Seventh Day Sabbath question.

[Paul_Bates]

Wisdom 11:7 vs. Matthew 2:16-Wisdom is talking about the Egyptians murdering Hebrew boys and Matthew talks of Herod murdering Hebrew boys. These are two different events in history separated probably by over 1000 years.

Matthew 6:19-20 vs. Sirach 29:11-other than this being very vague enough to be conicidence, one talks about storing up treasures in heaven and the other says to dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands.Sure there are similarities. But consider the Proverbs like structure of the Book. There are also similarities between the Councils of Adarbad Mehrespandan in Zoroastrianism and the Old Testament Book of Proverbs.

Matthew 7:12 vs. Tobit 4:15-again, very vague. Hardly compelling. Every culture has the golden rule. The concept of the Golden Rule is upheld everywhere.

Judith 13:18 vs. Elizabeth greeting Mary (Luke 1:42?): if this is what you are referring to, then I would have to disagree. One talks of a woman who beheads someone and is praised and the other about a pregnant woman carrying the messiah.

John 1:3 vs. Wisdom 9:1-Here though-Word is referring to two very different things. Word in the context of Wisdom is referring to God’s spoken word-at least that is what I’m getting from it (I have a Catholic Bible). The Word in John 1:3 refers to Christ. If anything, Wisdom here is paralelling Genesis where God spoke creation into existence. Notice also that Word in John 1:3 (of the Catholic Study Bible) is capitalized while word in Wisdom is lowercase. The translaters of this Bible knew that these were two very different “words.”

John 6: 35-59 vs. Sirach 24:21-Sirach 24:21 is so vague that you can interpret it a million times in the New Testament, Old Testament, and probably just about every other religious book of the earth. All religions just about believe that if you obey God you ultimately NOT be put to shame.

Sirach 35:12-For he is a God of justice, who knows no favorites. Isn’t this what Judaism and Christianity are built on? Again, this can be interpreted and read into many verses and concepts in the New Testament and Old Testament.

Wisdom 9:13 vs. I Corinthians 2:16-Similar yes, but again, this is vague enough to be coincidence. Consider that Wisdom is written similarly to Proverbs. Both are Jewish books and the New Testament was largely Jewish inspired. Again, they would of course have similarities.

2 Maccabees 12:15-ultimately drawing parallels with the fall of the town of Jericho. Yes, God is Soveign-ok, and so???

These are stretching it! Again, these are so vague that they can be read in almost any religious book.

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.

He brings up the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom. This can also be taken to mean that because Proverbs was probably written by Solomon, it contained his wisdom.I don’t see anything about the Book of Wisdom.

It sounded like Jerome needed some persuasion. He translated them. Ok. When he translated them, he gave them a non-cannonical designation. That was his original inent. It was interesting that while he did what was asked and translated them, at that point-he gave them a different designation.

Athaniasius was still highly thought of and disagreed with the rest. Does this prove that the Apocrapha is not inspired? Of course not! I never debated that the Apocrapha was useful for historical context. It is a valuable piece of literature. I’m not saying that it is not worth studying. By no means! It is still an important part of our Christian heritage. But it is not scripture.

 

[Paul_Bates]

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.

There seems to be no real disagreement between Jesus and the Jews regarding Scripture. It is worthwhile to note that the Sadducees were a minority sect and were vastly outnumbered by the Pharisees. After the destruction of Jerusalem A.D. 135-they soon became extinct. I wouldn’t base my arguement on a very obscure minority sect alone.

 

[Pheonix]

There seems to be no real disagreement between Jesus and the Jews regarding Scripture. It is worthwhile to note that the Sadducees were a minority sect and were vastly outnumbered by the Pharisees. After the destruction of Jerusalem A.D. 135-they soon became extinct. I wouldn’t base my arguement on a very obscure minority sect alone.

And I wouldn’t base wouldn’t use the Jews rejecting the deuterocanon as one my arguments against the deuterocanon. The Jews practically begged for Christ to be crucified, so can we really trust their opinion in God’s inspired Word?

But that’s besides the point. It still doesn’t change the fact that there was no closed canon of Old Testament Scriptures, unless you have evidence to suggest the contrary. Scripture doesn’t even indicate that the Jews believed in a closed canon at the time.

The Jews formulated formal canon at the end of the apostolic age (circa 90 C. E.). The reason they left out the deuterocanon was because they were not originally written in Hebrew. This was they viewed the Septuagint (the Greek translations of the Old Testament, complete with deuterocanon) that Jesus and the Apostles used as being “too Gentile.”

 

[pablope]

Consider the following:

Please notice that I said that the Sabbath is not what determines your salvation.

 

[pablope]

Concerning the Apocrapha,

Now that I’m home, I have more time and can finally relax. As to the Apocrapha, it is not scripture.

 

[adrift]

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.

I would suggest that you do not try to put so many thoughts into one post. At this moment I want only to address the above. I want to make clear that Sunday is not the Sabbath. The sabbath was replace with Sunday from the time of the Apostles. Your argument that the Lord’s day is really refering to Saturday is historically incorrect. The Jews reckoned Sabbath to be Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. We do not do so. We consider days to start at midnight. Looking at the Sabbath in todays terms means that it is part of Satruday and part of Sunday. In other words, what makes a day is man made as is what makes a week. The Sabbath was part of the Old law which ended with Christ death.

