A
- Status
P
Porknpie
Guest
Phineas -
the Catholic church,** through tradition**, changed the sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday.The Church can do this as it has the power to bind and loose. I bet you follow this tradition as well and it contradicts the old testament scripture (or you could be a SDA).
I won’t copy the entire text but only the summary. The Church clearly and authoritatively speaks to the Sabbath in the catechism beginning at #2168.
IN BRIEF
2189 “Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Deut 5:12). “The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord” (Ex 31:15).
2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.
2191 The Church celebrates the day of Christ’s Resurrection on the “eighth day,” Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord’s Day (cf. SC 106).
2192 “Sunday ... is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” (CIC, can. 1246 § 1). “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass” (CIC, can. 1247).
2193 “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound ... to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body” (CIC, can. 1247).
2194 The institution of Sunday helps all “to be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives” (GS 67 § 3).
2195 Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day.
the Catholic church,** through tradition**, changed the sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday.The Church can do this as it has the power to bind and loose. I bet you follow this tradition as well and it contradicts the old testament scripture (or you could be a SDA).
I won’t copy the entire text but only the summary. The Church clearly and authoritatively speaks to the Sabbath in the catechism beginning at #2168.
IN BRIEF
2189 “Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Deut 5:12). “The seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord” (Ex 31:15).
2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.
2191 The Church celebrates the day of Christ’s Resurrection on the “eighth day,” Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord’s Day (cf. SC 106).
2192 “Sunday ... is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” (CIC, can. 1246 § 1). “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass” (CIC, can. 1247).
2193 “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound ... to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body” (CIC, can. 1247).
2194 The institution of Sunday helps all “to be allowed sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives” (GS 67 § 3).
2195 Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day.
P
Pheonix
Guest
Excuse me, Jon, but could clarify something for me please? As I’m sure you already know, Catholics define Sacred Tradition as the oral transmission of God’s Word. This encompasses everything the Apostles taught that was eventually written down, as well as everything the Apostles taught that was not written down. Since Scripture did not always exist in its written form, but was first taught through use of oral tradition, Scripture was in fact formed by Tradition.
This is what I’m confused about. At least for Lutherans, you hold Tradition accountable to Scripture. If Tradition produced Scripture, then how can Scripture hold Tradition accountable to Scripture? To me, it doesn’t make sense that Scripture could hold what produced it to be accountable to it
I think my misunderstanding is just me not thinking clearly enough on this question, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me. Thanks in advance.
P
Pheonix
Guest
First, Christians worldwide agree that contradictory teachings should not be accepted. This includes Catholics too, if you didn’t know.
Second, then why did you insist on debating the Immaculate Conception? As I explained before, the original Reformers believed Mary was indeed sinless, and they were the original proponents of the concept of Sola Scriptura. If Mary being sinless did, in fact, contradict Scripture, then why didn’t the Reformers reject the teaching? Since they did, however, believe she was made sinless, we can logically reason that Mary being sinless does not contradict Scripture.
First, worship on Saturday was part of the Old Covenant. Since the Old Covenant was fulfilled with the New Covenant, we are no longer bound to the laws of the Old Covenant. Thus, we are not bound to worship on Sunday.
Second, Scripture says that Sabbath was “a shadow of things to come.” This means it has been fulfilled by Christ, as Christ fulfilled everything from the Old Testament.
Third, Scripture and the Early Church Fathers make it blatantly clear that the new day of worship for the Christian is Sunday, or the “Lord’s Day.”
Fourth, Christ Himself rose on a Sunday. Thus, why wouldn’t Christians want to worship on the day our Lord and Savior resurrected?
Have you not the responses geared towards this? The Catholic Church did NOT remove the verse from Exodus that states “thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). The Catholic Church simply combined verse four with the preceding verses: “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me” (Exodus 20:2-3).
Why did the Church do this? Because verses two through five of Exodus 20 deal with the exact same thing: IDOLATRY!
Tell me, if you have a strange god before the one, True God, then what are you doing? You’re committing idolatry.
Tell me, if you have an idol that you’re worshiping instead of worshiping the one, True God, then what are you doing? You’re committing idolatry.
You say that Exodus 20:4 is THE Second Commandment. Where is your evidence for this? After all, Exodus 20 does not list any of the Commandments as “THE Fourth Commandment” or “THE Eighth Commandment.” In other words, there is no instance in the entire Old Testament that tells us the exact numbering of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, all the versions of the Ten Commandments that we have today all stem from human tradition.
