Seventh Day Sabbath question.

[Paul_Bates]

I think that there is alot of confusion about the Bible verses that are used to support the so-called “Sunday Sabbath.” One of the people in this forum brought up I Corinthians 16:2 as a proof-text to support Sunday. There are a few issues that I have with this verse being applied the way that it was.

First, this was anything but a normal collections. When one reads on, it soon becomes apparent that this is what would be termed a benevolence offering. The people of Corinth were being asked to donate money to the Jerusalem Church. The Jewish Christians were more persecuted and in much worse economic shape than their Greek brethern. Paul is telling the Greek Christians to set aside a sum of money for the benevolence offering.Notice that nothing is even said about a weekly Sunday gathering (though we know that the early Christians met every day of the week-Acts 2:46). Paul seems to be telling individuals that they should individually gather money on the first day. We don’t even know when collections are going to be taken. Judging from the text, it is going to be a while-Paul was still in Macedonia or about to go through there first. Macedonia is north of Greece and Corinth is in southern Greece.

Even if this were a Church service, there is nothing in the Bible that says one can only have a Church service on the Sabbath. People read way to much in this passage.

Another verse that is taken out of context is Revelation 1:10. Where does it say in the Bible that the Lord’s Day is Sunday? I have yet to find one place. We have been conditioned to think of Sunday as the Lord’s Day. Christ however; does claim Saturday as his day. In Mark 2:27, Christ specifically says the Sabbath (Saturday) is his day or that he is Lord of it. In Isaiah 58:13, God calls the Sabbath HIS HOLY DAY.

Another verse that is tragically misquoted is John 20:19 where the disciples are together on the first day of the week. All one has to do to get the context is read a little further where the Bible explains that they were together on the first day in hiding for fear of the Jews. How can one have a restful Sabbath when they are sure that at any moment an angry mob will break down their doors and kill them. On the Sabbath; the disciples would probably have been safer because most righteous Pharisees would not want to shed blood, but on Sunday-all bets were off!

These are just a few verses that I constantly hear from people who try to prove that Sunday is the Sabbath. Sunday is neither the Sabbath nor the Lord’s Day. Both those titles belong to Saturday-which was sanctified by God from the beginning.

 

[po18guy]

Acts 20:7 tells of the Sunday worship. Yet, there is no such thing as a “proof text” in the area of faith, is there? Proof runs counter to faith. What we have is the consistent practice of Sunday worship, under the new covenant (not a simple continuation of the Mosaic covenant). Using the bible as your sole source of revelation can lead to many disputes and disagreements. 30,000 and counting, so far. Yet, the bible tells us in several places that it is incomplete. The vast majority of what Jesus taught and did is simply not in the bible, so man is forced to fill in the blanks if the incomplete record, not matter how inspired, is all that is used as a founding document.

We have the Church that is inherited from the Apostles, and that Church met on the day of resurrection, not on the Mosaic sabbath. The Holy Spirit descended on the first day of the week, while the Apostles were gathered. That is considered the birthday of the Church. Yet, for those who reject the Church, some other day must, of necessity, be settled upon. But why go back to the Jewish sabbath? In principle, is that not the same as the Jews who grumbled against Moses, wishing to return to Egypt? We know that no one who puts hand to plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of God. Especially since the Jews rejected Jesus, and Jesus did nothing on the sabbath but violate the Mosaic law.

 

[Paul_Bates]

There are such things as proof texts. There are proof texts for the Trinity, Baptism, Marraige, etc… Why would their be no proof texts on the Sabbath? THe Bible is God’s direct word to us. While there are many disagreements; most of these (though not all) were/are minor. God’s Word is the most important source of information. It is in the Bible, that the direct accounts of Christ’s ministry are recorded. As Christians, we should follow Christ’s example. What did Christ do? He kept the Sabbath. He broke no rules. What he did do was-clarify. For example, it was through Saturday that Christ did the most miracles. Christ rebuked the Pharisees by saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Wow, God gave us our own day that is devoted to us and to get closer to him!

You are right, there were things that Jesus said and did that are not in the Bible. But the Bible contains what God wanted us to know. Any necessary theological truths must ultimate either come from the Bible; or, at the very least, not contradict anything in the New Testament. If God is not even capable of preserving his Word for mankind-than would he be a god you would want to put your salvation in?

