Seventh Day Adventists

[tqualey]

Hi, (name removed by moderator),

Ahhhh… would you accept a substitute of ‘bovine’ for your ‘equine’ metaphor?

Enjoyed your post.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Richard,

I, too, would be interested in your answering HC’s quesiton:

See, my point is this, you believe that at some mysterious point in time (notwithstanding the period between the actual canonization of the Old and New Testaments) that God took away this Apostilic authority and left us with only Scripture to guide His Church.

Looking forward to hearing from you - or, anyone else who can actually answer this question.

God bless

 

[happilycatholic]

Hi, HC,

Don’t lose your cool … I, too, found the post rude, offensive and in violation with CAF rules. I reported this to the Mod and we will just see what happens.

My suggestion is that you just ignore future posts.

God bless

Thanks Tom. I hope to get some good discussion going from here out.

HC

 

[greggy53]

All of them seem to have beat a hasty retreat.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Greggy53,

You know… I’ve noticed that, too!

All of them seem to have beat a hasty retreat.

It would seem that the posters who do this have a terrible burden to carry - and, really, they should be more pittied then scorned. Think of it, if we had been told a lie and had believed it all of these years … and then simply asked to read the actual words in their abridged bible - without any fancy footwork … you know, just the words that are there - and then defend them with what they are using for dogma… I’d beat a hasty retreat, too.

It is either leave - or, admit at least there there is more to this matter then they had previously realized. This can easily be an agonizing time for those who are sincere about finding inerrant God’s Message and they plow through their church’s error filled words.

God bless

 

[greggy53]

Hi, Greggy53,

You know… I’ve noticed that, too!

It would seem that the posters who do this have a terrible burden to carry - and, really, they should be more pittied then scorned. Think of it, if we had been told a lie and had believed it all of these years … and then simply asked to read the actual words in their abridged bible - without any fancy footwork … you know, just the words that are there - and then defend them with what they are using for dogma… I’d beat a hasty retreat, too.

It is either leave - or, admit at least there there is more to this matter then they had previously realized. This can easily be an agonizing time for those who are sincere about finding inerrant God’s Message and they plow through their church’s error filled words.

God bless

They have been told by their leaders that Catholics don’t know the scriptures, so when they bump into ones that do they get stymied!

 

[happilycatholic]

They have been told by their leaders that Catholics don’t know the scriptures, so when they bump into ones that do they get stymied!

Well, they shout from the highest mountain about how the *catholic Church changed the Sabbath *and then try this thing where they attempt to make us prove that God changed it or the Apostles changed it…well they didn’t and neither did the Church.

Christ commanded us to receive Him in Bread and Wine on the first day of each week and He made a point to make Himself resurrected exactly three days after He was crucified. That was no accident. He said many, many times he would “rebuild the Temple” in three days. That is why we worship on Sunday. It would be hugely significant if Christ had done either of these two things on the Sabbath. We would almost have to think Christ meant to make a point here . Christ didn’t just fulfill the OT prophesies, He dotted every “i” and crossed every “t”.

IMHO, What SDAs and other Sabbath Keepers fail to understand is there is something even more significant in God’s will for us than the Creation of Man, that is the Salvation of Man. The fact that we can be with the Father in Heaven without stain of sin is more and above the Creation. Our rest is Jesus Christ is so much deeper and more meaningful than a symbolic rest. The sabbath rest was a memorial, Christ is the Real Sacraficial Lamb of God. One Covenant is written in stone, the other is written in blood. This is no accident or coincidence.

If the Sabbath were a sufficient covenant for all God’s people, He would not have made a new one.

It’s fine with me that SDA’s, Jews and whomever else worships the Lord on Saturday, Thursday or whatever day they like. I just don’t know why the need to condemn Sunday worship. The Jews don’t condemn us for Sunday worship, why should SDAs?

Why should this offend the SDAs more than the Jews? Did you ever ask yourself why Jews don’t evangelize?

