Is it a sin for protestants to skip church on Sundays and why do they feel it is okay.

  • Thread starter Thread starter BettyM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hippeon,

You are not following history of the Holy Spirit moving both Gentiles and Nazarene Jews, for different reasons, to worship Christ on Sunday.

Christ is the one who made all things new…everything…

We never got around to it…too time consuming…

We have to go back and compare SDA thinking on Christ vs the Catholic concept of Christ…we talked briefly about putting down all that we agree on about Who Christ is…my hunch is that the Catholic Church has a more profound and broader and complete understanding of Christ to supercede the sabbath on Saturday.
 
Hippeon,

You are not following history of the Holy Spirit moving both Gentiles and Nazarene Jews, for different reasons, to worship Christ on Sunday.

Christ is the one who made all things new…everything…

We never got around to it…too time consuming…

We have to go back and compare SDA thinking on Christ vs the Catholic concept of Christ…we talked briefly about putting down all that we agree on about Who Christ is…my hunch is that the Catholic Church has a more profound and broader and complete understanding of Christ to supercede the sabbath on Saturday.
Kathleen, you used the right word - SUPERSEDE.

That’s really the difference between Catholics and non-Catholics. Non-catholics believe that the Bible has never been superseded. Its the Bible or nothing. Catholics on the other hand GO ON AND ON to SUPERSEDE the words of Christ.

If I were not a Christian and you ask me who is the follower of Christ, I’ll take my chance with the non-catholics because I think they have a better chance of being right. They stick to basics. And being a spiritual seeker, I don’t have to convince myself about things which are based on ‘tradition’.
 
No. there is plenty of evidence in scripture for observance of the first day of the week as a Christian observance. The resurection being the main one.
Okay, quote me one which says ‘Observe the 1st day and keep it Holy’. And I’ll convert straight into your faith. No other questions will be asked.

.
 
Hippeon,

And when you first came back to my answer saying this is a Protestant thread…I think I nailed you…when you said wasn’t my remark in the ecclesial sense?..

You were nailed…

The Ecclesia is the Catholic or universal Church. Your concepts are individual, not of church. You do as you please…

When you self-direct yourself, you cannot spiritually grow because Christ said where 2 or 3 are gathered, He is there…and we must submit ourselves to God’s will which is defined in the Church and through our individual pastors who shepherd us…and they are all on the same plane…
 
First, as others have requested, it would make things a great deal easier if you would make use of the “quote” feature. Take some time to do the tutorial - it won’t take long, and it will vastly improve your ability to communicate on this Forum.

Second -
If Jesus had spoken in Greek, a language known at that time in Israel, He would have said, Petros (Greek for “Peter.”). The word means, “rolling stone on the seashore.”
Where in the world did you get that definition from? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along? :confused:

“Petros” isn’t actually a word in the form of the Greek language used in the New Testament - the word “petros” doesn’t exist. What is happening here is that the Greek translator of Matthew’s Gospel (which was originally written in Aramaic) is creating a new word - a masculine form of the word “Petra” (which is a feminine noun) in order to emphasize that Jesus is not just calling Simon a rock, but that this is now his name. In order to emphasize this, the translator has changed the form of the word to the masculine, to show that Simon (who is male) is the Rock.
 
First, as others have requested, it would make things a great deal easier if you would make use of the “quote” feature. Take some time to do the tutorial - it won’t take long, and it will vastly improve your ability to communicate on this Forum.

Second -

Where in the world did you get that definition from? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along? :confused:

“Petros” isn’t actually a word in the form of the Greek language used in the New Testament - the word “petros” doesn’t exist. What is happening here is that the Greek translator of Matthew’s Gospel (which was originally written in Aramaic) is creating a new word - a masculine form of the word “Petra” (which is a feminine noun) in order to emphasize that Jesus is not just calling Simon a rock, but that this is now his name. In order to emphasize this, the translator has changed the form of the word to the masculine, to show that Simon (who is male) is the Rock.
Peter was a sinner to the day he was martyred. Only Jesus was perfect. Had Peter been transfigured as was Moses, for example, then he would have been made perfect. No place in the textus receptus (the received texts) can be found, as far as I am aware, that Christ made Peter perfect as Peter existed in the flesh. Jesus, and the message He gave to Peter and all Jesus’ disciples, were then and are today the Rock of Truth which cannot be changed by mortal man.