You bring up the idea that the early Church had a habit of meeting on the first day of the week. What is interesting is; why in the New Testament, does God feel the need to differentiate between the Sabbath and the first day of the week-sunday? No where did God say that Sunday took the place of the Sabbath, nor the apostles, nor Paul, nor Timothy (who was half Greek and would have had more reason to not be as attached to the Sabbath-his Jewish mother raised him as being Greek), nor anyone else for that matter. When you look in th book of Acts, you see Sabbath meetings occuring in the context of Christianity.

Why go back to the Jewish Sabbath? I never said that we had to go back to the Pharisee Sabbath. We have Christ as our example. His Sabbath is our Sabbath. His sunday is our sunday. Christ venerated the Sabbath and made it a time to help people and bring about the ultimate spiritual rest for manking. It is also interesting that when Jesus was crucified; he died just before the Sabbath. Christ; in his death, set the ultimate example of rest. Some would say that his choosing to rest on the Sabbath, was a move to elevate the Sabbath for all mankind. In fact, Christ gave the Church the mission to bring the Sabbath to the Gentile people. Now all people can rest in Christ. Christ loved Saturday, he elevated it, and he wants us to enter into the Sabbath with him!

Return to Egypt? On the contrary! Sunday keeping caught on much quicker in pagan Egypt and Rome than in the Eastern regions. God assures us in Isaiah 66:22-24 that in heaven, from one Sabbath to another (not one first day to another) all mankind will come before him and bow down. God was speaking to a Jewish audience, the Jews called Saturday the Sabbath-there is no other word for Saturday in Hebrew that I know of. The understanding was Saturday-not the first day of the week.

On another note, not all the Jews rejected Jesus. The Jerusalem Church was composed of Jews. Most of Christ’s converts were Jews. Many Jews paid a high price to follow Christ. Some of my ancestors are Jews and I still believe in Christ.

 

[Paul_Bates]

Acts 20:7 tells of Paul about to go on a long-winded missionary journey. They were having a farewell meeting for him. One thing that is unusual is Paul is talking until Midnight. This alone was unusual. Most people at that time were fisherman, artisans and the like. They were early risers. The fact that the Bible even says that this meeting lasted till midnight is enough to suggest that this was different. It appears that Paul was likely giving last minute instructions.

 

[po18guy]

The decalogue does not specify which day of the week is the sabbath, only that we must keep it holy. Moses in his law did specify, but neither the SDA nor any other Christian sect keeps the Mosaic law, do they? As well, Paul teaches not to let anyone judge us as to a sabbath (Colossians 2:16). The breaking of the bread in Acts 20 is the mass - the memorial supper. It is the Holy Eucharist, in which Jesus made Himself known at Emmaus on that first Sunday of the new covenant (Luke 24:13-35). It is celebrated this way in the Eastern Orthodox Churches today just as it was that first week of Christianity. Do you call the Eastern Orthodox Churches wrong? You must if you call the Catholic, and all of non-SDA/SDB Protestantism wrong.

The early Apostolic Church met on Sunday, the day in which death was defeated - the greatest day in the history of mankind, and the day also in which the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, 16:9, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, 20:19). They added 3,000 to the Church on that Sunday. Do you blame them, given the Lord God’s actions, for worshipping on a Sunday? Now, the Lord could very well have risen on the Jewish sabbath, but He did not. He is superior to the Mosaic law, fulfilled the Mosaic law, and in Matthew 26, instituted the new covenant in His blood.

As to the bible, a tiny percentage of what Jesus taught is in it. In the prologue to Luke, we learn that Theophilus learned nothing from the written Gospel - it only confirmed what he had already learned. How then, did he learn it? And why did the written Gospel not correct the oral Gospel? Not expand upon it? Not replace it?

Now, as to the Word of God, a tiny fraction of it is written. We know form Deuteronomy 8:3 and Matthew 4:4 that man lives on every word that flows from the mouth of God. Every word. Yet, the bible tells us in many places (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 and others) that it does not contain every word. From Isaiah 55:11, we know that God’s Word does not return to Him void. It is a living Word of the living God (Hebrews 4:12, 1 Peter 1:23), not a written word of a written God. A portion of it is written, but most of it is not.

