Saturday Sabbath

[Bob1]

As a practicing Catholic, with more time on my hands now. I have been trying to reconcile differences between the church / Christian church’s and the Bible.
on the subject of the Sabbath.
A similar question was asked by Truthseeker1 and answered by Jim Blackburn. & Michelle Arnold.
The church says its the old law and does not apply.
however the answer did not reconcile the problem, Jesus observed the Sabbath on Saturdays, the apostals also observed the Saturday Sabbath, if it were to be otherwise the apostals would have said so.
In fact Jesus said it would be easer to destroy heaven and earth than to change one tittle or jot of the law.
Either you uphold the Loads Commandments or you don’t. as a human being it would be nice to pick and chose, but the Lord does not allow it.
As far as I can see, the church changed the Sabbath to Sunday for political expediency during Constantine reign.
And please do not quote infallibility, or binding, if Christ could not do it, then he certainly couldn’t give Peter or the Church the power to do it.
I can understand as human beings the church will not wish to admit to error Even so long ago. However it could permit mass on Saturdays for those troubles souls like mine.
there are other discrepancies that I note. I wonder, if Christ came today, if he would condemn the mother church as he did the old church?
I know Christ said he will be with us always, but so is the lord and that didn’t help the Jewish church.
Is it possible for the church to go back to the basics, and start again? I mean through out all the man made rites and rituals, and go back to what he taught!

 

[mm1991]

I know of that, too.

But God said that the Sabbath was a day for REST.
Not for church.
It’s only fitting that Mass be on Sunday.
Saturday, all you need to do is rest.

 

[Walking_Home]

As a practicing Catholic, with more time on my hands now. I have been trying to reconcile differences between the church / Christian church’s and the Bible.
on the subject of the Sabbath.
A similar question was asked by Truthseeker1 and answered by Jim Blackburn. & Michelle Arnold.
The church says its the old law and does not apply.
however the answer did not reconcile the problem, Jesus observed the Sabbath on Saturdays, the apostals also observed the Saturday Sabbath, if it were to be otherwise the apostals would have said so.
In fact Jesus said it would be easer to destroy heaven and earth than to change one tittle or jot of the law.
Either you uphold the Loads Commandments or you don’t. as a human being it would be nice to pick and chose, but the Lord does not allow it.
As far as I can see, the church changed the Sabbath to Sunday for political expediency during Constantine reign.
And please do not quote infallibility, or binding, if Christ could not do it, then he certainly couldn’t give Peter or the Church the power to do it.
I can understand as human beings the church will not wish to admit to error Even so long ago. However it could permit mass on Saturdays for those troubles souls like mine.
there are other discrepancies that I note. I wonder, if Christ came today, if he would condemn the mother church as he did the old church?
I know Christ said he will be with us always, but so is the lord and that didn’t help the Jewish church.
Is it possible for the church to go back to the basics, and start again? I mean through out all the man made rites and rituals, and go back to what he taught!

---

A “practicing” Catholic — from your post it seems you are practicing something other ------Not Catholic.

 

[mattkubes]

A “practicing” Catholic — from your post it seems you are practicing something other ------Not Catholic.

I hate to say it, but I get the same feeling. Anyways, as Catholics, we know that the Sabbath was never changed - it always has been, and still is on Saturday. Sunday is the day that we celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord, and the Sabbath was a “mere shadow” of this.

This is the way it has always been understood. CA’s Sabbath or Sunday? article does a good job of treating this.

 

[Bob1]

ok
The church hasn’t changed the Sabbath. but nether does it encourage observance to it either, the opposite in fact.

I was going to agree to the additional day of worship (Sunday) however Jesus Christ did not and would not wish us to worship him. he only wants us to worship God, and “Believe in him” the addition of the Eucharist to worship does this. as in my OP Jesus said he did not come to change the Law.(ANY) and if you believe in him you will never die. Yes the disciples did break bread on Sunday and probable any other day of the week, it is not wrong to pray more than once a week. some worshipers go every day!
this in itself does not give credence to a change in the Law.