Jesus, in answering His Pharisaical critics who tried to impose all their regulatory minutiae on Him and His disciples, when He pointed out to them that the man-made rules of the “sages” caused people to actually violate the Ten Commandments and the supporting laws, statutes and judgments He gave to Moses, said to them: “In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” What Commandments was Jesus talking to them about? Which ones existed then? They are found, in the main, in three books of the written Torah.

The Bible is one book. There is only one religion discussed in the translations of the Bible from the textus receptus (the received texts). It is described fully in Exodus 20-23, Exodus 34, vss. 10 and onward (in the textus receptus-based King James Version).

The only things legitimately missing from that religion are the Temple, the priesthood, and the animal sacrifices. The Shabbat, and all of it’s supportive annual holy times, along with all the other non-animal-sacrifice-related ordinances, laws, statutes and judgments remain for those who choose to accept the gift of the Holy Spirit and it’s work of sanctification in th hearts of people.
 
Peter was a sinner to the day he was martyred. Only Jesus was perfect. Had Peter been transfigured as was Moses, for example, then he would have been made perfect. No place in the textus receptus (the received texts) can be found, as far as I am aware, that Christ made Peter perfect as Peter existed in the flesh. Jesus, and the message He gave to Peter and all Jesus’ disciples, were then and are today the Rock of Truth which cannot be changed by mortal man.
Nobody claims that Peter was perfect. If Peter were perfect, there would have been no need for Jesus to promise him (and through him, his successors) the protection of the Holy Spirit when he is teaching on faith and morals.

He is the Rock because he is the one to whom God the Father revealed (and continues to reveal) the truth about Jesus - not because of any personal merit of his own.
 
Code:
 Peter was a sinner to the day he was martyred. Only Jesus was perfect.
No, Ron, you misunderstand the status of those who are in Christ. They have been delivered from sin, and are seated at the right hand of God, with Christ. They have been purified, sanctified, and set apart for His Holy Service. They leave the live of the sinner, and follow after Him, taking up their cross and carrying it along the straight an narrow way. This is why they are referred to in the NT as “hagios” (saints = holy ones).
Code:
 Had Peter been transfigured as was Moses, for example, then he would have been made perfect.
The fact that he is not yet joined to his resurrected body does not make him a sinner. His soul is now kept eternally for God.
Code:
No place in the textus receptus (the received texts) can be found, as far as I am aware, that Christ made Peter perfect as Peter existed in the flesh.
We are all made pure in baptism. all sins ,original and personal are washed away.
Jesus, and the message He gave to Peter and all Jesus’ disciples, were then and are today the Rock of Truth which cannot be changed by mortal man.
While this is true, Jesus also founded His Church upon the foundation of Peter and the other Apostles.
The only things legitimately missing from that religion are the Temple, the priesthood, and the animal sacrifices. The Shabbat, and all of it’s supportive annual holy times, along with all the other non-animal-sacrifice-related ordinances, laws, statutes and judgments remain for those who choose to accept the gift of the Holy Spirit and it’s work of sanctification in th hearts of people.
May God continue to guide you as you observe His Holy day, and may He be sanctified as Lord in your life. May you come to know yourself as a saint, and no longer a sinner.
 
RontheJew…when it comes to holiness in the Catholic Church, the pope, the cardinals, bishops, priests and religious and lay – we are all on the same level…nobody has any special privilege …you become ordained doesn’t make you as a person any holier than the next person.

All of us must take up our cross and follow Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church through the working of the Holy Spirit – not man – transmits the faith from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ, given to His witnesses and Apostles and their successors…the teaching magisterium.

The Catholic Church is enabled by Jesus Christ to teach and to nurture Jesus Christ to us through the sacraments…it has the fullness of revelation of who God is…Jesus is the Word Made Flesh.

The seat of Peter is the final authority although recognizing the local autonomy of the various local churches. Subsequently, the seat of Peter is the sign of unity in diversity.
 
Nobody claims that Peter was perfect. If Peter were perfect, there would have been no need for Jesus to promise him (and through him, his successors) the protection of the Holy Spirit when he is teaching on faith and morals.

He is the Rock because he is the one to whom God the Father revealed (and continues to reveal) the truth about Jesus - not because of any personal merit of his own.

Hi jmcrae,
Jesus, as God the Son, revealed the Plan of Salvation to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc., all of whom understood the prophetic meaning, contained in the animal sacrifices. He also revealed Himself in the four cups of the Seder, and in the days of unleavened bread. Also, in Shavuot about the part of the Plan of Salvation which involved Jesus’ sending the Holy Spirit to those who would be His apostles. The other annual feasts, none of which originated in the mind of a Jew (so, calling them “Jewish” is a form of blasphemy since the annual feasts of the Lord, originated with the Lord, not the Jews), were given by God the Son.