I mean, even Martin Luther, though he disagreed with the Church on some counts, was able to distinguish that Exodus 20:2-5 were talking about the exact same thing. That is why, if I remember correctly, Lutherans hold to the same Ten Commandment numbering as the Catholic Church does.
This is false. The Third Commandment in the Catholic Church is not simply “Remember the Sabbath Day.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists the Third Commandment as:
"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."
Great question. Please forgive me for answering yours with one of my own, that being, what is the oral, Sacred Tradition regarding the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome? The churches that claim direct succession from the Apostles (in an ecclesiastical manner) interpret the pope’s jurisdiction differently. As that is the case, where does one simple Lutheran such as myself turn. And this is not a trivial matter, at least not for me (as those regulars who know me will attest).
The above is an example, as there are others: the IC, indulgences, etc. ISTM that the Lutheran reformers turned to scripture because there was and remains, at least in part. conflict regarding the interpretation of Sacred Tradition.
Jon
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Indeed Pheonix, however…
Why is it that Scriptures are extensively quoted by Jesus?
Why is it that St. Peter’s 1st sermon quotes Scriptures as well?
Etc… you can probably see where I’m going with this.
If the Traditions are not in par with Scriptures, What happens then?
There are Traditions and traditions.
Which specific Traditions are interpreted on the same level as the Scriptures?
We know that Scriptures are the Word of God and they have been committed to the oral and written word for a reason, correct? Then, where can I find a similar book committed in Tradition and interpreted to be the Oral Word of God at the same level of Scripture? Where is this compromise?
As Catholics we love to bring up Traditions but seldom have I seen posters exposing them and measuring them to the same level of Scriptures.
On another note,
How hard is it to regain Trust into something you lost trust into? We (as Catholics) failed to hold each other accountable for a very long period of time and engaged in corrupt practices and behaviors. And as a result, lost the trust of a lot of believers. It is our responsibility to heal these broken relationships.
We know that the Word of God doesn’t fail (Please don’t get into the How did you get it, etc, etc ,etc I am Catholic). However, Institutions ran by men do at times fail and as such break trust. Faith is a very fragile and personal gift. Notice I am not saying anything about ex-cathedra teachings… Human relationships have been broken and human Faith has suffered because a great responsibility is deposited in the Body of our Lord.
In my humble opinion, there has to be a specific definition and differentiation of what Tradition and tradition is and how it compares with Scripture and when it doesn’t, expose the doctrine and origin behind it.
Peace,
Jose
I
iamadefender
Guest
another anti catholic propaganda dont believe in it.
I
iamadefender
Guest
another anti catholic propaganda dont believe on it.
G
guanophore
Guest
It makes a great proposal, and Catholics will certainly agree that nothing should contradict the Word of God. Where it fails is that it is dependent upon human perception. Anyone who reads the Scripture will be limited by their expereinces and education (or lack of it), so that, as the Scripture also says, the ignorant and unstable may twist it to their own destruction.
Because that is precisely that SS allows and promotes. It is the primary foundation upon which all the fragmentation in Christendom is based. Of course Catholics will agree that new doctrines or anything contrary to Scripture cannot be admitted (that is why the doctrines of the Reformation had to be rejected), but the Word of God is not “crystal clear” to everyone. If it were, then we would not have such a plethora of denominations.
I guess you are a Sabbatarian. This topic is beyond the scope of this thread. But suffice to say that the Apostles’ taught that Christ IS our Sabbath rest. The Sabbath is fulfilled in Him.
Martin Chemnitz tell us:
- This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… *
And yet, it shouldn’t. If the intent is to hold teachers and teachings accountable, and it is a practice of the Church…
Jon
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
I’m “protestant” believer who, like many, believe that in the instance of Matt 16:18, Simon bar Jona (Kephas, Petros) may have, in fact, been “this rock” that Jesus spoke about when he said “…upon this rock I will build my church”.
However, that doesn’t mean that Simon was the ONLY rock. After all, Eph 2:20 says that the church was built on all the apostles…
so, yeh, Jesus was saying to Simon - “I’m going to build my church on you”. But, evidently, He also fully intended to build it on each of the apostles (unless Eph 2:20 is lying, which I doubt it is).
