Seventh Day Sabbath question.

[John7]

Sunday is neither the Sabbath nor the Lord’s Day. Both those titles belong to Saturday-which was sanctified by God from the beginning.

before i read anymore of your posts about the sabbath
could you inform me whether or not it is true
that SDA considers the holy Catholic Church to be the Mother of Harlots in Revelation
and teaches that the Pope is the Antichrist?

 

[Paul_Bates]

To Pheonix,

I obviously don’t know my history very well.

That is interesting. But the fact still remins that the Apocrapha was not officially canonized by the Catholic Church until 1546 during the Council of Trent. One good source for this is Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem. By the way, he is not a Seventh Day Adventist-he is a Calvinist. He has a M.Div from Westminster Theological Seminary I believe and a Ph.D from Cambridge. He is also a professor at Phoenix Seminary. I consider him to be a reliable source. It was also interesting to note that the Jews did not consider the Apocrapha texts to be scripture. Though the early Christian Church made use of the Apocrapha-I believe Jerome did especially; again, the Church did not get around to canonizing them until the Council of Trent. This fact speaks volumes. While I don’t believe them to be canon, I would not deny their historical value. Even if said Apcorapha was included in Bibles, it was not offically canonized until that point. By the way, stop spreading anti SDA garbage while you are at it.

As far as Father is said. I don’t believe that we should call a Priest, Pastor, etc… father. The Bible says not to. As far as teacher goes, perhaps the Bible does not want us to adopt the practices of various cults. In many New Age and other cultic movements, the term teacher is thrown out for those “Gurus”. Of course, there is a line of Church authority and yes, we do receive instruction from pastors and others-including lay people in the Church who are more experienced then we are in life and Bible study. You can call your dad father-again, it comes down to context.

As far as Paul, Abraham and others being called father, since Scripture is God-breathed, he (God) can do anything he wants. If God wanted to call Paul father, then who is going to argue with him? If God tells us not to call a man father (in teh context of the Church), then who are we to argue with him?

As far as Mary goes, I never said that she was not a Holy woman, but she is nothing more. To meet her in heaven will be a huge honor for everyone. But we should not exalt her.

There are many competing gospels. You are right! But being that the Catholic and Protestant Churches agree on the Canon of New Testament, I don’t see a problem here. The Books in the New Testament were either written by those who were witnesses to Christ directly, or by those who; like Paul, did not see Christ in this earth (not counting the Road to Damascus), or those like Luke who showed the Holy Spirit working in them and those books are historically accurate. Interestingly enough, Luke was the only Gentile we know of who wrote a book of the Bible-Timothy; on account of his mother being Jewish, does not count. I don’t know why I put that there, but it is an interesting historical tidbit.

 

[pablope]

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.

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

Wrong, my friend. It is in Acts 13:

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Look at verse 3 and see what the Antioch Church elders do…“they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

Before Paul and Barnabas went on their first missionary journey, he submits himself to Church authority and are ordained by laying of hands. Then they are sent out to their mission. Paul, by the laying of hands, first becomes an Apostle, he gains apostolic authority, thereby, the Churches he founds have apostolic succession.

And do you know who founded the Church at Antioch? From that founder…to the elders who ordain Paul and Barnabas…you can trace the apostolic lineage.

And this is the Catholic model to this day…can you say the same for the SDA?

 

[Pheonix]

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.

No, it does not. It simply does not say anything about the disciples doing anything special on Saturday. This verse does, however, tell us that Christ rose on the first day of the week, or on Sunday. That’s exactly the reason why Catholics worship on Sunday, because it is the day of the Resurrection of our Lord.

If Saturday is so important for the Christian, then why is there so much emphasis placed on the “first day of the week,” Sunday?

Same with Mark 16,

Again, Saturday is mentioned in passing; it is not talked about in any special way. Like in Matthew, the author talks about the Lord rising on Sunday quite a bit. This further supports the Catholic teaching of worship on Sunday.

John 20:19 being used to support the Sunday Sabbath is just comical!

Looks like you didn’t even read verse 1, which doesn’t even make a passing mention of Saturday. This just supports my argument that the authors are not setting Saturday apart as something special anymore; they’re talking about passingly.

“they were barricaded for fear of the Jews.”

Read the whole of John 20:19, not just a small portion: Now when it was late that same day, the first day of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you.

Again, only proves my point.

Pray tell, how does John 20:19 prove your point? Specifically, tell me how “they were barricaded for fear of the Jews” supports your view. This verse tells us that Jesus sent His disciples out on Sunday. Evidently, this is in alignment with the Catholic view.

Acts 20:7-I have went over this again and again, how much clearer can it be that this was a good-bye meal.