In CA’s Sabbath or Sunday? article. (Council of LaodiceaIt) says that the church wants to distance it self from Jewdaize. however Jesus was a Jew and observed all the Jewish customs, only defying and condemning man made rules. You cannot say the laws of Moses no longer apply, (rape, pillage, murder, let allown the 1st & 2nd commandments) the Lord would never have meant
that.
In fact when asked which was the most important commandment he agreed the 1st the most important and then gave us another no less important, to love one another saying the whole of the law rests upon these two commandments, he didn’t say you can forget the rest.
The Bible does not contradict itself, you just have to know how to intemperate what you read.
This is why I have such great difficulty reconciling the church teachings to the Bible.

 

[FCEGM]

ok
The church hasn’t changed the Sabbath. but nether does it encourage observance to it either, the opposite in fact.

I was going to agree to the additional day of worship (Sunday) however Jesus Christ did not and would not wish us to worship him. he only wants us to worship God, and “Believe in him” the addition of the Eucharist to worship does this. as in my OP Jesus said he did not come to change the Law.(ANY) and if you believe in him you will never die. Yes the disciples did break bread on Sunday and probable any other day of the week, it is not wrong to pray more than once a week. some worshipers go every day!
this in itself does not give credence to a change in the Law.

First, since the Lord Jesus Himself commanded that the Apostles “do this in memory of Me”, you don’t have the option of considering the Eucharist an “addition”. Further, it’s quite clear in the last book of Scripture that the Lord is most definitely to be worshiped. A reading of Revelation, chapter 5 might be helpful.

Second, such a charge by “Sabbath-Keepers” that the Catholic Church (and Orthodoxy) that we don’t follow the 10 Commandments overlooks is that we are no longer bound by the Law, of which the 10 Commandments are a part. If we are bound by the 10 Commandments as written, then we must also be subject to the specific punishments prescribed in the OT for breaking each Commandment. Yet, we are not. Thus, we are not bound by the 10 Commandments themselves (which are legal requirements), but by the righteousness (perfected in the Person of Christ) that lies behind each of the 10 Commandments. And so, by selecting Sunday as its day of worship, the Church holds to the righteousness of the Commandment while being free from the Law of the Commandment itself.

Further, no Christians of the early Church kept the Sabbath observance. On Saturdays, the earliest Christians lived and worshipped as Jews, evangelizing their Jewish brethren in the synagogues (a work). Their “day of rest,” the day on which they gathered to pray and worship among themselves exclusively was the following day, the Lord’s Day: Sunday.

To flesh this out a bit: there is a difference between being bound to do something (or not to do something) as a matter of law versus being bound to do something (or not to do something) as a matter of a Covenant of Love. E.G., it is wrong for a man to cheat on his wife. Now, until very recently, in many American states, it was actually a criminal offense to commit adultery - a violation of the law. Still today, if a woman divorces her husband for adultery, the law will award her for damages, etc. But, should a man avoid cheating on his wife just because of these laws?? Of course not. A man should not cheat on his wife because he loves her and has a covenant of love with her. See the distinction?

It is one thing to be in a Covenant based on Law (the Old Covenant) but quite another thing to be in a Covenant based on Love (the New Covenant). In both Covenants, adultery - to continue the example - is forbidden. But, in the Old Covenant, one avoided committing adultery because it was a violation of the Law that subjected you to punishments (remember the attempted stoning of the woman caught in adultery and the Lord’s intervention?). In the New Covenant, one avoids adultery because it violates the Covenant of Love between you and Jesus Christ, and outside of that Covenant of Love there is no salvation for you or anyone. This is an important distinction, because it personalizes our Covenant with God. We do not do righteous things merely because we’re scared of the Law and its punishments and so do what the Law demands. Rather, we do righteous things because we are in a Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ, and we do not want to ruin this Covenant (this “friendship” or love relationship) with Him. This is why St. Paul, in Romans 3:28, says that Christians are saved “by faith and not by the works of the Law.”