Do that sometime and see what you come up with.

 

[greggy53]

Right, it would be one thing if they said “Hey we think Christians should worship on Saturday and here is why …etc” but they take it to a whole different level when they say that “not only should you worship on Saturday, but if you worship on Sunday you are worshiping the whore of Babylon”, or some such nonsense.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, HC

I have a theory…

It’s fine with me that SDA’s, Jews and whomever else worships the Lord on Saturday, Thursday or whatever day they like. I just don’t know why the need to condemn Sunday worship. The Jews don’t condemn us for Sunday worship, why should SDAs?

William Miller (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerites ) and his splinter group of disaffected Protestants needed something to attract people to them - how does “Marketing” - in the sense of promotion and advertising - sound as the reason behind this move. 'Predicting the date for the Second Coming was not working out. These ideas were picked up by Ellen & Co (but, not Miller’s non-gift for ‘predicting’ the exact date for the end of the world which would have been another Diasppointment.) Worshiping on Sunday immedately separates the SDA from other Protestants and allows them to condemn the CC for developing Sunday worship.

Just a theory…

God bless

 

[happilycatholic]

Hi, HC

I have a theory…

William Miller (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerites ) and his splinter group of disaffected Protestants needed something to attract people to them - how does “Marketing” - in the sense of promotion and advertising - sound as the reason behind this move. 'Predicting the date for the Second Coming was not working out. These ideas were picked up by Ellen & Co (but, not Miller’s non-gift for ‘predicting’ the exact date for the end of the world which would have been another Diasppointment.) Worshiping on Sunday immedately separates the SDA from other Protestants and allows them to condemn the CC for developing Sunday worship.

Just a theory…

God bless

Exactly, and even more befitting this theory is their unique fundemental of Investigative Judgement. Jesus in fact wasn’t coming to earth to judge the living and the dead, He was actually entering His Heavenly Sanctuary to complete His work of “the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary” which at the end of such time, the period of probation will be closed.

Which we believe Christ completed His “work” on the cross, mostly because He said so, “It is accomplished”.

Blessings,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

Hi, HC

I have a theory…

William Miller (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerites ) and his splinter group of disaffected Protestants needed something to attract people to them - how does “Marketing” - in the sense of promotion and advertising - sound as the reason behind this move. 'Predicting the date for the Second Coming was not working out. These ideas were picked up by Ellen & Co (but, not Miller’s non-gift for ‘predicting’ the exact date for the end of the world which would have been another Diasppointment.) Worshiping on Sunday immedately separates the SDA from other Protestants and allows them to condemn the CC for developing Sunday worship.

Just a theory…

God bless

Oh, yeah, and also worth noting…their hugest blunder yet in interpreting Revelation. So what of their other Bible interpreting skills? Does it sound like the Holy Spirit is 100% behind this church? He’s with the church as He is all Christians, but that’s about the gist of it I think.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Not at all. You seemed to be trying to use Paul’s instruction to the Jews to look to the Gospels in Scripture as a proof of your disput of Oral Tradition in the Church. It seemed as though you misunderstood Paul to be speaking of the Gospels of Christ as recorded in the New Testament to prove this. But nonetheless, Paul was preaching the Gospel.

This is Oral Tradition.

Ok, you need to clarify this statement. You have me using, looking, and disputing all in the first sentence. Then you say that I “misunderstood Paul to be speaking of the Gospels” implying that he wasn’t, and then you say “But nonetheless, Paul was *preaching the Gospel.” This is at best confusing and at worst nonsense.

Obviously, the New Testament Gospels were not inspired as of this time, so Paul couldn’t have been speaking of them.

Speaking of them where?

]That would bring us to the conclusion that Paul was referring

to the Old Testament Gospels and preaching (Oral Tradition) the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Of coarse Paul preached. If thats what you define as (oral Tradition) as we don’t have a problem.