My take on it is that IF Simon was “this rock” (and, as we all know, that is a highly disputed assertion in itself), then apparantly, he wasn’t the ONLY rock… Jesus could well have said “…you are Simon, and upon you, I will build my church - and also, on Matthew, Luke, James, et al…”
I’m not “Orthodox” myself, but I find it interesting that the Orthodox churches (or, at least, a significant number of them) claim that Roman Catholocism broke away from THEM in the “Great Schism” of 1054… But, after all, some of those early churches were founded long before the church in Rome. (ie, the churches of galatia, ephesus, jerusalem, etc, etc). Those were the ones that couldn’t go along with the Papacy…
I don’t really know for sure what Matt 16:18 means, and it’s highly debated what it means. I do, however, know what Eph 2:20 means… It’s not “ambiguous”, but Matt 16:18 is - at it’s best - highly ambiguous…
OK, thats my take on it…
However, that doesn’t mean that Simon was the ONLY rock. After all, Eph 2:20 says that the church was built on all the apostles…
so, yeh, Jesus was saying to Simon - “I’m going to build my church on you”. But, evidently, He also fully intended to build it on each of the apostles (unless Eph 2:20 is lying, which I doubt it is).
My take on it is that IF Simon was “this rock” (and, as we all know, that is a highly disputed assertion in itself), then apparantly, he wasn’t the ONLY rock… Jesus could well have said “…you are Simon, and upon you, I will build my church - and also, on Matthew, Luke, James, et al…”
I’m not “Orthodox” myself, but I find it interesting that the Orthodox churches (or, at least, a significant number of them) claim that Roman Catholocism broke away from THEM in the “Great Schism” of 1054… But, after all, some of those early churches were founded long before the church in Rome. (ie, the churches of galatia, ephesus, jerusalem, etc, etc). Those were the ones that couldn’t go along with the Papacy…
I don’t really know for sure what Matt 16:18 means, and it’s highly debated what it means. I do, however, know what Eph 2:20 means… It’s not “ambiguous”, but Matt 16:18 is - at it’s best - highly ambiguous…
OK, thats my take on it…
G
guanophore
Guest
Welcome to CAF Aussie! Yes, you are right on. Jesus, of course is THE Rock of our salvation, our cornerstone, and there is the foundation of the Apostles and prophets.
And the Fathers have also taught that it was Peter’s faith which was the Rock. What many moderns do, however, is try to separate these rocks from one another. Peter, the man, is not separate from the faith that he professed when Jesus changed his name to Cephas. Cephas, was not separated either from Christ, in Whom he professed his faith. Jesus grafted Peter into himself in that moment. Peter was not either separated from the other Apostles, all of whom were built into foundation stones.
What we see, though, is that Jesus gave to Peter certain specific gifts and responsibities to feed and care for the flock, and to strengthen his brethren. These were given to Peter in a specific and personal way, and it wast these that were passed to his successor, to this day.
True.
Before the Schism, both East and West recognized the primacy of the successor of Peter an the see of Rome.
Peter was the visible sign of unity in the early Church, just as his successor is today.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Hi Jose, great post.
Although I’m a little puzzled by your first questions. Like why Jesus quoted extensively from scripture? Well why not quote from scripture? Is there a reason he shouldn’t? Of course scripture is valuable to quote from, no one denies that. But Jesus did introduce his own teachings, when he said things like, “The Law says this, but I say that…”
The same with St Peter; he is trying to convince a Jewish crowd. So, he quotes from what they all accept. The Pharisees did accept the tradition of a resurrection, but the Sadducees didn’t. The future ressurrection at that time was largely a still a tradition, even though it is mentioned in Maccabees.
What Traditions are interpreted on the same level as Scripture? Well, infant baptism. The meaning of baptism. Worship on Sunday. That Jesus died on a cross. And, most importantly, what is Scripture and how to interpret it.
An example of a tradition established by the apostles was that Jesus was God. We know this was a tradition is because Ignatius mentions Jesus as God as early as 110 AD. This was too early for scriptural exegesis to determine that truth. Therefore, it was a teaching taught orally to the early Christians, which was later ratified at Nicea. They didn’t have to wait around for scripture to be written and later gathered together and exegeted to know this.
Where is there a book of Tradition as the oral Word of God to be interpreted the same as Scripture? Of course there isn’t such a thing because by definition Tradition is unwritten. However, some traditions do get written down and dogmatized eventually. Some get written down and some are never written down, but just done. You do it, but then someone comes along and challenges why you are doing it. You stutter and say, because that’s the way it has always been done, a tradition. Now, it is easy to say it is a tradition, but harder to prove when it started, if reference to it has never happened to be written down. The apostles did it! Well, how do you prove to someone who doesn’t want to believe that the apostles did it if it hasn’t been written down?