Now, as for the Ten Commandments themselves, as I said, we are not bound by them as a matter of law; we are bound by the righteousness behind these Commandments, which is the Righteousness of the Person of Jesus Christ, Who we are called to be like in all things. What this means is that we need to go beyond the mere letter of the Ten Commandments so as to keep the righteousness behind these (legal) Commandments perfectly. Jesus Himself tells us this in Matthew 5, where He says, in regard to adultery, for example (Matt 5:27-28):

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Likewise, in regard to the Commandment against murder (Matthew 5:21-23), Jesus says:

"You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But, I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother ‘Raqa’ (i.e., “Fool!’ - a specific curse in Aramaic) will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Jesus says other, similar things in this same passage. The teaching is clear: Under the Mosaic Law, people were forbidden to commit adultery and murder. However, Jesus (in the New Covenant) requires us to go further than that, for, under the Old Covenant, people would only keep the letter of these Laws and not go any deeper than that - because nothing required that they do so. For example, the Commandment “Thou shall not kill” was limited to the legal wording of the Commandment. According to the Pharisees, as long as one kept the specific legal conditions of the Commandment, one was “righteous before God.” Jesus denies this. For the Lord Jesus, the mere letter of the Law is not enough because, while the Commandment says, “Thou shall not kill,” it does not mean that you are righteous if you just beat a man within an inch of his life, just as long as you do not actually kill him. That was never God’s intention at all; the Commandment goes much deeper than that and Christians are obligated (by their Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ) to keep the Commandment much deeper than that; however, non-Christian Jews are not. They are only bound by the specific wording of the Commandment; that is, they are bound by the letter of the law, and on a mere basis of law. Christians are bound by the righteousness of Christ Himself (to Whom the Law points) because of their Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ.

Now, it should be pointed out that Jesus is not saying that looking at a woman lustfully or calling your brother a fool is the very same thing as physically cheating on your wife or physically killing your brother - for the latter sins are far more serious than the former. Rather, the Lord’s point is that we are called to a righteousness and a perfection that is so high that, not only would we never commit adultery or murder, but we would not even harbor lustful or unjustly violent thoughts in our hearts; that is, we are called to avoid even those things, for the sake of our love of Jesus and our desire to be perfect as He is perfect. Again, do you see the distinction?

And this is what Jesus means when, at the beginning of the passage in Matthew 5, He says:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. …I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

IOW, the Law must be kept in a way that is greater than a mere legal observance of the Commandments. It must be exceeded by the example of Him Who embodies the Righteousness behind the Law: Jesus Christ. This is why Christians are not bound by the Law, but by the New Covenant of grace and love in Jesus Christ. Sunday, is the day the fulfillment of the New Covenant in Love - not in Law- (and an anticipation of the day of the coming of the Lord of Love in glory) when the Divine Food that binds us to this Covenant is received by those united in the fullness of His Church.

Adventists, with their strong fixation on the OT, have adopted a very legal-minded attitude toward obeying God that is far more Jewish than it is Christian. But, again, we in the New Covenant are not a people of “law,” but a people of grace who live in a Covenant based on Love. No “law” binds you or any Christian to Jesus Christ; rather, you are bound to Him by a Covenant of Faith and Love, and you obey Him because of that Covenant of Faith and Love (per Hebrews 5:9, Romans 16:26, etc). Obedience does not have to be based on Law. Obedience can be based on faith and love, and the latter is the nature of the New Covenant in Christ. This is the Good News of the Gospel, and the Adventists are largely blind to it.

This site specifically addresses the “Seventh-Day observers” with links to fundamental articles on the subject:

diesdomini.com/

The Bible does not contradict itself, you just have to know how to intemperate what you read. This is why I have such great difficulty reconciling the church teachings to the Bible.