No one is arguing that Paul is about to go on a journey. However, if Sabbath-keeping was so very important, then it’s only logical that they did it on Saturday, not Sunday. Even St. Chrysostom (among many others) taught that Acts 20:7 is a clear indication of worship on Sunday. Therefore, even the early Church disagrees with the SDA view.

Please stop taking this out of context.

How am I taking it out of context? If Saturday is still the day we should be worshipping, then Paul would have done his “good-bye meal” then, not on Sunday.

The Bible even goes out of it’s way to give sunday a non-Sabbath designation!

Book, chapter, and verse, if you please.

I Corinthians 16:2, is talking about setting aside your own money.

Exactly! What is Paul telling them to do? He’s telling them to make contributions to the Church on the first day of the week, or Sunday. This is because it has become the primary day of Christian worship. Don’t believe me? Then read the Early Church Fathers; they are in full alignment with this view.

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.

Do you want to hear the irony behind your statements here? You’re judging Catholics and your fellow Protestants for worshipping on Sunday. You’re doing exactly what these verses tell us not to do.

Paul explicitly tells us that we are no longer to uphold the Jewish obligations, as the rest of the New Testament tells us quite frequently. One of the Jewish obligations was worship on Saturday.

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.

Provide evidence that supports this statement.

As I just said, Paul is telling us that we are no longer bound to Jewish obligations. Is that not clear? Paul calls everything in verse sixteen a “shadow of things to come,” meaning they have been fulfilled in Christ. This further supports that we are no longer bound to Saturday worship; we are not Jews, and therefore not obligated to obey Old Covenant laws.

continued in my next post…

 

[Pheonix]

The Shadow is the Sabbath.

Exactly. Saturday was a “shadow of things to come.” It has been fulfilled by Christ.

Hebrews 4 re-affirms the Sabbath.

Not on Saturday, though. Paul tells us that if Jesus had given us rest, then he would not have spoken of another day. So if Saturday is the day we should worship, then why did Christ speak of another day (i.e. Sunday)?

Revelation 1:10, does not say sunday is the Lord’s Day.

And where does Scripture say that Saturday is the Lord’s Day? (Hint: it doesn’t.)

In fact, again, Mark 2:27-Christ claims Lordship over the Sabbath.

Christ claims Lordship over all things, my friend. This doesn’t mean we are still bound to the Saturday Sabbath; you’re adding to the text what is simply not there.

Is there a single verse in the Bible that says sunday is the Lord’s Day?

Is there a single verse that tells us that Saturday is the Lord’s Day?

We believe Sunday is the Lord’s Day because Christ rose from His grave on a Sunday; the gospel writers make on huge emphasis on this fact. Further, Sozomon tells us that the Jews believed the Lord’s Day to be Sunday.

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

Actually, it’s amazing how far people will twist Scripture to try and discredit a 2,000-year-old tradition. The Church has been worshipping on Sunday since Christ ascended. Let’s review some of the Early Church Fathers, who vehemently disagree with your view.

"The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest—abstraction from ills—preparing for the Primal Day, [The Lord’s Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth—a light true, casting no shaodw, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest. [Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:16 (A. D. 202).

See? Clement believed the Lord’s Day is Sunday, as well as it being the “Primal Day.”

*“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading o the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation: because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the lace of the dead and on the first day of the week He arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week He ascended up to Heaven, and on the first day of the week He will appear at last with the angels of heaven.” [Teaching of the Apostles, 2 ( A. D. 225)

Again, the early Church was told by the Apostles to appoint Sunday as the new day of worship. Why? Because Saturday was fulfilled by Christ, and we are no longer bound to the laws of the Old Covenant.

*"On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s Day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigourous fast, lest we appear to observed any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath. says by His prophets that ‘His soul hateth;’ which Sabbath He in His body abolished. [Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A. D. 300)]

Victorinus believed that worship on Saturday was fulfilled by Christ. Further, he makes a distinction between the Saturday Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. If that’s the case, then how can the “Lord’s Day” refer to Saturday?

Also, Victorinus said we should “go forth to our bread with giving of thanks.” This is exactly what Paul did in Acts 20:7.

Heck, even St. Augustine even said that a Christian should not observe the Saturday Sabbath.

So tell me this: Scripture tells us to standfast to any and all traditions of the Apostles, whether they be oral or written (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Why then is it wrong to worship of Sunday? After all, and the Early Church Fathers unaimously attest to this, the early Church believed in worship on Sunday. We can therefore assume that this is a tradition from the Apostles; this is supported by the fact that the Early Church Fathers learned their theology from the Apostles. Thus, we are going against Scripture if we do not worship on Sunday.

 

[TimothyH]

We can argue about the Sabbath if we want, but the Catholic Church worships God contstantly and has been doing so for two thousand years.

