly point out that the word translated as such is the Greek word “katapausis” which can ( and does) refer to the spiritiual/salvational rest we have in Christ. Problem is when we come to V9, the Greek word that the author of Hebrews chose to use changes, in this verse the word is SABBATISMOS, which can ONLY refer to a literal keeping of the 7th day sabbath
 
Hello Odell. Here are some comments concerning statements your debating opponent made…
“Again, the reason was to show He did indeed fulfil Yom HaBikkurim, the feast of first fruits.”
Click to expand...
I’ve seen this “first fruits” argument before. The Acts of the Apostles shows how the Apostles went out preaching the gospel. The underlining theme of apostolic preaching was that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, is the fulfillment of the Passover, and that he rose from the dead. Unless I’ve missed it, none of the Apostles went around talking about the Feast of First Fruits as the way of understanding the mission of Christ.
One can not determine from the text alone the motivation. In fact nowhere in scripture is there a verse that confirms your comment as to WHY they chose the first day…
Click to expand...
There is no scriptural evidence, that is not circular, that this is the change intended.
Click to expand...
Sunday worship is implied in Scripture but emphatically taught in Sacred Tradition. If your opponent wants you to prove the validity of Sunday worship based on Scripture alone then he is demanding that you adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura, which is not a teaching recognized in Catholicism. First challenge him to prove that Sola Scriptura is valid before expecting you to accept it as the tool for testing whether or not Sunday worship is an apostolic teaching.
“The tradition is 1700 years old at best, but even so, this is irrelevant, it still is a man made tradition”
Click to expand...
Sunday worship is a historical practice of Catholics, Protestants, all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches. Critics of the validity of Sunday worship are at a loss in telling exactly who invented this practice and then got all the other main branches of Christianity spread out over various continents to play along, without any record of it being challenged as a heresy! It takes a conspiracy theory that boggles the imagination to even begin to formulate an explanation as to how such a thing could have taken place!
I can show you historically how the majority continued to keep the 7th day sabbath as the normal day of gathering well into at least the 3rd century.
Click to expand...
No such credible documentation exists. Ask your opponent to go ahead and show you this and what you’ll get is revisionist history from some “scholar” on the fringes of academia.

Moreover, your opponent is talking about what Christians were doing within the first three centuries of Christianity, but when he says, “continued to keep the 7th day Sabbath” he seems to only be considering Jewish converts to the Faith. What about all the pagan Gentile converts? Is he suggesting that such people, who initially had no observance of the Sabbath whatsoever, started observing the 7th day Sabbath after they became Christian? If so, can he back that up with authentic historical documentation?
The fact is, in the book of Acts,which is the inspired and documented history of the first believers, the overwhelming evidence shows they consistently kept the 7th day sabbath ( and secular history confirms this). 20:7 is the ONLY mention of the first day of the week in Acts. Compare that with the dozens of times the believers were keeping the sabbath and any honest reading of the text shows the common idea that they instantly changed the day of worship to be without merit. (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
“Overwhelming evidence”???
“Dozens of times”???

Does my Acts of the Apostles have some pages missing or something? I just skimmed through my exhaustive concordance of the Bible, so it is possible that I missed something here and there. But from what I can tell, the only Christians described in Acts expressly doing something in terms of a Sabbath observance was Paul and his company. In Acts 13:14 they entered the synagogue of Antioch on a Sabbath for the purpose of testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. The community of Antioch invited him to return the next Sabbath to continue hearing what he had to say (Acts 13:44). When he traveled to Corinth he went to the synagogue “every Sabbath” (Acts 18:4) once more for the purpose of evangelizing Jews (for example, “…Paul was preaching, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus” - Acts 18:5).

These are the only examples I have been able to find in the Acts of the Apostles of a Christian doing anything noteworthy on the Sabbath. And Paul is not described as actively participating in Sabbath observances, but rather taking the opportunity to evangelize Jews while they are in synagogues. In Acts 18:6 we read: And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” Consequently, Acts does not record Paul, or anyone else, doing anything on the Sabbath from this point on.

And yet your opponent claims that the Acts of the Apostles shows “overwhelming evidence” that the ancient Christians “consistently kept the 7th day Sabbath”, and that within Acts are “dozens” of examples of Christians “keeping the Sabbath.” So I am certainly interesting in seeing the actual chapter and verse notations for all this “overwhelming evidence.”