Now, in order to do this Paul would have

to be speaking of things implied in the Old Testament, but not explicitly stated .

Please consider these vs.
Galatians 1
1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me

You can see here that Paul was Preaching not to the Jews, but to gentiles (heathen). He was preaching things taught him by Jesus Christ Himself.

Paul is actually doing exactly

what the Church Magesterium does today, uses it’s Apostolic authority to guide its believers through Scripture, even those things that are implicitly stated.

You will notice v. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. So, does your chuch magesterium do this, preach only the gospel that Paul preached and none other. Well, infant baptizm and Sunday observance. praying to saints, the assumption of Mary (ex cathedra). Mary as co-redemtrix, the sinlessness of Mary and on and on. Tells us that your church is not the one that is preserving the scriptures, but the one Paul warns against as being accursed for preaching another gospel.

See, my point is this, you believe that at some mysterious point in time (notwithstanding the period between the actual canonization of the Old and New Testaments) that God took away this Apostilic authority and left us with only Scripture to guide His Church.
Can you show me where God did that?

Again you tell me what I believe. I appreciate the attempt , but I believe that the CC does not now nor did it ever have this, what you call apostolic authority. The scriptures are an authority unto themselves because they are THE WORD OF GOD.Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Paul is clearly using Apostilic authority here to teach things that are not explicit in Scripture. greggy has shown you were the Church is in authority over Scripture.

I don’t know what scriptures you are talking about here or what post of greggy’s you are talking about.

So, we’ve clearly shown you these two ways in which the Church was leading Christ’s Ministry.

I’m sure you believe this, but since you fail to provide the post numbers or quotes in which this is “clearly shown” I must deny the veracity of this statement.

Not to mention the fact that you in some arbitrary way, believe the Church had the authority to decide which books would be in the Bible, but not how to interpret the same Scriptures? Or maybe the Church could be infallible in it’s cannonizing the Bible, but not it’s interpretation of it?

Wow! You seem to know what I believe better than I do. Again you attempt to tell me what I believe. The people that put the bible together were early christians, but they certainly were not Catholics.

Don’t you think the Church would have to know beyond all possibility of being errant what was in

Scripture before they could then put that in order and distribute it amongst all Christians for all time?

It doesn’t even make sense that you would accept the very Bible you quote from as being canonized correctly, but you don’t accept the very Church who did that to know what’s being said in it. That’s simply illogical.

If you could explain how you arrive at this, I think we could be on the same page.

Blessings,

HC

God is responsible for the bible that we have today. The Jews collected the books of the Old Testament, and yes, the early Christian Church collected the books of the New Testament, but they were not Catholics, and would reject much of what the Catholic Church teaches today as apostasy.*

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,

I hope you are not bowing out of this discussion now. I’m hoping to get a response to this post.

Blessings,

HC

I got sidetracked for awhile.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Exactly, and even more befitting this theory is their unique fundemental of Investigative Judgement. Jesus in fact wasn’t coming to earth to judge the living and the dead, He was actually entering His Heavenly Sanctuary to complete His work of “the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary” which at the end of such time, the period of probation will be closed.

Which we believe Christ completed His “work” on the cross, mostly because He said so, “It is accomplished”.

Blessings,

HC

You guys are having just a gay old time SDA bashing while I was gone. Thats all right. I just have to consider that you are not aware of what is really going on and maybe, just maybe, I can help to enlighten.
You say: Which we believe Christ completed His “work” on the cross, mostly because He said so, “It is accomplished”.
The KJV has it “It is finished”
I’m sure you will agree that Jesus is the life giver
John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

The fact is that Jesus said that it was finished once before at the creation of the world and then as a memorial of His life giving creative power He created the Sabbath.

Gen 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

When He said “It is finished” on the cross, He was refering to His life giving task on earth. He Himself memorialized this work by resting in the grave on His holy Sabbath day.