Mass is held every day except for Good Friday and Holy Saturday. My Church has a perpetual adoration chapel where someone has been praying and adoring Jesus 24x7x365 for the past fifteen years. There is a Church which has had perpetual adoration for over four hundred years. Catholic Monks have been going into the desert to “pray constantly” as it is commanded in the Bible since the beginnings of Christianity and the monks at the monastery near me pray seven hours every day.

I pass six Churches early in the morning on the way to adoration or daily Mass at my parish. The Baptist Church has it’s lights off in the middle of the night. The Lutheran Church is closed tight. Greater Works Ministry Church is empty. Only the van is in the parking lot at the Grace Community Church. I even pass a Seventh Day Adventist Church and the only one there in the middle of the night is the janitor. Closed… Empty… Dark… Doors locked so you couldn’t get in to pray even if you wanted to… Every single one of them.

There was the story about the ten virgins in the Bible. Five of them brought no oil for their lamps. The other five however, were able to light lamps and were prepared to recieve their bridegroom. Arguing about the Sabbath misses the point. God’s true Church, Christ’s bride, would worship him constantly and would seek him constantly. Christ’s true Church would be waiting for the master to return at an hour least expected.

The bride would be ready in the bedchamber, trembling in anticipation, waiting for her bridgroom to knock. I believe the Catholic Church is that bride of Christ and that she does wait for her bridegroom.

We can argue about what day the sabbath is, which day is the “Lord’s day” but I think every day is the Lord’s day and that arguing about the sabbath misses the point entirely.

-Tim-

 

[Pheonix]

I obviously don’t know my history very well.

Considering how you are advocating the erroneous “the Apocrapha wasn’t accepted until the Council of Trent” myth, it cannot be said that you understand your history very well.

But the fact still remains that the Apocrapha was not officially canonized by the Catholic Church until 1546 during the Council of Trent.

False. As I just explained, the Canon of Scripture the Catholic Church uses has existed since the very first Bible: 382 C. E. Trent reaffirmed what the Catholic Church was already teaching. Why? Because the Reformation brought forth those who rejected the deuterocanon.

If you want to try and use the argument “the Aprocrapha [sic] was officially accepted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent,” then you must also concede that the Church didn’t officially accept the rest of the New Testament or Old Testament until the Council of Trent, which is verifiably false.

I consider him to be a reliable source.

You consider a non-Catholic a reliable source on Catholic Church history? You’ve just blown my mind, my friend.

It was also interesting to note that the Jews did not consider the Apocrapha texts to be scripture.

Your point? The Jews also reject the entire New Testament because they don’t believe Christ is the Messiah. If we should reject the deuterocanon because the Jews did, then by that same logic we must reject the entire New Testament.

Besides, Scripture even makes references to the deuterocanon multiple times.

again, the Church did not get around to canonizing them until the Council of Trent.

The Church only does something so drastic (such as infallibly-proclaiming the Canon of Scripture) when heretics challenge the faith. As I just explained, the Church proclaimed the Canon in 382 C. E.; Trent reaffrimed this proclamation. Trent reaffirming the Canon of Scripture does not mean the Church didn’t already officially accept them.

By the way, stop spreading anti SDA garbage while you are at it.

And pray tell, what “anti-SDA garbage” have I spread? Please provide me with quote that supports this.

Thus far, I’ve also discussed the ludicrously of the “Saturday worship” argument SDA members argue for. That’s the only belief your church holds that I’ve discussed.

The Bible says not to.

The verse you are refferring to says “call no man father.” It doesn’t make any distinction whether this be a priest, pastor, someone’s father, or a male teacher. However, was Jesus literally telling us not to call anyone “father”? No, He was rebuking the the hypocrisy of the Pharisees; the context clearly supports that. If Jesus was literally telling us to call no one “father,” then we are contradicting Scripture by calling our male parents “father.”

As far as teacher goes, perhaps the Bible does not want us to adopt the practices of various cults.

This doesn’t answer my argument in any way. In other words, you’re side-stepping around my argument.

You can call your dad father-again, it comes down to context.

With your literalist interpretation of “call no man father,” we cannot event call our male parents our father; it clearly goes against Scripture.

The context is talking about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, not whether or not we should call people father or not.

As far as Paul, Abraham and others being called father, since Scripture is God-breathed, he (God) can do anything he wants.

God cannot do anything that contradicts Himself, though, because God is perfect. Therefore, if He was literally telling us not to call no man “father,” then He is simply not going to call any man “father.” Plain and simple. God practices what He preaches, unlike the Pharisees (who the verse is talking about).

If God wanted to call Paul father, then who is going to argue with him?

As I just said, God cannot contradict Himself; If He does, then He is not God. The fact of the matter stands that Jesus was not telling us to literally call no one “father.” If He was, then other people would not be referred to as “father.” That’s a simple fact you cannot get around, my friend.