And finally let me point out that your opponent has not actually refuted your use of Scripture references. Instead he simply presents an alternative interpretation of the verses you cited, give a brief opinion as to why he thinks his interpretation is more credible, and then concludes that his position is correct and yours is false. Simply proposing an alternative interpretation does not automatically invalidate the initial interpretation.
 
EricFilmer said:
Hello Odell. Here are some comments concerning statements your debating opponent made…

I’ve seen this “first fruits” argument before. The Acts of the Apostles shows how the Apostles went out preaching the gospel. The underlining theme of apostolic preaching was that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, is the fulfillment of the Passover, and that he rose from the dead. Unless I’ve missed it, none of the Apostles went around talking about the Feast of First Fruits as the way of understanding the mission of Christ.

Sunday worship is implied in Scripture but emphatically taught in Sacred Tradition. If your opponent wants you to prove the validity of Sunday worship based on Scripture alone then he is demanding that you adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura, which is not a teaching recognized in Catholicism. First challenge him to prove that Sola Scriptura is valid before expecting you to accept it as the tool for testing whether or not Sunday worship is an apostolic teaching.

Sunday worship is a historical practice of Catholics, Protestants, all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches. Critics of the validity of Sunday worship are at a loss in telling exactly who invented this practice and then got all the other main branches of Christianity spread out over various continents to play along, without any record of it being challenged as a heresy! It takes a conspiracy theory that boggles the imagination to even begin to formulate an explanation as to how such a thing could have taken place!

No such credible documentation exists. Ask your opponent to go ahead and show you this and what you’ll get is revisionist history from some “scholar” on the fringes of academia.

Moreover, your opponent is talking about what Christians were doing within the first three centuries of Christianity, but when he says, “continued to keep the 7th day Sabbath” he seems to only be considering Jewish converts to the Faith. What about all the pagan Gentile converts? Is he suggesting that such people, who initially had no observance of the Sabbath whatsoever, started observing the 7th day Sabbath after they became Christian? If so, can he back that up with authentic historical documentation?

“Overwhelming evidence”???
“Dozens of times”???

Does my Acts of the Apostles have some pages missing or something? I just skimmed through my exhaustive concordance of the Bible, so it is possible that I missed something here and there. But from what I can tell, the only Christians described in Acts expressly doing something in terms of a Sabbath observance was Paul and his company. In Acts 13:14 they entered the synagogue of Antioch on a Sabbath for the purpose of testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. The community of Antioch invited him to return the next Sabbath to continue hearing what he had to say (Acts 13:44). When he traveled to Corinth he went to the synagogue “every Sabbath” (Acts 18:4) once more for the purpose of evangelizing Jews (for example, “…Paul was preaching, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus” - Acts 18:5).

These are the only examples I have been able to find in the Acts of the Apostles of a Christian doing anything noteworthy on the Sabbath. And Paul is not described as actively participating in Sabbath observances, but rather taking the opportunity to evangelize Jews while they are in synagogues. In Acts 18:6 we read: And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” Consequently, Acts does not record Paul, or anyone else, doing anything on the Sabbath from this point on.

And yet your opponent claims that the Acts of the Apostles shows “overwhelming evidence” that the ancient Christians “consistently kept the 7th day Sabbath”, and that within Acts are “dozens” of examples of Christians “keeping the Sabbath.” So I am certainly interesting in seeing the actual chapter and verse notations for all this “overwhelming evidence.”

And finally let me point out that your opponent has not actually refuted your use of Scripture references. Instead he simply presents an alternative interpretation of the verses you cited, give a brief opinion as to why he thinks his interpretation is more credible, and then concludes that his position is correct and yours is false. Simply proposing an alternative interpretation does not automatically invalidate the initial interpretation.
Click to expand...
Just what I needed thanks!
 
Odell said:
Just what I needed thanks!
Click to expand...
Glad to help. And if you challenge him to prove the validity of the principle of Sola Scriptura and he takes you up on it, start a new thread (with a Sola Scriptura theme) to give us his responses. At this point I think I’ve heard just about every argument in support of Sola Scriptura and none of them work!
 