This phrase will be proclaimed one more time Rev. 21:6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He proclaims that He is the lifegiver one last time. This just before the close of probation. When He says: Rev22:11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. When this happens there is no more repentance. Decisions have been made and God has done absolutely everything that He could to bring errant souls back to Him. But now it’s over. All that is left is the execution of judgement.

It’s not to late…Yet!

 

[Bill_Pick]

Here I did a search of the forum for posts on Seven Day Adventist:

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=4562676

Hope this helps.

Sorry Pacbox But this link is not working

 

[greggy53]

Wow! You seem to know what I believe better than I do. Again you attempt to tell me what I believe. The people that put the bible together were early christians, but they certainly were not Catholics.

God is responsible for the bible that we have today. The Jews collected the books of the Old Testament, and yes, the early Christian Church collected the books of the New Testament, but they were not Catholics, and would reject much of what the Catholic Church teaches today as apostasy.

What is you evidence that the early Church that “collected the NT” were not Catholic?

There is all sorts of written evidence that they were. One example of this is found in the :

The “Damasine list”, issued by Pope Damasus I at the council,(of Rome 387AD) is as follows:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book;Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings, Third and Fourth Books of Kings]; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;

Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book.

Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, one to the Corinthians [2 Corinthians is not mentioned], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians [First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy [First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle to Timothy], one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.

Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles [First Epistle of Peter and Second Epistle of Peter]; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles [Second Epistle of John and Third Epistle of John]; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Where is your written evidence that tthey were not???

 

[happilycatholic]

*I’m sorry but if you don’t know Scripture well enough to know what I’m saying here, I can’t help you. I’ve explained myself at least twice. *

Speaking of them where?

*Seriously? Is this your best attempt at avoidance? *

Of coarse Paul preached. If thats what you define as (oral Tradition) as we don’t have a problem.

*Well, you seem to have a problem with the Church’s Oral Tradition, which is what initiated this converstation in the first place. What is your agenda here? Have you found yourself in a debate that you can’t argue yourself out of, so you just figure you’ll appear to be confused on the one hand and agree on the other? *

*Please consider these vs. *

You can see here that Paul was Preaching not to the Jews, but to gentiles (heathen). He was preaching things taught him by Jesus Christ Himself.

Again, you use these Scriptures to “prove” your point that Paul only preaches what is contained in Scripture (which is true) but what you don’t seem to “get” is the fact that what was in Scripture was not *obvious. *Christ could not be seen without faith and the guidance of the Church (Apostles and Christ Himself). THAT’S ORAL TRADITION

So the passages you quote here to try to tell me what is in the New Testatment is all I need to know, are not passages that can prove your point. Jesus and the Apostles were preaching a Gospel that was identical to the Gospel in the Old Testament, but they couldn’t just know that from reading it. They had to have faith and believe in the guidance of the Church.

What you are trying to prove is only proving the catolic position. Not your own.

You will notice v. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach

• any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.*

Take this excerpt from your post for instance. The gospel that is the subject of this post is the gospel of the Old Testament with all of its implicit knowlege of Christ. NOT the Gospel as it is revealed in the New Testament with all its explicit knowlege of Christ.

The Gospel Jesus uses to preach to them is the Old Testament Gospel, not one they could simply use as you are trying to do today. You are trying to imply that the Bible has all the information we need and that it’s perfectly infallibly discernable to everyone without guidance.

That wasn’t true then and it’s certainly not tru now. There are things even in the New Testament Gospels that we need the guidance of the Church to interpret.

So, does your chuch magesterium do this, preach only the gospel that Paul preached and none other. Well, infant baptizm and Sunday observance. praying to saints, the assumption of Mary (ex cathedra). Mary as co-redemtrix, the sinlessness of Mary and on and on. Tells us that your church is not the one that is preserving the scriptures, but the one Paul warns against as being accursed for preaching another gospel.