Oh, and God didn’t call Paul father; Paul called himself father.

If God tells us not to call a man father (in teh context of the Church), then who are we to argue with him?

Whre is your evidence that Matthew is talking about the Church? He’s not; he’s talking about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees =/= the Church. Jesus was not forbidding the use of the word “father.” If He was, then all of us are in direct contradiction with Scripture.

continued in my next post…

 

[Pheonix]

But we should not exalt her.

And where is your evidence we should not exalt Mary? Jesus Himself did! He said those who are obedient to God’s Word are blessed; Mary was perfectly obedient to God’s Word, and she is therefore blessed. By all rights, Jesus was exalting His mother, and we should follow His example.

Even Luke the archangel exalts Mary when he greets her: “Hail Mary, full of grace (or ‘highly favored’), the Lord is with thee!” The “hail” is a term used to exalt someone, as is “full of grace” or “highly favored.”

And Elizabeth does the same thing: “Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed be the fruit of thy womb.”

And even Mary herself says “all generations shall call me blessed.”

Scripture supports exalting Mary; she is, by every right, deserving of our honor.

There are many competing gospels. You are right!

I’m also right that it took the Catholic Church to discern which of those 400+ writings were God’s inspired Word.

But being that the Catholic and Protestant Churches agree on the Canon of New Testament, I don’t see a problem here.

The problem is that the majority of Protestants reject the Church’s authority, when it was the Catholic Church who gave them the Bible in the first place! You simply would not know what books were in the Bible if it weren’t for the Catholic Church. You know what books are supposed to be in the New Testament because of the Church proclaiming such. Period.

Agreement on the New Testament Canon doesn’t mean it’s necesarrily inspired. It was still the Catholic Church that defined the New Testament Canon.

The Books in the New Testament were either written by those who were witnesses to Christ directly, or by those who; like Paul, did not see Christ in this earth (not counting the Road to Damascus), or those like Luke who showed the Holy Spirit working in them and those books are historically accurate.

By the logic of this argument, we should accept Clement’s Letter and the Gospel of Thomas. So why don’t we?

 

[po18guy]

As to the day of worship: If you are Jewish and circumcized, keep the Mosaic sabbath as well as the 613 laws that go with it. If you are Christian, you keep the day in which the Holy Spirit, and the very actions of Christ in His resurrection and sending of the Spirit directed and guided the Apostles toward - in which, as TimothyH has pointed out, they have done for almost 2,000 years.

One thing a Christian should not do: follow a latter day self-proclaimed “prophet” who sustained organic brain damage and mercury poisoning before receiving “visions.”

 

[po18guy]

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

To clarify confusing wording
What the (SDA) are:

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

 

[ChrisCath]

The Sabbath was created for man’s benefit.
Mark 2:27
That is, the Sabbath is for man’s salvation which is to be preferred to mere observance of the Sabbath.

Sabbath but a foreshadow
Colossians 2:16-17

Jesus has power over Sabbath
Mt 12:8; compare: Mk 2:28, Lk 6:5
And by extension, Peter through the office of stewardship (“the keys”) has it as well.

Jesus/Joshua spoke of another day of rest
He 4:8-9

Eucharist on Sunday
AA 20:7

The Lord’s day is Sunday
Rv 1:10

There’s much more, of course, but the above seems overwhelming to me.

And don’t forget, the Apostles spent much time in the Temple & synagogues on sabbaths, in order to fulfill their obligation to convert the Jews. Having a separate day for Holy Eucharist and formal (Christian) worship makes practical sense as well.

 

[Paul_Bates]

Consider the following:

1. God rested on the Seventh Day after creating earth-Genesis 2:1-3. At this point some would argue that the Sabbath was not kept in the garden of Eden. To be fair, no where does the Bible specifically say that the Sabbath was kept by Adam and Eve. However, the purpose of the Sabbath was for man to rest-Mark 2:27. The Sabbath was made for us and not us for the Sabbath. So the idea that God (who doesn’t need rest in the first place) would rest and not extend that to Adam and Eve is highly unlikely. I would say that there is much less extrapolating here than in the arguement that the Sabbath was turned to sunday and that sunday is the Lord’s Day.
2. We know that the Sabbath was between God and Israel for it’s generations. I want to say this is in Exodus 31; but I don’t have a Bible in front of me so I could be off on this one. At this point, many would argue that this was for the Jews and the Old Covenant. But in Galatians 3:29 says that those who accept Christ are of Abraham’s seed and heirs to the promise. We are grafted into spiritual Israel.
3. Isaiah 58 calls the Sabbath the Lord’s Day or Day of the Lord. Further, in Isaiah 58, Gentiles are invited to come and rest in God’s Sabbath.
4. Isaiah 66-again, Sabbath will be forever. All in heaven will observe it. We will bow down before God in heaven on his Holy Day. This is where things get interesting. The vast majority of sincere, born again believers in Christ today keep sunday as the Sabbath-or at least profess to. The greater part of God’s children and Church (Church being defined as all who accept Christ as their savior) keep the sunday Sabbath. Are they not saved? Of course not! Salvation does not come through the Sabbath-regardless of what day you observe it, salvation is a gift from Christ that we do not deserve and cannot obtain by our own merit. Thus, God’s people are spread out everywhere. We SDA’s are only a tiny sliver go those who are true Christians! But, the Bible is clear that in heaven we wil all observe the Seventh Day Sabbath-it will be interesting to see how people who have believed in sunday their whole lives will react when God tells them that they are to keep Saturday in heaven. Please notice that I said that the Sabbath is not what determines your salvation.
5. In the New Testament we have proof texts as well. What day did the early Christians keep? Well, lets to go the dramatic conversion of Saul (Paul) who was at that time the most anti-Christian zealot of the Pharisees. We know that Paul (in his earlier days), held the coats of those who stonded the first Martyr for Christ-Stephen. It is almost as if Saul (Paul) did not like Christians very much? Anyway, he (Paul/Saul) in Acts 9 decided on a particularly ambitious enterprise. He decided to get letters from the Synogagues in Damascus so that if he found any therein who belonged to “The Way” (Christians), he might take them prisoners to Jerusalem. Here we know a few things, A. There were Christians worshipping in the Synogagues-like the Jews-yet they are called Christians (The Way), two, Saul wanted to root them out and take them back to Jerusalem as prisoners. Synogagues always hold their worship services and Sabbaths on Saturday. At this point, the early Church was perfectly content to worship on the Sabbath and keep the Sabbath-the way Christ did. Of course, preaching went on seven days a week, but only one day was the Sabbath. You will get no arguement from me that there was not preaching on sunday. I agree. Pentacost occured on sunday, while Paul was having his good-bye meel on sunday he was preaching and even did a miracle-bringing a dead man back to life? Christ comforted the disciples on sunday as well as rose from the dead. As wonderful as those things are, sunday is still not the Sabbath.
6. Throughout Acts, Paul and others preach on the Sabbath to Jews, Jewish Christians, and God-fearers (Gentile Converts to Judaism and probably also Christianity). In the Gospel of Luke, we see the term Sabbath used frequently as well. It is interesting to look at the Gospel of Luke. As was mentioned before, as far as we can tell, Luke was the only real Gentile to write a book of the Bible. He was a Greek Physician if memory serves me right. While some may count Timothy as a Gentile; his mother was Jewish so even though he was raised Greek (he was not circumscized until an adult), he would still techinically be Jewish. Why does this matter? If anyone had reason to proclaim sunday as the Lord’s Day-it would have surely been one of these two men! While they may not have hated Saturday, they grew up without any cultural attachment to it. Yet they are silent on this issue.
7. By contrast, look at when the Bible talks of sunday-Acts 20:7, I Corinthians 16:2 (collections of these particular funds which were a benevolence offering were done privately as far as we can tell and not corporately like usual), John 20:19, Revelation 1:10 (incidently again, the Bible declares the true Lord’s Day as Saturday-see Isaiah 58 and Mark 2:27, Isaiah 58:13). There are other verses of course, but these come to the top of my head right now. There is always a distinction made. One can claim that sunday is the day of the Lord if they want to, but they will be doing it without any Biblical evidence whatsoever.
8. Another interesting fact is that shortly after the completion of the New Testament, there occurred the Bar Kokhba Revolt that culminated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 135 A.D. by Emperor Hadrian. He was not only a pagan, but a pagan’s pagan. During this time, the Jews in the Roman Empire suffered mass persecution that ever existed. Hadrian also outlawed the Jewish Sabbath and the Jewish religion. It would not be surprising that many Christians-whose status at that time was somewhat controversial in the empire, would find it easy to adopt another Sabbath day.

This is why I believe what I do.

 

[po18guy]

That is interesting. But the fact still remins that the Apocrapha was not officially canonized by the Catholic Church until 1546 during the Council of Trent.

As to declarations of the Church - they are made normally, in response to heresy. Councils are called to solve problems. The Deuterocanonical books have been in constant use by the Church (East and West) since day one. Some 1,500 years later, they were rejected by a disobedient and heretical faction. Look at the time line: Disobedience strikes the Body of Christ, and seven books of scripture (almost 14) are ripped out of the bible by rebels: 1517. Council of Trent: 1546. Hello? Trent was a reaction to heresy.