Made it to sola scriptura I usually do pretty well here. However this is his response to me asking what his church did 300 years prior to the cannonization of scripture.
Before the new testament was formally canonized they still had the Tanakh “which is able to make you wise unto salvation” there is really nothing new in the so called new testament it’s just a reaffirmation.
Click to expand...
I really don’t think these guys are SDAs they don’t believe they can eat meat because of the law. They only believe the sacrafices of the old law was done away with. They don’t believein the Trinity. And someone mentioned the early church was a Jewish sect called the Nazarenes?

This is all new to me. How would you handle the quote above?
 
Odell said:
He has taken the time to respond to each passage and my silence has given him the comfort of believing he is right!
Click to expand...
I’m surprised Heb 10 wasn’t brought up

In scripture, missing mass deliberately on Sunday, is a mortal sin

Heb 10:
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. 26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins*,* 27* but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28* A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29* How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

one will ask

By deliberately failing to meet on Sunday (the Day) as is the habit of some
  • why is that already considered a grave sin
  • why is there no sacrifice for sins for the one who deliberately fails to meet.
  • why is ther a profaning of the blood of the covenant for failing to meet
  • why does it spurn the son of God and outrage the spirit of grace by failing to meet
  • why is the punishment for that person a fearful prospect of judgement and a fury of fire because the person is considered an adversary of God for failing to meet
To answer that
  • What is it that they do when they meet? What is the sacrifice for sin and blood of the covenant ? It’s the Eucharist. The summit of our faith. Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus the son of God said those words instituting the Eucharist. Jesus further describes the importance of the Eucharist for the soul. Jn 6:53 unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you*. 54* Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. Life of the soul is grace. And Jesus said, “do this in memory of me”[Lk 22:19]
Therefore, the one who deliberately misses the Eucharist on Sunday, after being given the knowledge of truth,
  • no sacrifice for sin is left for THEM
  • they profane the blood of the covenant
  • they spurn the son of God & outrage the spirit of grace
  • judgment awaits them
That’s how important the Eucharist is. That’s why it is a mortal sin to deliberately miss mass on Sunday. Protestants can’t fulfill that command of Our Lord’s because they don’t have the Eucharist.
 
Odell said:
Made it to sola scriptura I usually do pretty well here. However this is his response to me asking what his church did 300 years prior to the cannonization of scripture…
Click to expand...
Although I only know a portion of your exchange with him, it seems like he is dodging your question. Did his response actually address what you asked?
I really don’t think these guys are SDAs they don’t believe they can eat meat because of the law. They only believe the sacrafices of the old law was done away with. They don’t believein the Trinity.
Click to expand...
It sounds like they are really out there in the fringes of Judeo-Christian theology. This person’s statement that there “is nothing new in the so called new testament” is almost too absurd to respond to. Without the New Testament there are no Scriptural teachings regarding the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies, atonement for the sins of humanity, full reconciliation between fallen creation and the Creator, the divinity of Christ, the Apostolic Church, deliverance from most of the observances of the Law of Moses, and the sacraments.
And someone mentioned the early church was a Jewish sect called the Nazarenes?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure exactly what they are referring to. I think they mean the Nazarites, which is an observance of Judaism according to special rules and strict living. They are considered consecrated to God in a very profound way. Both Samson and John the Baptist were Nazarites, and you can read more about this practice here.

On the other hand, a Nazarene refers to someone from the town of Nazareth, and the Christian denomination known as the Church of the Nazarene takes its name from this (referring, of course, to Christ).
 
These are not SDA’s. They’re Christians (even though they wouldn’t call themselves that) who call themselves Torah Observant Followers of Yeshua or Messianic Jews. And their beliefs on matters vary depending on congregations.
I dabbled around in this for 3+ years and every thing that person wrote to you Odell I used to spew out as well. I used to be a Sabbath keeping, feast keeping, kosher eating, His name is Yeshua, not Jesus, Torah keeping believer. It’s really twisted considering they really do not keep the whole Torah anyway. They say it’s not bondage, but I disagree. After my 3 year mark I was becoming miserable with trying to keep all the laws perfectly while believing in Jesus Christ’s grace upon me. Eventually He removed the scales from my eyes and freed me from that mess. HalleluYAH!
It’s a movement that’s really taken off in the 2000’s. Usually made up of disgruntled Christians fed up with the church world. They are extremely anti Catholic, more so than say a typical fundamentalist Protestant. The good thing is, I know of many folks who were also caught up in this who are now coming or returning back to the Catholic and Orthodox faith. Thank GOD He is opening up eyes, ears, and hearts and showing the way back home to His wayward sheep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top