The bible, as correct, true, and inspired as it is, cannot provide you with “every word that flows from the mouth of God.” This is a problem which bible Churches cannot overcome. There is no solution for them, and the result is to settle for the tiny fraction of the Gospel that is written, while filling in the blanks with man’s best guesses. Jesus did not leave us orphans (John 14:18). He did not come that we might have a “sufficient” Gospel - a sufficient amount of His teaching. He came that we might have life - every word from the mouth of the living God - life in abundance John 10:10.

He established an authoritative Church (Matthew 16:18, Matthew 18:17-18), which received the Holy Spirit on Sunday (Acts 2) to give birth to it, to remind it of what Jesus had taught, and to further teach it (John 14:26). A living Word of the living God. Of course, you strongly disagree with all of this. That is indeed sad. I pray daily for Christian unity, but I fear that the apocalypse will have to begin before we realize it.

 

[Paul_Bates]

The 10 Commandments are not like the rest of the law. The 10 Commandmets have to do with God’s character. God’s character is unchanging. The Sabbath is part of that moral law that stands forever. Besides, Isaiah 66 tells us that in the new heavens and earth we will keep the Sabbath-not sunday. I’m sorry, but sunday simply does not fit into the occasion. The Bible clearly tells us that circumscision is not necessary and that we can eat unclean foods, yet nothing about the Sabbath change.

As far as Acts 20 goes, Paul was about to go on a long winded missionary journey. While he gave last minute instructions, this was not a service. There are two different kinds of breaking bread. There is communion which we are to do in rememberance of Christ, and there is breaking bread with those who are family and friends at the dinner table as a sign of friendship. Even the pagan romans broke bread with friends and family, yet I don’t think that anyone would argue that the pagan romans who were polytheists were taking communion.

As far as the Bible not containing every word from God, the scriptures that you listed; with the exception of Acts 2:40, concentrate on actions. Acts 2:40 says that with many other words he warned them and he pleaded with them-save yourselves from this corrupt generation. Here the Bible is saying exactly what the goal is, as far as every word goes-man does live on every word from the mouth of God, but that doesn’t mean that we have to necessarily hear what God says to every group of people. Perhaps every word is not mentioned because the Bible already contains the same warnings given in Acts 2:40 somewhere else.

You are right though, Jesus did not leave us orphans. Jesus will come for us again and in the meantime he sent his Holy Spirit to us. Christ did establish the Church. The Early Church kept the Sabbath. One interesting example was that no one visited Jesus’s tomb on Saturday so that they could rest in accordance with the commandment. When you read Acts, there are many instances where the Christains worshiped on Saturday with the Jews. sunday was the first day of the week and on that day,everyone went back to work. There have been Sabbath keeping Churches throughout the ages. I believe that the Seventh Day Adventist Church was what Jesus had created. The Seventh Day Adventist Church is the only Church that takes the New Testament in historical context.

God is the God of the living, you are right. That is why we go directly to God for help and not spirits. I have no problem with God being the God of the living-that was one of the things that drove me to the SDA Church. Of course, I don’t believe that only SDA’s will be saved-to the contrary! But I do believe that the SDA Church is the most correct church.

 

[po18guy]

A spirit has lead you to where you are - of that we may both be certain. What is troubling is that the Holy Spirit always and everywhere leads to humble submission and unity. You have been lead to division. To a Christian, this should be a huge caution flag.

 

[pablope]

.

As far as Acts 20 goes, Paul was about to go on a long winded missionary journey. While he gave last minute instructions, this was not a service. There are two different kinds of breaking bread. There is communion which we are to do in rememberance of Christ, and there is breaking bread with those who are family and friends at the dinner table as a sign of friendship. Even the pagan romans broke bread with friends and family, yet I don’t think that anyone would argue that the pagan romans who were polytheists were taking communion

 

[VeiledCatholic]

How can the SDA church be the one that Jesus created when it was formed in the 1860’s?

Christianity goes alot further back than that my friend.

I’ve been a Sabbath keeper for 4 years now and recycled all the same lines from the SDA / Messianic websites that you just did to prove my point to whomever I was debating with that the time.

Now as I am headed back home to Rome, I am questioning everything I was ever taught / indoctrinated with from the Pentecostal / Mennonite / Torah / Messianic churches. There’s LOTS to sort out, lots to toss and lots to file away for later.

I do understand where you are coming though with the Sabbath vs. 1st day of the week question.