But, you do not have the authority to determine on your own what is or isn’t in accordance with Scripture - or, for that matter, what constitutes Scripture; that is the mission granted by Christ to His Church to protect His Self-Revelation. On your own you will just end up as one of a million denominations of one, interpreting Scripture as YOU think, rather than as Christ teaches.

 

[mattkubes]

Wow Frances - thank you for your posts. I’ve honestly never heard this explained so well! I’m sure we can all learn something from what you said.

 

[Bob1]

quote
“First, since the Lord Jesus Himself commanded that the Apostles “do this in memory of Me”, you don’t have the option of considering the Eucharist an “addition”. Further, it’s quite clear in the last book of Scripture that the Lord is most definitely to be worshiped. A reading of Revelation, chapter 5 might be helpful.”

I meant that if a normal church service was to pray to the Lord our God then the addition of the Eucharist/holy communion. was sufficient to remember Jesus by as he Himself commanded that the Apostles “do this in memory of Me”.( Brake Bread and drink wine ) he did not command them to worship him.

Quote
“your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and pharisees,”

This I can totally agree with, however this is still following the 10 commandments and going the extra mile.

Quote
Further, no Christians of the early Church kept the Sabbath observance. On Saturdays, the earliest Christians lived and worshipped as Jews, evangelizing their Jewish brethren in the synagogues (a work). Their “day of rest,” the day on which they gathered to pray and worship among themselves exclusively was the following day, the Lord’s Day: Sunday."

“Earliest Christians lived and worshipped as Jews, evangelizing their Jewish brethren in the synagogues (a work)”.on Saturday. Even Jesus said to "it was permitted to preach on the Sabbath that they have dispensation to do that. So they would have honored the Sabbath as Jews.
so again although they might have also have worshiped on Sunday still does not give credence not to honer the Sabbath. and as one is supposed to go the extra mile even to this commandment as all commandments the church seems to infer that this commandment is of no consequence.

Quote
“But, you do not have the authority to determine on your own what is or isn’t in accordance with Scripture - or, for that matter, what constitutes Scripture; that is the mission granted by Christ to His Church to protect His Self-Revelation. On your own you will just end up as one of a million denominations of one, interpreting Scripture as YOU think, rather than as Christ teaches.”

Scribes and Pharisees had this job and were condemned for leading their followers astray. Scripture is what is written it cannot be changed. And what Christ taught is well documented in the Bible.

If one part of scripture seems to contradict another, means you have misinterpreted one or the other. now if one is prescribed to the lord then you have misinterpreted the other, not difficult to understand.

Quote
“Commandments are a part. If we are bound by the 10 Commandments as written, then we must also be subject to the specific punishments prescribed in the OT for breaking each Commandment. Yet, we are not”

Punishments can be changed, instead of stoning to death one can be condemned to eternal damnation. are you saying I can break all the commandments and not be punished? Ok if I truly repent I can be forgiven, then again so was the adulteress. and marry of Magdalena still under the OT.

Yes the ten commandments take a back seat to the Resurrection of Christ, but they are still the laws given to us by God. and unchanged by Christ as he himself said.

Sorry if I seem to go on but the last statement is the hardest to get round.

 

[mattkubes]

Punishments can be changed, instead of stoning to death one can be condemned to eternal damnation. are you saying I can break all the commandments and not be punished? Ok if I truly repent I can be forgiven, then again so was the adulteress. and marry of Magdalena still under the OT.

I think you might need to reread Frances’ posts. How did you come to that conclusion?

Yes, punishments and other such aspects of the Old Law can and have been changed - issues of morality cannot. Observance of the Sabbath is not a part of natural law written on the hearts of man - the other commandments do deal directly with morality.

Colossians 2 is pretty clear: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a festival day or of the new moon or of the sabbaths, Which are a shadow of things to come…” My SDA friend is quick to suggest that the sabbath referred to here is not the Saturday Sabbath, but that is not how the text has historically been understood…no, and it’s bizarre to assume that Christians missed this glaring mistake for the better part of 1800 years.