The Plan of Salvation began at the gate of the Garden of Eden when God said, aloud, the Ten Commandments to Adam and Eve, and required them to offer the very first animal sacrifice. The Sabbath command was given as part of the Ten Commandments which the denominations of Christianity today claim they follow. Yet, they slice it and dice it in any way they wish, then claim that those same commandments were nailed to Jesus’ cross.

Faith and morals are based on the Ten Commandments which were written by the finger of God, and the rest of the Law of Love, as I call it (the prophet, Isaiah said “Thy Law is a lamp unto my feet.” The only Sabbath that God gave to mankind is found in the Ten Commandments, and backed by the laws God the Son spoke to Moses, along with all the other commandments which come in under at least one or more of the Ten Commandments.

How could God the Son say to Moses, “I will not alter the things which have gone out of My lips,” then come to earth in human flesh, teach His disciples to teach these laws of love to their converts after Jesus’ death and ascension, then turn around again and let the Holy Spirit lead out in allowing the “early church fathers” to change that which He said would not change??

They pick and choose which Torah laws they want to keep. They changed the days and many of the ways of not only the weekly Sabbath day, but the annual festival days and sabbaths, or eliminated the annual holy times, whichever suited their anti-Jewish sentiments at any given time. They claim to say that Jesus was a Jew, but that He allowed His disciples to make changes to His Law after His death. Some claim that the Holy Spirit, one of the Persons of the Godhead, guided them in changing parts of the only Covenant that existed before Christ’s death, the Everlasting Covenant in Exodus 34.

I don’t think there is any mystery to it. Men who have confused other men by saying that one law is “Jewish,” while trying to say that God, through the Holy Spirit, created another law through Himself as the Holy Spirit, simply put, these men despise the ethnic Jews, whether Torah-observant or not, and even try to proselyte Torah-observant Jews into what Torah-observant Jews consider to be paganism.
 
The Plan of Salvation began at the gate of the Garden of Eden when God said, aloud, the Ten Commandments to Adam and Eve
Can you provide a source for this?
How could God the Son say to Moses, “I will not alter the things which have gone out of My lips,” then come to earth in human flesh, teach His disciples to teach these laws of love to their converts after Jesus’ death and ascension, then turn around again and let the Holy Spirit lead out in allowing the “early church fathers” to change that which He said would not change??
God has not changed the Sabbath. The Church did not change it either.

The Church observes the Lord’s Day (eighth day) because Jesus rose on that day, and appeared on that day a week later.

In the beginning, there was no conflict in observing them both, until the Jews kicked the Christians out of the synagogue.
They changed the days and many of the ways of not only the weekly Sabbath day, but the annual festival days and sabbaths, or eliminated the annual holy times, whichever suited their anti-Jewish sentiments at any given time.
No, I don’t think so. I don’t think the Goyim ever observed them. How can you “eliminate” something you never had?
They claim to say that Jesus was a Jew, but that He allowed His disciples to make changes to His Law after His death.
Is this a false claim? Are we not in agreement that He was the most perfect Jew that ever lived?

His disciples did not change His Law after His death. They realized that the Gentiles were not bound by the Law of Moses.
Some claim that the Holy Spirit, one of the Persons of the Godhead, guided them in changing parts of the only Covenant that existed before Christ’s death, the Everlasting Covenant in Exodus 34.
Apparently you have been given misinformation about the beliefs of the CC.
I don’t think there is any mystery to it. Men who have confused other men by saying that one law is “Jewish,” while trying to say that God, through the Holy Spirit, created another law through Himself as the Holy Spirit, simply put, these men despise the ethnic Jews, whether Torah-observant or not, and even try to proselyte Torah-observant Jews into what Torah-observant Jews consider to be paganism.
I don’t know who these "men who despise Jews’ are that you are referencing here, but it is considered a mortal sin for Catholics to harbor such a sentiment.
 
Ron, now that I understand better where you are coming from…get hold a Catholic universal catechism and find out what we really believe.

Then get the liturgy documents from Vatican II, very beautiful and spiritual, and find out how and why and what we believe in our worship.

You need to get to the source, not other biased lines that are working to keeping you from seeing our Church as the one Christ instituted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top