YES. Hallalujah YES!!! AND CHRIST’S NAME WASN’T IN THE OLD TESTAMENT EITHER!!! You are making my point perfectly. There was no prophecy in the Old Testament that made Christ an obvious candidate for the Messiah.

THAT IS WHY THE JEWS DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW! They denied the Aposles ability to interpret Scripture (Old Testament) to reveal Christ in them.

Again you tell me what I believe. I appreciate the attempt , but I believe that the CC does not now nor did it ever have this, what you call apostolic authority. The scriptures are an authority unto themselves because they are THE WORD OF GOD.Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Again, I don’t mind one way or another what you believe. You have done nothing here but prove Apostolic authority to interpret Scripture over and over and over and over again.

I don’t know what scriptures you are talking about here or what post of greggy’s you are talking about.

I’m sure you believe this, but since you fail to provide the post numbers or quotes in which this is “clearly shown” I must deny the veracity of this statement.

Wow! You seem to know what I believe better than I do. Again you attempt to tell me what I believe. The people that put the bible together were early christians, but they certainly were not Catholics.

Some things are true whether you believe them or not. You find the quotes, I’m weary of doing the work for you.

Besides, I provided posts and numbers before and you never responded

Blessings,

HC

God is responsible for the bible that we have today. The Jews collected the books of the Old Testament, and yes, the early Christian Church collected the books of the New Testament, but they were not Catholics, and would reject much of what the Catholic Church teaches today as apostasy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Richard,

Looks like things are not as ‘clear’ as you would like them … so, instead of playing, “Who’s on First” - let’s cut to the chase:

God is responsible for the bible that we have today. The Jews collected the books of the Old Testament, and yes, the early Christian Church collected the books of the New Testament, but they were not Catholics, and would reject much of what the Catholic Church teaches today as apostasy.

So, just who is responsible for reviewing the texts in the OT and the NT and establishing the Canon? And, just who approved of this Canon? And, finally, do you know when the Canon was approved? Hint: These are all historical questions - and NONE of the answers are in Scripture.

Looking forward to hearing form you.

God bless

 

[happilycatholic]

You guys are having just a gay old time SDA bashing while I was gone. Thats all right. I just have to consider that you are not aware of what is really going on and maybe, just maybe, I can help to enlighten.
You say: Which we believe Christ completed His “work” on the cross, mostly because He said so, “It is accomplished”.
The KJV has it “It is finished”
I’m sure you will agree that Jesus is the life giver
John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

The fact is that Jesus said that it was finished once before at the creation of the world and then as a memorial of His life giving creative power He created the Sabbath.

Gen 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

When He said “It is finished” on the cross, He was refering to His life giving task on earth. He Himself memorialized this work by resting in the grave on His holy Sabbath day.

This phrase will be proclaimed one more time Rev. 21:6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He proclaims that He is the lifegiver one last time. This just before the close of probation. When He says: Rev22:11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. When this happens there is no more repentance. Decisions have been made and God has done absolutely everything that He could to bring errant souls back to Him. But now it’s over. All that is left is the execution of judgement.

It’s not to late…Yet!

My post regarding your doctrine of Investigative Judgement was not bashing by a longshot.

You can use Revelation to try to justify this doctrine all you want but it is totally without foundation in the Scriptures. Just like I said, you guys really where the Revelation theories out.

What gets me is catholics get something like Marian doctrine out of scripture and you call it unscriptural, and yet you do this?

 

[happilycatholic]

When He said “It is finished” on the cross, He was refering to His life giving task on earth. He Himself memorialized this work by resting in the grave on His holy Sabbath day.

Where does it say anything about Christ memorializing His reserrection on the Sabbath? The only place in the Scripture where Jesus asks us to “remember Him” is at the Passover when He asked us to remember Him by Eating his Body and Drinking His Blood in the form of Bread and Wine, which we do.

Blessings,

HC