A case in point is baptism by pouring or sprinkling. Catholics defended the practice by saying it came from the early apostolic church, but had no written proof that the early church did it. Until the Didache was discovered, and it definitely gave proof that the early church did allow sprinkling or pouring. Of course to some people, any evidence, either written or not, that has not been defined as scripture, can safely be ignored.
What is your take on this? Getting to the roots of a practice or tradition is a muddy business.
I think yuur comments on trust are very important and illuminating, and that the violation of trust has had lingering consequences that are coming to fruition today. I’ll comment on that maybe tomorrow!
Mack
P
Phineas
Guest
QUOTE=Pheonix;9385272]First, why did you insist on debating the Immaculate Conception? As I explained before, the original Reformers believed Mary was indeed sinless,
No where in scripture is she considered sinless and I gave clear texts showing she like the rest of us were sinners and needed a Savior. Citing early church fathers means nothing if they too contradict scripture. no one has yet answered me on why Jesus considered John the Baptist greater than she. I would appreciate someone explaining John’s preeminence.
First, worship on Saturday was part of the Old Covenant. Since the Old Covenant was fulfilled with the New Covenant, we are no longer bound to the laws of the Old Covenant. Thus, we are not bound to worship on Sunday.
Really, so the other 9 commandments are now no longer binding as well? Please read Matt 5:17-19 . So if the ten commandments are no longer binding and sin is the transgression of the law, than sin is no longer possible? .
Second, Scripture says that Sabbath was “a shadow of things to come.” This means it has been fulfilled by Christ, as Christ fulfilled everything from the Old Testament.
Col 2:14- 18 is clearly talking about the “handwriting of ordinances” which was the ceremonial law written by Moses; It was about the special feast day sabbaths and the food and drink offered on such days. The commandments of God written by Him on stone were never a shadow of anything. They are sure and stand fast forever Psm 111:7-8 and Matt 5:17-19
Third, Scripture and the Early Church Fathers make it blatantly clear that the new day of worship for the Christian is Sunday, or the “Lord’s Day.”
, Jesus said he was Lord of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27-28) Show me a scripture that says Sunday was the Lord’s day
Fourth, Christ Himself rose on a Sunday. Thus, why wouldn’t Christians want to worship on the day our Lord and Savior resurrected?
You can worship Him any day of the week you like, but the 7th day is the day He blessed and hallowed and no other, and we are told by God to honor and worship Him on that day. That is His law so don’t be so presumptuous as to try and rationalize it away to fit a man-made tradition
Have you not the responses geared towards this? The Catholic Church did NOT remove the verse from Exodus that states “thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). The Catholic Church simply combined verse four with the preceding verses: “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me” (Exodus 20:2-3).
Why did the Church do this? Because verses two through five of Exodus 20 deal with the exact same thing: IDOLATRY!
. The first commandment in the catholic catechism says"I am the LORD your God:you shall not have strange Gods before me. But I see nothing about warning of making an idol and worshiping it. In , just go to google images and type in "worshiping Mary’ and you will see Catholics bowing down before a statue of Mary. That is what happen when you start editing God’s commandments. Now it may be in other catechisms but why the discrepancies
You say that Exodus 20:4 is THE Second Commandment. Where is your evidence for this? After all, Exodus 20 does not list any of the Commandments as “THE Fourth Commandment” or “]THE Eighth Commandment.”
i am looking at your Catholic catechism of the ten commandments and the second commandment as stated in all the Bibles I know, including the catholic Douay-Rheims Bible is omitted. in the catechism statement of the ten commandments. And Speaking of redundancy, what could be more so than the Catholic version of dividing covetousness into two separate commandments.
This is false. The Third Commandment in the Catholic Church is not simply “Remember the Sabbath Day.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists the Third Commandment as:
"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."
I went and Googled Catholic catechism of the ten commandments and found 6 hits in a row stating the 3rd commandment as "“Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day” (Ex 20:8-11, Deut 5:12-15) On the seventh hit or so i came across a comprehensive catechism that listed the true statements of Ex 20:4. Why the differences between catechisms , I do not know,…
No where in scripture is she considered sinless and I gave clear texts showing she like the rest of us were sinners and needed a Savior. Citing early church fathers means nothing if they too contradict scripture. no one has yet answered me on why Jesus considered John the Baptist greater than she. I would appreciate someone explaining John’s preeminence.
First, worship on Saturday was part of the Old Covenant. Since the Old Covenant was fulfilled with the New Covenant, we are no longer bound to the laws of the Old Covenant. Thus, we are not bound to worship on Sunday.
