There is nothing to come to term with. Peter was of the church that kept all the commandments of God. Including the Sabbath. The real question is, what will God have us to do? Not what we like or think is right.
You have absolutely no proof that that the early church kept the sabbath and plenty of proof that they didn’t…But you gotta keep to the company line! Yawn zzzzzzzzz
Hello christian 777… Since you feel peter was not part of the catholic church then please let us all know what church he was part of.
Actually, if he were offering to give me the gun, I might take him on up on it. Been a lot of burglaries in our neighborhood.
Those were medieval men with medieval mindsets, and such social upheaval as the Reformation brougth forth political strife and bloodletting on both sides. Those violent days characterized the violent men who lived during them. If the Reformation had happened 30 years ago instead of 500, it would’ve been far less bloody and we’d all be on better terms. with one another.
Their worship was the breaking of bread on the first day of the week (not the last day of the week). The laws of Mosaic worship gave way to the laws of Messianic worship. Sacrificial rights involiving the blood of animals gave way the the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25) .
Do be charitable. There are many who have grievances against someone in the Catholic Church and who take these out on any Catholic available, or against doctrine or tradition. If we are patient when they are not, our patience bears greater witness to the Truth.C77 has a very narrow boxed in view of everything .Never mind him trying to wrap his head around anything CatholicTo him and others like him we are “the Great Satan”.So trying to get him accept even historical truths is like teaching a sheep to cha-cha-It just can’t be done.
God will have us obey the New Covenant, which fulfills and replaces the Old. We are no longer beholden to the form of Mosaic Law, though the substance remains. For example, the substance of separation from pagan worship remains, though the form changes. Levitical and Deuteronomic laws command to Israel to avoid certain clothing and foods to separate themselves from the pagan tribes who lived around them. That separation is acheived for 1st Century Christians by avoiding food offered to idols and avoiding imitating the pagans in behavior. Note that Paul writes that Christians are not beholden to ritual washings or purification by avoiding certain foods (ie, Col 2:16, Heb 9:10). Thus the expression changes, not the intent.
If the Sabbath day runs from Saturday at sunset to Sunday at sunset, so that it includes Saturday night at midnight, then all services that take place within that time period comprise worship on the Sabbath. Is that correct?
Precisely, ryan
; and such practices as almsgiving and divine praise which the Jews attached especially to the Sabbath have been transferred to the Day of Resurrection -as is seen in 1 Cor. 16. And there is, of course, the witness of the change from sabbath-keeping to worship on the Lord’s Day in the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians (c.a. A.D. 110); St. Ignatius, who with St. Polycarp was a hearer of St. John and the immediate successor of St. Peter to the bishopric of Antioch wrote: “If, then, those who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer sabbathing but living by the Lord’s Day, on which we came to life through Him and through His death. . .” Sunday worship can be seen in the Didache (A.D. 140): “On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks after confessing you transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure.” It can be seen in the First Apology of St. Justin, Martyr (c.a. A.D. 146-155): “The Day of the Sun is the day on which we all gather in a common meeting, because it is the first day, the day on which God, changing darkness and matter, created the world, and it is the day on which Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.”The errors of “the church” were always known. She succeeded by eradicating those who opposed her. It is estimated that she was responsible for more deaths than those in the world wars. Why would the church forbid persons from reading the bible and seek to kill those who made it available to the common people?I guess my quesiton is - why did it take until 1863 for Joseph Bates, James White, Ellen G. White, and J. N. Andrews to see the error of the Catholic Church’s ways? I also pose this question to any protestant as well. Why did it take 1500 years after Christ established His Chruch on earth for Martin Luther to believe that he was right and the rest of the Church was wrong?
SDA’s also fall into the fallacy of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) - apparently they do not realize that the traditions of the Catholic Church were around prior to the New Testament ever being written down.