 

[FCEGM]

Wow Frances - thank you for your posts. I’ve honestly never heard this explained so well! I’m sure we can all learn something from what you said.

Thank you, matt. I’m just passing along what I’ve learned from others far more learned.

 

[FCEGM]

I meant that if a normal church service was to pray to the Lord our God then the addition of the Eucharist/holy communion. was sufficient to remember Jesus by as he Himself commanded that the Apostles “do this in memory of Me”.( Brake Bread and drink wine ) he did not command them to worship him.

Since Jesus is God Incarnate, it should go without saying that worship is due Him. You cannot divorce His human nature from His Divine nature. Thus, e.g., the Church offers us such beautiful opportunities for worship of Christ as Benediction, Perpetual Adoration, or 48 hours Adoration.

This I can totally agree with, however this is still following the 10 commandments and going the extra mile.

But what is the motivation for going the extra mile? Is it obedience to the Law or to the New Covenant of Love? If it is the first, than it is not Christian love for God, but a desire to be righteous by doing the law, not by being transformed in Christ through divine charity.

Even Jesus said to "it was permitted to preach on the Sabbath that they have dispensation to do that. So they would have honored the Sabbath as Jews. so again although they might have also have worshiped on Sunday still does not give credence not to honer the Sabbath. and as one is supposed to go the extra mile even to this commandment as all commandments the church seems to infer that this commandment is of no consequence.

It’s not a matter of “they might have worshiped on Sunday”, but that they did worship on Sunday precisely because that was the day the New Covenant was established by the resurrection of the Lord.

Scribes and Pharisees had this job and were condemned for leading their followers astray. Scripture is what is written it cannot be changed. And what Christ taught is well documented in the Bible.

But you have no reason other than the authority of the Church to know that Scripture IS Scripture. Do you think that the Lord did not improve upon the earlier Covenant?! The whole of the Scribes and Pharisess could be in error, but since the coming of the Savior in the midst of His People we are in a far better situation because the Incarnation changes the nature of the Covenant. Further, in appointing Peter and his successors as visible heads of the Church to protect His Self-Revelation, the Lord has ensured that His followers will not be led astray if they heed the Magisterial Office of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him. Our Savior gave authority to his Apostles to “bind and loose”, He also said to them, “he who listens to you listens to me, he who rejects you rejects me”. Check Matt. 18:17-18,*28:18-20; Lk 10:16. It is wise, then to form our minds in obedience to Christ, not to ourselves. If we divorce ourselves from the visible head of the Church, we have no assurance that WE can rightly judge what is to be believed and practiced.

If one part of scripture seems to contradict another, means you have misinterpreted one or the other. now if one is prescribed to the lord then you have misinterpreted the other, not difficult to understand.

“Seems” is the operative word. To one ill-formed in the Faith, it may seem that one passage is contradicting another or that a teaching or practice of the Faith is contradicting a given passage Scripture.

Punishments can be changed, instead of stoning to death one can be condemned to eternal damnation. are you saying I can break all the commandments and not be punished? Ok if I truly repent I can be forgiven, then again so was the adulteress. and marry of Magdalena still under the OT.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying, that if you obey a given law because it is the law, rather than obey Christ in love then you are operating according to the Old Covenant, not the New.

Yes the ten commandments take a back seat to the Resurrection of Christ, but they are still the laws given to us by God. and unchanged by Christ as he himself said.

Again, we are not bound by the 10 Commandments themselves (which are legal requirements), but by the righteousness (perfected in the Person of Christ) that lies behind each of the 10 Commandments. So, by worshipping on Sunday the Church holds to the righteousness of the Commandment while being free from the Law of the Commandment itself.