I do have to wonder if there is any paperwork or documentation from the time the disciples died off till the beginning of the Didache about this very topic.

 

[Paul_Bates]

To Vailed Catholic

These are all very good questions. I’m going to try to answer you guys questions. If I leave one out, remind me.

How can the SDA church be the one that Jesus created when it was formed in the 1860’s?

Good question! While the name and denomination known today was founded in the 1860’s; the concepts of this Church were in the Bible. We know that the New Testament Church kept the Sabbath-Acts is filled with instances of Preaching to Jew and Gentile on the Sabbath. The New Testament Church was much more similar to ours than to yours. Our Church holds to the Sabbath. We rightly believed Jesus when he said in Mark 2:27 that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. He was talking to Jews here and they both knew what day the Sabbath was on. Also, while many in the New Testament Church did practice celibacy, I cannot find anywhere in the New Testament where pastors (priests, religious leaders, etc…) HAVE to be celibate. The New Testament Church did not seem to make use of engraven images-at least as far as we can see in the New Testament its’ self. The New Testament Church does not appear to have practiced infant baptism. We did not recognize a special “saint class” of people. We; like the NT Church, consider all those who have put their faith in Christ to be Christians. It does not matter if you call yourself Non-Denominational, Catholic, SDA, etc…

I’ve been a Sabbath keeper for 4 years now and recycled all the same lines from the SDA / Messianic websites that you just did to prove my point to whomever I was debating with that the time.

I’m not really sure what to make of this one? However, my “recycled lines” come directly through the Bible. I believe that Saturday is Christ’s Sabbath and I’m happy that he is willing to share it with the likes of me! Because I don’t deserve it. None of us do!

There are numerous sources that talk of the Sabbath. In addition to the New Testament, there is proof as late as 364 A.D. when the Council of Laodicea adopted anti-Sabbath resolutions in favor of sunday. Interestingly enough, here is an interesting historical tidbit. At about 135 A.D. Hadrian crushed the Bar Kokhba revolt. After that, Hadrian went on to adopt the most oppressive restrictions on Judaism and basically outlawed it. It is no wonder why the Christian Churches in Rome took up the sunday Sabbath! The New Testament does not promote sunday Sabbath-Keeping; yet after about 135 A.D., we get scathing comments towards the Sabbath.

 

[po18guy]

The twisting of scripture was well noted by Peter, who saw it even in his day. Apparently, the Jesus of the Adventist Church has no authority to fulfill the Mossaic law and move the memorial feast from the last day of the week to the first. I listen to Jesus’ own words that He is Lord even of the sabbath. I believe Him at his word. I do not have to use a fun house mirror to make scripture fit my theology.

Further evidence that divorcing from the Church and then reverse engineering the Gospel from a partial written record leads to error.

 

[Paul_Bates]

To Pablope,

As far as my extrapolating, I came to this position from reading Acts chapter 20. I don’t know what more to really say about it. The verse says “Paul kept on speaking because he intended to leave on the next day.” Further down you read that after daylight he indeed-well, left. It is true that breaking bread was always an important part of the Christian religion. I do not debate this. The day before Jesus was to be arrested, he commanded his disciples to do that very action in rememberance of him. But there was also a broader meaning of breaking bread. This meaning extended into the heart of the Roman Empire. Breaking bread was something that was an intimate act. You were having a person at your house, eating with you and at your expense. You were trusting that person. Having dinner and breaking bread was a sign of emotional intimacy. Interestingly enough, Romans did not consider sex to be an intimate act. That is why a slave master could rape a slave woman and not consider it wrong. At the same time, he would never share a meal with a slave because that was too intimate (try and figure that one out). We don’t know which one Paul is doing. It could be more for friendship, it could be more for the rememberance of Christ or it could be some sort of combination of the two. However, we do know that breaking bread is not only for sunday or the Sabbath. I think the first time Christ broke bread was on a Thursday.

The shepherd of the Church is the Holy Spirit. Christ did not leave us orphans. However, the present day Catholic Church cannot be the true successor. There are several reasons, one is that the Church will keep Christ’s Commands. Christ re-affirmed the Ten Commandments. I Timothy 3:2 says that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife. Catholic Bishops do not marry. I Timothy 3:4-5-a Bishop must have well behaved children and a godly family-Im paraphrasing, but you get the idea. These are just a few reasons.