Just saying…
More rubbish from the rubbish squad.That has to be the most outrageous lie yet.No century ever has been bloodier then the twentieth.The body count was a amazingly high.You have two world wars and purges by the commies in both east and west.You have mechanized weapons that kill way more efficiently then a sword could,guns that fire multiple rounds and bombs that fall from the sky.Try another lie.That one will not fly.Beside the Black Death that decimated Europe the various wars if you add the outrageous amount of concocted deaths that have been added on by persons like you ,you would have and virtually next to no one left.Since logically and historically we know that did not happen we have yet another lie,a calumny,against Catholics.the amount of lies that have been promulgated by you and yours is rather large and rather sad.
Weasel words - passive language and “always known”. By whom were these errors known, and was the response of those who knew of the errors an expression of correct doctrine or another error in itself?
You’re still here. Can you name the last person executed by the Catholic Church?
Weasel claim: passive language. Also, I don’t believe you have the resources to verify this, so I’m pulling the baloney card and asking for your source.
If the sole grievance the Church had against the heretics was reading from the Bible and making it available to the common people, this would be a terrible legacy.
Did you realize that you started with denying that the church killed more person than those killed in the twentieth century than denying that the church was responsible for the death of many? Does that then mean that deep down you admit that the church did kill many Christians? Please note that this is not to put you down or any other catholic for that matter but we need to take a close look at the evidence.
Rhetorical error: Proof by assertion. I could likewise ask “Do you still do terrible things to your dog with a fork?” You previously argued that the Catholic Church is responsible for more deaths than those in the two World Wars combined. We await the statistical evidence, the accounting, and until such time cannot accept such a claim.
Actually, that wasn’t denied. We know that Catholic forces killed thousands of Muslims in defense against the Moorish invasion of Europe.
Rhetorical error: Begging the question. When you present your accounting of the deaths caused by the Catholic Church, we will examine your specific line items of number of Christians killed.
Which in the form of body counts should be categorical and numeric.
Rhetorical error: Premise-Conclusion gap. Your argument is of the form:
Your evidence is non-specific. Paul elsewhere also wrote about heretical groups with more specificity, including those who focused on genealogies (1 Tm 1:4) and those continued to adhere to Mosaic Law (Ti 3:9). Given Gnostic texts that have survived to this day, it is thought that genealogies (which feature strongly in Gnostic cosmology) in Timothy refer to Gnostic groups who we know were active even before the time of Christ and who subsequently adopted a Christological stance. And we know that Jewish converts continually had to be reminded that they were freed of the obligations of the Mosaic Law. From early Christian writers - those who identify themselves as followers of Christ and leaders of congregations - we know of other groups who taught heretical doctrines. So it is not that ‘things started to go wrong early’ but rather that divergent understandings arose and asserted themselves potently enough to be considered a threat to the early Church. However, in order to include the Catholic Church in these groups, one must provide specific condemnation as is done for the Gnostics in Paul’s letter to Timothy, as well as for the Docetists in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (as one example).
The context of Daniel 7:25 is the 7th century BC and is more immediate to the Greeks and Seleucids than to the Roman Empire. If the Roman Empire is included, we know of many villains among the emperors who martyred Christians. Again, this does not uniquely show the Catholic Church as contemptible person.
The citation of Rev 12 is appropriate, but your interpretation is vague. The Catholic Church was underground for quite some time, though where the local magistrate had been converted it could have a more visible presence.
And often not escaping. Consider, again, the martyrs.
Thank you for posting a link. While it gives something of an accounting, I am inclined to take the list with a heavy grain of salt.
God does not kill people? Have you read the Old Testament?
Are you suggesting that we Catholics who live in the 21st century and have never personally taken a life are responsible for the blood of those who died centuries ago? Will God have His revenge against us for actions we, personally, did not commit?
And you can put forth this argument without calling the blood of many on the hands of those who had no part in it. You can also do it without citing biased writings and rekindling a spirit of hatred. You can indeed oppose the Catholic Church in love, but you cannot do it in a spirit of love by referring to texts that argue “Popery” as the enemy of civil and religious liberty.