Look at this (protestant)time line of the bible. Is there really no scripture to cover the most important preparatory time in all of human history? Several books of the Deuterocanon were written in the 200 years immediately preceding Christ. Protestants, who reject the books, subsequently invented a name for this: the “Intertestamental period” claiming that God was silent.

As protestantism is wont to do, this ignores scripture - or worse, makes Jesus a liar. Our Lord declared that “The Law and the prophets prophesied up to John (baptist)” (Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16). Yet, the rebellious claim that God was silent.

 

[po18guy]

This is why I believe what I do.

Yes, but it is personal opinion of the scriptures, and is completely divorced from the unbroken history of the Apostolic Church. Jesus left Apostles, guided by the Hoy Spirit, in charge of His authoritative Church. He did not send bibles forth, to be interpreted by individual egos. The Pharisees were guilty of that.

What is your opinion of the Eastern Churches: the Orthodox Christians?

 

[Paul_Bates]

Yes, but it is personal opinion of the scriptures, and is completely divorced from the unbroken history of the Apostolic Church. Jesus left Apostles, guided by the Hoy Spirit, in charge of His authoritative Church. He did not send bibles forth, to be interpreted by individual egos. The Pharisees were guilty of that.

What is your opinion of the Eastern Churches: the Orthodox Christians?

You are right, Jesus left the apostles. Let us consider the historical facts to better put the Bible in context. That is what I have advocated all along. Where did the Christian faith come from? Israel. What were the original converts (for the most part)? Jews. What Sabbath did the Jews keep? Saturday. What day was set apart by God in the beginning? Sabbath. What day will we keep in heaven? Sabbath (Isaiah 66). What day did Jesus literally rest on (in the tomb)? Sabbath. Where in the Bible does it ever say that the Sabbath was changed to sunday? no where. Where in the Bible is sunday ever called the Lord’s Day? no where. Where in the Bible is Saturday called the Lord’s Day? Mark 2:27, Isaiah 58:13.

I’m sorry, but the Catholic Church with it’s Roman heritage is the one who is mis-interpreting scripture here.

Again, I would point to the fact that sunday owes more to Pagan Hadrian than Christ or the disciples. I don’t know how many more times I have to point this out.

 

[Paul_Bates]

And where is your evidence we should not exalt Mary? Jesus Himself did! He said those who are obedient to God’s Word are blessed; Mary was perfectly obedient to God’s Word, and she is therefore blessed. By all rights, Jesus was exalting His mother, and we should follow His example.

Even Luke the archangel exalts Mary when he greets her: “Hail Mary, full of grace (or ‘highly favored’), the Lord is with thee!” The “hail” is a term used to exalt someone, as is “full of grace” or “highly favored.”

And Elizabeth does the same thing: “Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed be the fruit of thy womb.”

And even Mary herself says “all generations shall call me blessed.”

Scripture supports exalting Mary; she is, by every right, deserving of our honor.

I’m also right that it took the Catholic Church to discern which of those 400+ writings were God’s inspired Word.

The problem is that the majority of Protestants reject the Church’s authority, when it was the Catholic Church who gave them the Bible in the first place! You simply would not know what books were in the Bible if it weren’t for the Catholic Church. You know what books are supposed to be in the New Testament because of the Church proclaiming such. Period.

Agreement on the New Testament Canon doesn’t mean it’s necesarrily inspired. It was still the Catholic Church that defined the New Testament Canon.

By the logic of this argument, we should accept Clement’s Letter and the Gospel of Thomas. So why don’t we?

Mary is blessed. But she is no intercessor, nor does she have any special abilities. She was a Holy woman. Praying to her does nothing however. Yes, I would know the books of the Bible because they were written by those of the New Testament Church who were again, not Catholic.

 

[John7]

Beale’s Revelation commentary
John 1:10
10a John begins a description of his commission to write what he saw. He has been entrusted with testifying to the revelation of the heavenly Jesus because he has been faithful in witnessing to the revelation of the earthly Jesus (this is the significance of the identical phrases in v 2a and v 9b; see the discussion above on v 2a). The vision came to him on “the Lord’s day,” perhaps when he was in an attitude of worship on “Sunday” (cf. Barnabas15:9).
Some contend that ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (“on the Lord’s day”) refers to the eschatological Day of the Lord prophesied in the OT, so that John’s vision (especially chs. 4–22) is an explanation of how this latter-day expectation will be (or is being) fulfilled. This would be an attractive idea since the focus of the book’s visions is end-time judgment. However, κυριακός is **never **used of the “Day of the Lord” in the LXX, NT, or early fathers.94 This is not a fatal objection, but it puts the burden of proof on those arguing for this “Day of the Lord” view. The phrase is clearly and consistently used of Sunday from the second half of the second century on, and John understands the OT idea of the Day of the Lord as pertaining to the restricted period of the final judgment, exclusive of the preparatory judgments leading up to it (cf. Rev. 6:17; 16:14). There is more recent debate about whether the phrase refers to the Christian Sunday or to Easter Sunday.97 The former is certainly preferable because of the unambiguous usage beginning in the second century and the absence of clear allusions to the latter from the same time. Some have seen in Rev. 1:1–8 a reflection of an early Christian liturgical dialogue, which would enhance this identification of “the Lord’s day” as Sunday. The idea that Rev. 1:10 implies a Christian observance of the Sabbath is the least likely alternative.

Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation : A commentary on the Greek text (203). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

go with an SDA or a scholar?

oh BTW yes, i learned SDA teaches CC is the Mother of Harlots and the Pope is the antichrist.

 

[Paul_Bates]

Concerning the Apocrapha,

Now that I’m home, I have more time and can finally relax. As to the Apocrapha, it is not scripture. There are a few reasons for this. One reason; as was mentioned before, it was never part of the Jewish canon of scripture. Protestant Churches and Catholic Churches adopted the entire Jewish Old Testament Canon-but the Roman Catholic Church added the Apocrapha later-in the Council of Trent. Josephus-probably the world’s most famous Jewish historian notes that From Artaxerxes to our own times a complete history has been written, but has ot been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets (Against Apion 1.41 Retreived from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem. From the Jewish point of view, no more “Words of God” were added to Scripture after about 435 B.C.

In the New Testament, there seems to be no disagreement between Jesus and the Jews over what constituted the Old Testament Canon (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 57). Not once do the writers of the New Testament nor Jesus ever cite any statements from the books of the Apocrapha or any other writing s as having divine authority (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 57).

The earliest list of Old Testament books comes from Melito, Bishop of Sardis writing about A.D. 170. You guessed it, Melito names none of the Books of the Apocrapha! Despite the fact that Jerome included those books in the Latin vulgate in A.D. 404-he refered to them as Books of the Church and not Books of Canon. Athanasius in this Paschal Letter lists some of the Apocrapha Books (Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith and Tobit) but pointed out that they were “not included in the Canon, but appointed by the fathers to read by those who newly joined us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.” Interestingly enough, when I did some research into the word Deuteroncanonical-I found that the prefix deutero means second. Therefore, we have second canon!

The Apocrapha is valuable. No doubt! But it is not scripture.

 

[Paul_Bates]

Beale’s Revelation commentary
John 1:10
10a John begins a description of his commission to write what he saw. He has been entrusted with testifying to the revelation of the heavenly Jesus because he has been faithful in witnessing to the revelation of the earthly Jesus (this is the significance of the identical phrases in v 2a and v 9b; see the discussion above on v 2a). The vision came to him on “the Lord’s day,” perhaps when he was in an attitude of worship on “Sunday” (cf. Barnabas15:9).
Some contend that ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (“on the Lord’s day”) refers to the eschatological Day of the Lord prophesied in the OT, so that John’s vision (especially chs. 4–22) is an explanation of how this latter-day expectation will be (or is being) fulfilled. This would be an attractive idea since the focus of the book’s visions is end-time judgment. However, κυριακός is **never **used of the “Day of the Lord” in the LXX, NT, or early fathers.94 This is not a fatal objection, but it puts the burden of proof on those arguing for this “Day of the Lord” view. The phrase is clearly and consistently used of Sunday from the second half of the second century on, and John understands the OT idea of the Day of the Lord as pertaining to the restricted period of the final judgment, exclusive of the preparatory judgments leading up to it (cf. Rev. 6:17; 16:14). There is more recent debate about whether the phrase refers to the Christian Sunday or to Easter Sunday.97 The former is certainly preferable because of the unambiguous usage beginning in the second century and the absence of clear allusions to the latter from the same time. Some have seen in Rev. 1:1–8 a reflection of an early Christian liturgical dialogue, which would enhance this identification of “the Lord’s day” as Sunday. The idea that Rev. 1:10 implies a Christian observance of the Sabbath is the least likely alternative.

Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation : A commentary on the Greek text (203). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

go with an SDA or a scholar?

oh BTW yes, i learned SDA teaches CC is the Mother of Harlots and the Pope is the antichrist.

Notice what he is saying. “PERHAPS when he was in an attitude of worship on sunday.” That almost opening line does not instill confidence. Notice how he says the Greek phrase is consistently used for sunday from the Second Century on. Interesting how this phrase was used during roughly the time of Hadrian’s anti Sabbath crusade. He even says this is not a fatal objection. When you compare this meaning to the Old Testament view of the Day of the Lord, you will see; again, it is Saturday. Jesus also lays claim over Saturday as the Day of the Lord. Even your own scholar is not completely convinced of his view.

 

[Pheonix]

As to the Apocrapha, it is not scripture.