And it is not without reason that we see Revelation specifically highlighting the day on which the author has the vision: “the Lord’s Day”. This shows that the Church was already living in recognition that the eighth day, the day of the fullness of the New Creation in Christ, was its day of worship for it was not the day of the old creation (for which the Sabbath was a memorial), but the New. The Church saw precisely that the Resurrection of Christ was transformative to the liturgical practice of the Old Covenant, especially with the Sacrifice of Christ (and our Eucharistic participation in It) and the day on which His Resurrection was memorialized.

 

[theistgal]

As a practicing Catholic, …

Keep practicing … you’ll get it right eventually.

 

[Bob1]

Quote
“I think you might need to reread Frances’ posts. How did you come to that conclusion?”
Frances Post

Quote
“Commandments are a part. If we are bound by the 10 Commandments as written, then we must also be subject to the specific punishments prescribed in the OT for breaking each Commandment. Yet, we are not”

clearly states I am not “subject to the specific punishments prescribed in the OT”
perhaps i have read this wrong however it is difficult to read it any other way.

Quote
“Observance of the Sabbath is not a part of natural law written on the hearts of man - the other commandments do deal directly with morality.”

So one can forget commandments 1,2,3 as well! I think not.

1800 years ago would bring you roughly to (Council of LaodiceaIt)
need I say any more.

 

[theistgal]

Just out of curiosity, Bob, how do you justify calling yourself a “practicing Catholic” when you don’t agree with a very basic teaching of the Catholic Church?

 

[FCEGM]

I think you might need to reread Frances’ posts. How did you come to that conclusion?

Yes, punishments and other such aspects of the Old Law can and have been changed - issues of morality cannot. Observance of the Sabbath is not a part of natural law written on the hearts of man - the other commandments do deal directly with morality.

Colossians 2 is pretty clear: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a festival day or of the new moon or of the sabbaths, Which are a shadow of things to come…” My SDA friend is quick to suggest that the sabbath referred to here is not the Saturday Sabbath, but that is not how the text has historically been understood…no, and it’s bizarre to assume that Christians missed this glaring mistake for the better part of 1800 years.

Important points, Matt!

If Bob wants to cite Jesus’ statement that He came to fulfill the law and not to destroy it, he must then explain why it was that Jesus also allowed the Apostles to pick grain on the sabbath (much to the consternation of the Pharisees) and why did Jesus make the rather curious statement that “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath”?

If Bob wants to cite Jesus’ adherence to the law then he must explain why Jesus did not condemn the Apostles for breaking the Sabbath law forbidding such things as picking heads of grain to eat. And, if the law is the focus for his reasoning then to be consistent he must also believe in circumcision on the eighth day for entry into God’s Covenant even though the Jerusalem council clearly eliminated this requirement (as part of its authority to bind and loose). (And isn’t it telling that circumcision was to be done on the eighth day?) St. Paul, too, had quite a bit to say about Christians not being bound to Jewish Old Covenant ritual laws. The Sabbath would be such a ritual to which ritual Christians are no longer bound.

Historically he is on very thin ice, too, because according to Patristic sources such as the Didache – written during Apostolic times – the day for worship was the Lord’s Day which is a clearly and exclusively Christian term meaning Sunday. The term does not appear in the Old Testament. If the practice of Sunday worship is traced back to the first century (as documented by evidence such as the Didache) – while the Apostles were still alive and directing the Church – then either the Apostles practiced Sunday worship, also, or the universal Church in all provinces, cultures, and languages around the known world wherever the gospel message was spread during the first century unilaterally disobeyed the Apostles - and all without so much as one recorded word of protest from the Apostles! Which scenario seems more likely?

 

[Bob1]

I agree most strongly with most of the churches teachings. Which I might add do not differ much from most Christian teachings, only minor variations of the same thing.
However it was one Easter, I started to wonder why we do not celebrate the Sabbath as our lord died on the Friday and it was the Sabbath the next day, I have scoured the Bible for an answer, and can only come to the conclusion it was the Council of LaodiceaIt. which changed the day, more for political expedience than anything else. taking me back to the Scribes and Pharisees of our lords day.
If you look on Catholic web sights they go on about Infallibility and binding,
But it is written Christ did not come to change the law and could not.
so how could the Council of LaodiceaIt do it?