Really, so the other 9 commandments are now no longer binding as well? Please read Matt 5:17-19 . So if the ten commandments are no longer binding and sin is the transgression of the law, than sin is no longer possible? .
Second, Scripture says that Sabbath was “a shadow of things to come.” This means it has been fulfilled by Christ, as Christ fulfilled everything from the Old Testament.
Col 2:14- 18 is clearly talking about the “handwriting of ordinances” which was the ceremonial law written by Moses; It was about the special feast day sabbaths and the food and drink offered on such days. The commandments of God written by Him on stone were never a shadow of anything. They are sure and stand fast forever Psm 111:7-8 and Matt 5:17-19
Third, Scripture and the Early Church Fathers make it blatantly clear that the new day of worship for the Christian is Sunday, or the “Lord’s Day.”
, Jesus said he was Lord of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27-28) Show me a scripture that says Sunday was the Lord’s day
Fourth, Christ Himself rose on a Sunday. Thus, why wouldn’t Christians want to worship on the day our Lord and Savior resurrected?
You can worship Him any day of the week you like, but the 7th day is the day He blessed and hallowed and no other, and we are told by God to honor and worship Him on that day. That is His law so don’t be so presumptuous as to try and rationalize it away to fit a man-made tradition
Have you not the responses geared towards this? The Catholic Church did NOT remove the verse from Exodus that states “thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). The Catholic Church simply combined verse four with the preceding verses: “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me” (Exodus 20:2-3).
Why did the Church do this? Because verses two through five of Exodus 20 deal with the exact same thing: IDOLATRY!
. The first commandment in the catholic catechism says"I am the LORD your God:you shall not have strange Gods before me. But I see nothing about warning of making an idol and worshiping it. In , just go to google images and type in "worshiping Mary’ and you will see Catholics bowing down before a statue of Mary. That is what happen when you start editing God’s commandments. Now it may be in other catechisms but why the discrepancies
You say that Exodus 20:4 is THE Second Commandment. Where is your evidence for this? After all, Exodus 20 does not list any of the Commandments as “THE Fourth Commandment” or “]THE Eighth Commandment.”
i am looking at your Catholic catechism of the ten commandments and the second commandment as stated in all the Bibles I know, including the catholic Douay-Rheims Bible is omitted. in the catechism statement of the ten commandments. And Speaking of redundancy, what could be more so than the Catholic version of dividing covetousness into two separate commandments.
This is false. The Third Commandment in the Catholic Church is not simply “Remember the Sabbath Day.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists the Third Commandment as:
"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."
I went and Googled Catholic catechism of the ten commandments and found 6 hits in a row stating the 3rd commandment as "“Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day” (Ex 20:8-11, Deut 5:12-15) On the seventh hit or so i came across a comprehensive catechism that listed the true statements of Ex 20:4. Why the differences between catechisms , I do not know,…
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
First - THANKS for the “Welcome”!
my apologies for such a harsh editing of your quote, but I just wanted to bring something up about “Peters faith”…
You see, I guess I don’t see Peters faith as anything more (or less, for that matter) “special” than that of - say - Simeon…
Who was Simeon? OK - here’s my reference below (gospel of Luke):
25 And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, 28 then he took Him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,
29 Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace,
According to Your word;
30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 A Light of revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel…
33 And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him. 34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, .Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed. 35 and a sword will pierce even your own soul.to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed…
As you see above, the Holy Spirit revealed Jesus as the Christ to Simeon, even while Jesus was an infant… (and, as you know it says in Matt 16:17 – "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you…)
And - consider this scripture below, from the gospel of John:
40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter.s brother. 41 He *found first his own brother Simon and *said to him, .We have found the Messiah. (which translated means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas.” (which is translated Peter).
As you see above, Andrew (along with others) had ALREADY recognized Jesus as “the Christ” (Messiah)…
So, I guess I just don’t get what is so “special” (for lack of a better way to put it) about “Peters faith”. I mean, there were others that preceeded Peter that had exactly the same faith, and had made exactly the same “confession”.
I guess what I’m saying is that I kinda think that “too big of a deal” is made of “Peters confession”… Sure, of course it’s tremendously important - especially coming from a wish-wash like Peter. But, honestly, that just makes me wonder if Jesus was saying “Simon, I’m going to build my church on you” just as an affirmation for the guy.