Yes, I can. I can trace my Church back to Christ. Biblically we are more similar to his teachings. We kept the same Sabbath as Christ, we recognized that Christ is our only mediator. Confession of sins is Biblical, but a priest cannot absolve man of his sins. We both believed in the 10 Commandments. We both did full-immersion Baptisms. The list goes on, but that is all I’m putting for now.

Christ made no mistake. He always preserved his Church. It may have been called different names in different times and lands, but it was always the same. The Church is built upon Christ whose ministry was in the New Testament. My proof is in the fact that the Catholic Church has doctrines that go against the New Testaement. See the Bishop example above. But also, there are more. The Catholic Church also calls Priests “Father”, yet Matthew 23:9 forbids this. Luke 11: 27-28 does not encourage us to exalt Mary. She was a holy woman, but she was just a human being like us.

All of the Books of the New Testament were written within less than 100 years after the event. So, why wouldn’t I have a Bible? In fact, if the Catholic Church is the sole interpretor and defender of the Bible, then why did they not have divine inspiration the first time? Why did they wait until around 1546 or so during the Council of Trent to add the Apocrapha?

While the Seventh Day Adventist Church views Ellen White’s reading with high esteem, we do not consider them Scripture. Only the 66 Books of the Bible are Scripture. Interestingly enough though, we do not have to even go to her writings to defend our doctrines. We can do that with the Bible. Her Books are council, many consider her a prophet-though God did say he would raise up prophets in the last days. However, she takes a back seat to the Bible. Ellen White consitantly told people to read the Bible. Her writings were for that purpose. In fact, she even said that if people obeyed the “Greater Light” then there would be no need of a lesser light (her writings).

Why is the SDA Church the most true Church, see above. As far as us in 1 John 4-6, “us” is all those who put their faith in Christ and rely on him along; apart from works, for their salvation. Those people (US) are Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Amish, SDA, Non-Denominationals, etc… who have all put their faith in Christ. Us is not SDA any more than it is Roman Catholic. “us” includes both Sabbath and sunday keepers. I believe that the SDA doctrines are in line with 1 John 4-6.

 

[Paul_Bates]

Fun house mirror? I find that interesting. Because if your interpretation of Mark 2:27 is correct, than Christ was deliberating lying. I prefer to take Christ at his word as well. He gave us the Sabbath. In this verse, Christ was speaking to Jews. The Jews believed that the Sabbath was Saturday-apparently so did Mary and Martha-because they wouldn’t even go to his tomb on Saturday to rest in order to fulfill the command. Jesus forgot to tell them that things were changing? Why did not Christ say he is Lord of the First Day? Why does the New Testament always distinuiguish between the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week? If the Sabbath was now turned to the first day of the week, wouldn’t Christ announce it to his apostles? Maybe Christ was busy, what about the Disciples? Maybe they were busy, but surely Paul (the missionary to the Gentiles) would be sure to mention that sunday is the new sabbath? Ok, maybe he got busy too. What about Timothy-Paul’s protege. Timothy would be in a great position to say something about the so-called “sanctity” of sunday. Timothy was half Greek, half Jewish. But he was raised as a Greek. We know this because he had to undergo circumscision as an adult. Traditional Jewish families circumscised boys on the 8th day. Yet Timothy; like everyone else, was silent on the so-called sanctity of the Sabbath. Yet the same New Testament feels the need to tell us circumscision is no longer necessary and we can eat unclean foods?

Why don’t the sunday keeping Churches tell the whole story? Why don’t they talk about the Bar Kokhba revolt? Why not tell about how in AD 135, Roman Emperor Hadrian unleashed a titlewave of anti-Jewish legislation and basically outlaw the Jewish Sabbath after this revolt was brutally put down by him? What about the fact that Roman Christians found it very politically expedient to adopt sunday as the new found Lord’s Day?