 

[theistgal]

I agree most strongly with most of the churches teachings. Which I might add do not differ much from most Christian teachings, only minor variations of the same thing.
However it was one Easter, I started to wonder why we do not celebrate the Sabbath as our lord died on the Friday and it was the Sabbath the next day, I have scoured the Bible for an answer, and can only come to the conclusion it was the Council of LaodiceaIt. which changed the day, more for political expedience than anything else. taking me back to the Scribes and Pharisees of our lords day.
If you look on Catholic web sights they go on about Infallibility and binding,
But it is written Christ did not come to change the law and could not.
so how could the Council of LaodiceaIt do it?

Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ?

Do you believe that the Pope, Christ’s vicar on earth, has been given the power (through St. Peter) “to bind and to loose” here on earth?

If so (and if you’re a practicing Catholic, your answers to both should be “yes”), then why not simply accept the fact that the Catholic Church has decreed that Catholics worship on Sunday, and not Saturday?

We are supposed to obey the Church’s teachings, whether or not we fully understand them. If you can’t accept this teaching on the Church’s authority, how can you accept anything else it teaches?

 

[Bob1]

Important points, Matt!

If Bob wants to cite Jesus’ statement that He came to fulfill the law and not to destroy it, he must then explain why it was that Jesus also allowed the Apostles to pick grain on the sabbath (much to the consternation of the Pharisees) and why did Jesus make the rather curious statement that “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath”?

If Bob wants to cite Jesus’ adherence to the law then he must explain why Jesus did not condemn the Apostles for breaking the Sabbath law forbidding such things as picking heads of grain to eat. And, if the law is the focus for his reasoning then to be consistent he must also believe in circumcision on the eighth day for entry into God’s Covenant even though the Jerusalem council clearly eliminated this requirement (as part of its authority to bind and loose). (And isn’t it telling that circumcision was to be done on the eighth day?) St. Paul, too, had quite a bit to say about Christians not being bound to Jewish Old Covenant ritual laws. The Sabbath would be such a ritual to which ritual Christians are no longer bound.

Historically he is on very thin ice, too, because according to Patristic sources such as the Didache – written during Apostolic times – the day for worship was the Lord’s Day which is a clearly and exclusively Christian term meaning Sunday. The term does not appear in the Old Testament. If the practice of Sunday worship is traced back to the first century (as documented by evidence such as the Didache) – while the Apostles were still alive and directing the Church – then either the Apostles practiced Sunday worship, also, or the universal Church in all provinces, cultures, and languages around the known world wherever the gospel message was spread during the first century unilaterally disobeyed the Apostles - and all without so much as one recorded word of protest from the Apostles! Which scenario seems more likely?

Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees **for upholding mans law **
The Sabbath is 1 of the 10 Commandments not an additional commandment like circumcision. the lord said his followers did not have to be circumcised. I hope I do not have to answer all these questions which the answers to are well known.
No it was the Council of LaodiceaIt that changes the day of the Sabbath.

see Sabbath or Sunday Catholic answers

 

[Bob1]

Do you believe that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ?

Do you believe that the Pope, Christ’s vicar on earth, has been given the power (through St. Peter) “to bind and to loose” here on earth?

If so (and if you’re a practicing Catholic, your answers to both should be “yes”), then why not simply accept the fact that the Catholic Church has decreed that Catholics worship on Sunday, and not Saturday?

We are supposed to obey the Church’s teachings, whether or not we fully understand them. If you can’t accept this teaching on the Church’s authority, how can you accept anything else it teaches?

! Yes
2 “to bind and to loose” here on earth? more to do with sins. if Christ couldn’t do it neither can the church.
3/4 Blind faith got the Jews into the mess they are in, otherwise they would still be the chosen race.