Two other gospels record the same “Peters Confession” scenario, but neither of them say anything about “… you are Rock, and upon this rock…”. It’s almost as if that wasn’t the important thing of the conversation. I mean, I guess it makes me think that Matthew records it as an “interesting incident”, but in the big scheme of things, Jesus’ statement may have been nothing more than a bit of “personal affirmation” for Simon, and thats all…
Just thoughts… Not trying to “prove” one thing or another…
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
That’s right, there is no scripture that says Sunday was the Lord’s day. Scripture does mention the Lord’s day, but does not say when it was! Scripture does not have to say when, because everybody already knew when that day was, Sunday. It was common knowledge which they knew by tradition, started by the practice of the apostles.
How can that be proven? Well, it can’t be. It is something you take on faith, that the church continued the practice of the apostles in this matter. In scripture there are oblique references to Sunday worship and if you know the traditon, you know what these references mean, otherwise you don’t. That’s what Peter is getting at when he says the unlearned twist the scriptures to their own destruction. Because the unlearned do not know tradition.
So, if you call it a man-made tradition, I suppose you can if you’re that willful. But I accept it as a tradition of the apostles and the early Christians, and if they considered it proper, it is proper enough for me. If Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and Jesus is also the lord, or head of the church, I see no difficulty with the church’s worship on Sunday. Saturday is still the sabbath, but Christians really do not have a sabbath any longer as the Jews did.
We trust the church to have properly given us scripture itself. But if we don’t trust the church, how can we trust scripture?
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
Ummm… wait a minute… Meeting on Sunday was “common knowledge”? Started by the practice of the apostles???
I’m sorry, but the apostles were JEWS.
Acts 2:46 - “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house…” (They continued to meet daily in the temple)
Acts 5:25 - “Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.” (Peter and John were teaching in the temple)
Acts 10:14 - “But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” (this happened about 10 years after the Resurrection - and Peter was still holding to the Jewish Law of not eating “unclean foods”)
Acts 13:42-44 - "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. (Paul and Barnabas - YEARS after the Resurrection - were still meeting with other Jews on the Sabbath)
Acts 18:19-21 - "And he [Paul] came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; 21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. (here, we see Paul in the Synagogue, and he tells the others that he must “keep this feast that comes in Jerusalem” - in other words, Paul is still observing the Jewish Feasts, like The Passover)
Acts 5:5-6 and 19-21 - (5-6) “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” (19-21) "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (here, we see the Christians in Jerusalem considering what to write to the Gentile believers, deciding that “we trouble them not” will full compliance to Jewish Law, which the “Jewish Christians” still continued with)
I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that Christians - who, for a time, were all Jews that believed in Christ - kept with their Jewish practices and worship, centered at the temple and in the synagogues. This eventually changed, once the persecution began. But, the apostles were Jews, and for them, the Sabbath was from Friday evening until Saturday evening.
Now, I’m not saying that we need to observe the Sabbath as the Jews did… (although, hey, maybe we should… shrug…) But, what I’m saying is this: The idea of meeting on Sundays is simply NOT to be found in scripture, and certainly NOT presented as any kind of “tradition” of the apostles. Generally, tradition holds that Christians (ie, the Jewish ones) began at some point to meet on Sunday mornings… Maybe so… (although, it should be noted that Sunday mornng was a “work day” in the Jewish culture). So, maybe some of them had breakfast together or something. I dunno…
I think it’s just a “long shot” to say that Sunday was considered “the Lords Day” by the apostles… Especially when you consider that for the Jews, a day BEGINS at sundown… I mean, that would imply that “the Lords Day” REALLY began on Saturday evening - but, you don’t find THAT in ANY tradition. I suspect strongly that the Sunday morning meetings (when they finally began) were just a time for some fellowship, very informal. It was probably the Gentile believers who eventually turned Sunday into “the Lords Day”. I doubt that the apostles had anything at all to do with it…
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It can also be said that that they were known as Christians years later and many of the Jewish practice were discarded now that they were not practicing Judaism anymore. Later gentiles were converted and more and more of the Jewish practices and traditions were abandoned too as Christianity took shape.
God bless.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Exactly. Christians don’t need to observe the Sabbath. The question that needs to be asked is: which is bigger Jesus or the Sabbath? It does not matter whether the Jews or the non-Jewish Christians that prevailed and made Sundays as the day for worship, more importantly is what day had more significance to them. As Judaism and therefore Sabbath were of the past, and Christianity as the new creation, it follows that the day of the Lord’s resurrection symbolized Christianity more than Sabbath did.
- Status