Think about it this way. In order to believe that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday, I would have to believe the following:

1. Chirst changed the Sabbath on the Cross.
2. After Christ changed the Sabbath on the Cross, the Bible writers felt the need to still make it a point to call sunday the First Day of the Week and yet Saturday retains the title of Sabbath. No mention of a sunday-Sabbath anywhere in the New Testament.
3. Jesus shared this information to the disciples, yet they did not tell anyone. It was a secret. Yet, all the Christians, without any mention in any New Testament books-magically knew that the Sabbath had been changed to sunday, but again, there was no mention of this in the Bible?
4. In Isaiah 66-God was wrong. We would not keep the Sabbath in heaven, we would keep the sunday-Sabbath.
5. Emperor Hadrian’s outlawing the Jewish Sabbath had absolutely nothing to do with the change. It was mere coincidence.

I don’t think I’m the one looking in the fun-house mirror.

 

[pablope]

To Pablope,

As far as my extrapolating, I came to this position from reading Acts chapter 20. I don’t know … The verse says “Paul kept on speaking because he intended to leave on the next day.”

 

[pablope]

To Pablope,

All of the Books of the New Testament were written within less than 100 years after the event. So, why wouldn’t I have a Bible?

 

[moster]

Can’t give you the very good advice, I’m sorry, but I have paid attention to
Beats by Dr. Dre solo hd

 

[Pheonix]

I Timothy 3:2 says that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife.

There are two problems with this argument:

1. Paul is referring to bishops who are widowers; he is telling them they cannot remarry because they have already had their “one wife.”
2. Paul is also referring to bishops who are married; he is likewise telling them they cannot remarry, if their spouse should die of course.

1 Timothy 3:2 simply does not state that marriage is a requirement for bishops.

Catholic Bishops do not marry.

You should also know that celibacy is not doctrine or dogma; it a disciplinary practice of the Roman Rite of Catholicism. Being a disciplinary rule, it is subject to change.

Further, here’s a little Catholicism 101: deacons can be married before they receive Holy Orders. They cannot, however, remarry if their wife dies (just like Paul says in 1 Timothy). This is the same in the Eastern Rites of Catholicism, but it extends to priests as well. The Church also allows married Protestant converts to stay married if they wish to receive the Sacrament of Holy Order; they too cannot remarry if their spouse dies.

I Timothy 3:4-5-a Bishop must have well behaved children and a godly family-Im paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

Paul is talking about doctrine which forbid marriage. The Church does not forbid marriage; she has exalted marriage to the status of a sacrament for crying out loud! Thus, you really don’t have an argument against celibacy.

I can trace my Church back to Christ.

Then the heavy burden of proof lies on your shoulders. Please demonstrate your church’s lineage all the way back to Christ.

Biblically we are more similar to his teachings.

Oh, really?

So do you believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist (John 6)?
Do you believe Mary was conceived without Original Sin (Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28, Revelation 12:1)?
Or that she was Ever-Virgin (Ezeckiel 44:2, Luke 1:31+34, John 19:26-27)?
Do you believe that Baptism plays a role in your salvation (John 3:3+5, Acts 2:38 + 22:16, Matthew 28:19-20, 1 Peter 3:21)?
Do you believe that both faith and works are required for salvation (1 Corinthians 3:15, Matthew 7:1-3 + 10:22 + 16:27 + 24:13 + 25:31-46, Mark 13:13, Romans 2:6-10+13, Ephesians 6:8)?

The above is a few of the many beliefs that Jesus and His Apostles taught. To verify that they all taught this, you can also read up on the Early Church Fathers; they all supported these beliefs, and thus the early Church believed, taught, and practiced them as well.

We kept the same Sabbath as Christ,

First, what scriptural evidence do you have that supports Christ keeping a Saturday Sabbath?

Second, worship on Saturday was part of Old Covenant law. We are no longer bound by the laws of the Old Covenant because it has been fulfilled by the New Covenant. If you’re claiming we have to follow Saturday worship, then you must also admit that we must follow all the other Mosaic laws.

Third, Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2+9, John 20:1+19, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 4:8-9, and Revelation 1:10 all support worship on Sunday. Heck, even the early Church did this (Sunday worship)! All you have to do is look at the Early Church Fathers to see that Sunday worship has been a Christian tradition for 2,000 years.

There’s simple no evidence that the “Lord’s Day” refers to Saturday; Scripture always mentions it in connection to the “first day of the week,” or Sunday.

we recognized that Christ is our only mediator.

Hold the phone there, bucko. I assume you’re referring to 1 Timothy 2:1-2, correct? Sorry, but those verses do not described Jesus as “the only mediator between God and man.” They describe Jesus as our one mediator. That’s a pretty big distinction, if you ask me.