The deuterocanon is Scripture, and you have yet to provide an argument (or any evidence for that matter) that suggests otherwise.

One reason; as was mentioned before, it was never part of the Jewish canon of scripture.

This is an egregious argument. Allow me to explain.

The logic your argument is this: the Jews rejected the deuterocanon. Therefore, the deuterocanon is not Scripture.

This argument doesn’t work for one simple reason: the Jews also reject the entire New Testament. By the logic of your argument (i.e. “the deuterocanon isn’t Scripture because the Jews rejected it”), then the New Testament is not Scripture either. This is because the Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah. If you’re seriously advocating this argument to dismiss the deuterocanon, then you’re also advocating the removal of the New Testament.

but the Roman Catholic Church added the Apocrapha later-in the Council of Trent.

No, she did not! I’ve already explained this to you! The Canon of Scripture was brought into existence in 382 C. E., when Pope Damasus proclaimed what books are in both the Old and New Testaments; this Canon of Scripture included the 73 books that Catholics still use today, and that therefore means the deuterocanon was part of the Canon of Scripture since the Bible was first brought into existence.

Trent reaffirmed what the Church already held to be truth. Why don’t you understand this? The assertion that Trent added the deuterocanon to the Bible is an erroneous myth, one that has zero evidence to back it up.

In the New Testament, there seems to be no disagreement between Jesus and the Jews over what constituted the Old Testament Canon (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 57).

False. There was no closed Old Testament canon during Jesus’ time. For example, the Sadducees believed that only the Torah was inspired. Further, all the books proposed as being Scripture were heavily debated for centuries. It wasn’t until 382 C. E. that the Old Testament canon became clear (due to the Church proclaiming what books of the Old Testament were inspired Scripture.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which did in fact contain the deuterocanon.

Not once do the writers of the New Testament nor Jesus ever cite any statements from the books of the Apocrapha or any other writing s as having divine authority (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 57).

Again: false. The New Tesament makes many references to the deuterocanon. Here’s just a few of many:

~Herod’s slaying of the innocent children (Matthew 2:16) was propheised in Wisdom 11:7.
~Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in Heaven (Matthew 6:19-20) is a reference to Sirach 29:11.
~The golden rule Jesus gives to us (Matthew 7:12) is the converse of Tobit 4:15.
~Elizabeth’s declaration to Mary follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.
~John1:3 follows Wisdom 9:1.
~John 6:35-59 is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
~Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, and Galatians 2:6 are all a reference to Sirach 35:12.
~Paul asks the question “who has known the mind of the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 2:16). This comes from Wisdom 9:13.
~Paul’s description of God as Soverieng and King of Kings is from 2 Maccabees 12:15 and 13:4.

As I said, these are just a few. But the idea that Jesus and the Apostles did not reference the deuterocanon is verifiably false.

The earliest list of Old Testament books comes from Melito, Bishop of Sardis writing about A.D. 170.

Funny you bring up Melito, when he clearly accepted the deuterocanon. For example, he includes the Book of Wisdom. As always, the early Church is in completely alignment with the Catholic view of things.

And there are even older references to the deuterocanon as Scripture. For example: ~
~Polycarp clearly teaches using Tobit in 135 C. E.
~The Didache (circa 90 C. E.) quotes from Sirach.
~The Epistle of Barnabas (circa 74 C. E.) quotes Wisdom, as done Clement of Rome in 80 C. E.

Despite the fact that Jerome included those books in the Latin vulgate in A.D. 404-he refered to them as Books of the Church and not Books of Canon.

You need to study up the history of St. Jerome a little more, my friend. While it’s true he didn’t believe the deuterocanon was inspired at first, he nonetheless submitted to the Pope’s authority and translated them. Later, he came to wholeheartedly accept them as God’s inspired Word; he even vehemently defended their status as God’s Word.

Athanasius in this Paschal Letter lists some of the Apocrapha Books (Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith and Tobit) but pointed out that they were “not included in the Canon, but appointed by the fathers to read by those who newly joined us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.”

And your point is what exactly? That because Athanasius didn’t believe the deuterocanon to be inspired, then that just proves they are not? That’s a poor line of thinking my friend.

The fact of the matter is that he is just one man among the many of Church Fathers who believed the deuterocanon to be inspired. St. Clement I, St. Polycarp, St. Augustine, St. Innocent I, St. Irenaneus, St. Jerome, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian, St. Damasus I The Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage III all support the inspired status of the deuterocanon. Heck, even Athanasius used the deuterocanon to teach, albeit he just didn’t believe them to be inspired. One Early Church Fathers pales in comparison to many.

Oh, and don’t worry. I’m working on my reply to the rest of your stuff (pertaining to Saturday vs. Sunday worship).