Thus, Jesus is our one mediator. The Catholic Church firmly teaches this. He is not, however, the only one mediating/interceding for us. If He was, then why does Scripture explicitly tell us to pray for one another? Praying is an act of intercession/mediation, so Scripture is contradicting itself if Jesus is supposed to be the only one who intercedes/mediates for us.

The prayers of a righteous man availeth much, according to Scripture. The intercession of the Saints is just that: the righteous in Heaven praying for us (through God’s grace). The angels in Revelations are described as carrying the prayers of the saints to the Lamb (Jesus Christ). Jesus then goes on to answer those prayers according to His most perfect and holy will. Thus, Jesus remains our one mediator.

So I ask you: why can’t the saints in Heaven do the same? After all, Matthew tells us that those in Heaven have the attributes of the angels.

Confession of sins is Biblical, but a priest cannot absolve man of his sins.

John 20:21-23, Matthew 9:8, 2 Corinthians 2:10 + 5:18, and James 5:15-16 disagree with this statement, my friend.

We both believed in the 10 Commandments.

As does the Catholic Church.

We both did full-immersion Baptisms.

As does the Catholic Church.

Christ made no mistake. He always preserved his Church.

Amen! Jesus promised this to Peter when He founded the Catholic Church.

It may have been called different names in different times and lands, but it was always the same.

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were the only churches in existence prior to the Reformation. As such, they are the only churches who are closest to what Jesus and His Apostles taught.

continued in my next post…

 

[Pheonix]

The Church is built upon Christ whose ministry was in the New Testament.

Because the Church preceded the New Testament!

My proof is in the fact that the Catholic Church has doctrines that go against the New Testaement.

No, she does not. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself in 33 C. E. on Saint Peter when Jesus proclaimed Peter to be the rock on which He would build His Church. Thus, the Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years.

Further, her theology was complete and whole before a single line of the New Testament was even written. Look at the Early Church Fathers, and you will clearly see that what they wrote is perfectly consistent with what the Church teaches today. In other words, the Catholic Church’s theology has not changed.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how you look at things. The Church preceded the Bible (specifically the New Testament); also, Christ founded a Church, not a book.

The Catholic Church also calls Priests “Father”, yet Matthew 23:9 forbids this.

This is an egregious argument against Catholicism. Do you call your male parent “father”? If so, then you’re directly contradicting Scripture. Further, Matthew 23:8 also tells us to call no one “teacher.” By the logic of your argument, why then do we call our educational instructors our “teachers”?

To be quite blunt, Christ was not forbidding the use of the words father, teacher, and master; he was rebuking the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

Oh, and there are several instances were other people in Bible are called “father.” Paul calls himself “father,” for instance. Isaac, Abraham, and David are other examples. If Jesus was literally forbidding the use of the word “father,” then Scripture is contradicting itself. Period.

Luke 11: 27-28 does not encourage us to exalt Mary. She was a holy woman, but she was just a human being like us.

Ummm… pray tell, why do these verses refute exalting Mary? Jesus wasn’t rebuking His mother; He was exalting her for her obedience to God’s Word.

Further, Mary herself tells us that “all generations will call me blessed.” This makes perfect sense. After all, she was chosen to carry God within her for nine months; later, she took care of Him while He grew. By all rights, Mary is certainly deserving of our honor.

All of the Books of the New Testament were written within less than 100 years after the event.

And your point is? You’re forgetting that after Jesus ascended, there were 400+ writings circulating around; all of them claimed to be God’s inspired Word.

So, why wouldn’t I have a Bible?

Because until 382 C. E., no one knew what writings were God’s inspired Word. After all, there were 400+ writings circulating around self-proclaiming inspiration.

In fact, if the Catholic Church is the sole interpretor and defender of the Bible, then why did they not have divine inspiration the first time?

Wait, what? I don’t understand what you’re asking in this question. The 73-book Canon of Scripture traces all the back to 382 C. E., where the first fully-compiled Bible was made.

Why did they wait until around 1546 or so during the Council of Trent to add the Apocrapha?

You obviously don’t know your history very well.

The first fully-compiled Bible appeared around 382 C. E., where Pope Damasus proclaimed what books were to constitute as the Old and New Testaments. This makes sense because Scripture does not tell us what books are inspired and what books are not. How do we know the Gospel of Thomas is not God’s inspired Word, but the Gospel of Luke is? How do we know that James is inspired, but the Shepard of Hermas is not? Simply put: you need an infallbile interpretor to discern inerrant works. The Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised St. Peter), did just that when compiling the Bible.

Anyway, this first Canon of Scripture contained… you guessed it: 73 books of Sacred Scripture, not 66. This 73-book Canon was completely consistent up until the Reformation, where some people started to reject the the deuterocanon (the seven books you erroneously call the ‘Apocrapha’ [sic]). All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm the Canon of Scripture that the early Church used for over a 1,000 years.

Therefore, the argument that the deuterocanon was added in the Bible at the Council of Trent is an erroneous myth. History does not support this argument, so stop trying to spread anti-Catholic garbage.

 

[po18guy]

Well did Peter write about the “ignorant and unstable” distorting Paul’s writings, “as they do with the other scriptures” 2 Peter 3:16.

The SDA is founded on the sand of private interpretation of scripture. Its very foundation is anti-biblical! 2 Peter 1:20 Our SDA brother so far refuses to address this.

The SDA share some teachings with their contemporaries, the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

What they are:

True (albeit fringe) Christians, by dint of their valid baptism.

And, we have not even cracked the surface of their illustrious prophetess, Ellen Gould White.

You are right though, Jesus did not leave us orphans. Jesus will come for us again and in the meantime he sent his Holy Spirit to us.

It is sad indeed that Christ is not physically present in your faith community. Catholics and Orthodox can and do spend time in our Lord’s presence. Miracles occur regularly there. He promised to be with us unto the end of the age Matthew 28:20 and He is with us in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As to the Holy Spirit which all disagreeing denominations claim to possess: a spirit drives them - that is certain. But, since it leads to division, it cannot be the Holy Spirit. Fact.

That is why we go directly to God for help and not spirits.

Yet another SDA deviation from the bible: Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10). The SDA abandoned Paul’s ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18). That is a shame.

I have no problem with God being the God of the living-that was one of the things that drove me to the SDA Church. Of course, I don’t believe that only SDA’s will be saved-to the contrary! But I do believe that the SDA Church is the most correct church.

It is true that the SDA has somewhat softened its formerly rabid anti-Catholicism. What the SDA does have is doctrines that it shares with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That’s embarrassing.

Since you are a seeker, please keep seeking, as you remain far from the fulness of God’s revealed truth.

 

[Paul_Bates]

Acts 20:7 is setting the stage for Paul to go on a missionary journey. I don’t know how much clearer the text can be? I have already spoken about it in great detail.

Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2+9, John 20:1+19, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 4:8-9, and Revelation 1:10 all support worship on Sunday.

Matthew 28:1-supports my point. After the Sabbath… The Sabbath as Saturday, and now the two women are coming on the first day of the week to the tomb. Again, I agree. Same with Mark 16, John 20:19 being used to support the Sunday Sabbath is just comical! “they were barricaded for fear of the Jews.” Again, only proves my point. Acts 20:7-I have went over this again and again, how much clearer can it be that this was a good-bye meal. Please stop taking this out of context. The Bible even goes out of it’s way to give sunday a non-Sabbath designation! I Corinthians 16:2, is talking about setting aside your own money. Says nothing about going to Church and passing around a collections plate. Even if it did, it does not change the fact that the Church met every day of hte week, yet every day of the week is not the Sabbath. Colossians 2:16-17-let no one judge you on what you eat or drink or of a Sabbath day. Amen! We don’t want to be like pharisees. I agree! The Sabbath is a personal matter between you and God. Incedently, the Catholic Church should avoid supporting blue laws because THEY are the ones who want to judge how and when you keep the Sabbath. AMEN! I wish the Catholic and Protestant Churches would heed the advice of this verse! The Shadow is the Sabbath. One day in heaven we will have an even fuller rest in Chirst. Despite the Sabbath being a shadow, we need it to know what rest is. Hebrews 4 re-affirms the Sabbath.Revelation 1:10, does not say sunday is the Lord’s Day. In fact, again, Mark 2:27-Christ claims Lordship over the Sabbath. Is there a single verse in the Bible that says sunday is the Lord’s Day?

It amazes me how far people will twist Scripture for sunday. More to come. I have to go to work now though.