 

[adrift]

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.

7 And upon the** first day of the week**, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.

 

[adrift]

Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or Sabbath (Col. 2:16).

 

[pablope]

To Pablope,

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).

 

[pablope]

It sounded like Jerome needed some persuasion. He translated them. Ok. When he translated them, he gave them a non-cannonical designation. That was his original inent. It was interesting that while he did what was asked and translated them, at that point-he gave them a different designation.

.

Jerome was obedient to the pope…though he may have held a contrary view. Whatever his view was, it was his alone and his opinion.

But when the Pope Damasus commissioned him to translate the canon as per the Council of Rome AD 382…he obeyed…and his translation is known as the Vulgate…if you have not heard of it before.

vulgate.org/

When Jerome used the term non-canonical…he was referring to the rule or measuring stick by which he deemed the other writings that he could not find in the original hebrew. It does not mean they were not inspired.

What is inspired was determined by the Pope, not Jerome.

 

[Pheonix]

Wisdom 11:7 vs. Matthew 2:16

And history repeats itself. What’s your point? It doesn’t change the fact that both events were doing the same thing: slaying innocent children. Further, since the Old Testament prefigures the New, this further supports that Wisdom 11:7 is a foreshadowing of Matthew 2:16.

Matthew 6:19-20 vs. Sirach 29:11

Exactly how are storing up treasure in Heaven and “place thy treasure in the commandments of the most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold” unrelated to each other? You admit there are similarities, and that is what references and allusions are all about.

Matthew 7:12 vs. Tobit 4:15

This doesn’t answer my argument. We’re talking about the Golden Rule with respect to Christianity. You know as well as I do that the Old Testament is a prefigurement of the New. Matthew is paraphrasing Tobit, that much is clear.

Judith 13:18 vs. Elizabeth greeting Mary (Luke 1:42?)

Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth.

And this is not an allusion to Elizabeth’s proclamation to Mary… how?

John 1:3 vs. Wisdom 9:1

First, there is no use of the word “Word” in John 1:3, which reads: All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. Wisdom 9:1 reads: God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word. It’s clear that these two verses compliment each other.

Second, it doesn’t matter whether the word is capitalized or not; there is no instance in the Old Testament where “word” is capitialized. It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is the Word made flesh. A lowercase “word” can refer to Jesus as much as an capitalized “word” can.

Even if Wisdom was referencing Genesis, that doesn’t refute my point; it strengthens it.

John 6: 35-59 vs. Sirach 24:21

Are we reading the same John 6? Where is there any mention of not being put to shame? John 6 is institution of the Holy Eucharist, and Sirach 24 definitely prefigures it.

Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits. For my spirit is sweet above honey, and my inheritance above honet and the honeycomb. My memory is unto everlasing generations. They that eat me, shall yet hunger and they that drink me, shall yet thrist. He that hearkeneth me, shall not confounded: and they that work by me, shall not sin. They that explain me shall have life everlasting.

Explain how this is not a prefigurement of John 6, where Jesus institutes the Eucharist.

Sirach 35:12

Chapter 35 clearly alludes to God’s impartiality, as Paul and Peter do in the other verses I cited. You have yet to explain why Paul and Peter are not referencing Sirach.

Wisdom 9:13 vs. I Corinthians 2:16

How is it vague enough to be a concindence? 1 Corinthians is a restatement of what Wisdom 9:13 is asking. Were you expecting all references to the Old Testament to be word-for word? Well, I can say that’s not factual in the slighest; references and allusions don’t have to be as cut-and-dry as you’re making them seem.

Your last two sentences in your response to this are irrelveant; they don’t answer my argument in any way.

2 Maccabees 12:15

Both Timothy and 2 Maccabees use the same phrase “King of kings” exactly, no where else is “King of kings” used the same way in the Old Testament. Hence, they’re referencing each other.

These are stretching it! Again, these are so vague that they can be read in almost any religious book.

Alright, if these are too vague for you (and I honestly don’t see how they’re vague), then how about this:

John 10:22-26 clearly shows us that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah. In fact, Jesus treats Hanukkah just as he does the manna John 6, the bronze serpent in John 3, and Jacob’s Ladder in John 1. However, there are only two places where this feast is talked about (and diviely established) in the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees. Explain that one for me, please.

He brings up the Proverbs of Solomon and his Wisdom. This can also be taken to mean that because Proverbs was probably written by Solomon, it contained his wisdom.I don’t see anything about the Book of Wisdom.

The Wisdom of Solomon = the Book of Wisdom, and St. Melito definitely said it was considered canonical.

It sounded like Jerome needed some persuasion. He translated them. Ok. When he translated them, he gave them a non-cannonical designation. That was his original inent. It was interesting that while he did what was asked and translated them, at that point-he gave them a different designation.

This doesn’t answer anything. Yes, Jerome did believe the deuterocanon was not Scripture at one point. He changed his mind, and even vehemently defended the deuterocanon. Therefore, you cannot use him to support your view.

Athaniasius was still highly thought of and disagreed with the rest.

And this shows the deuterocanon is not inspired… how? Even though Athaniasius was “highly thought of,” so were the other Early Church Fathers that I listed (especially St. Augustine). These other "highly thought of: Early Church Fathers did accept the deuterocanon as inspired Scripture. Therefore, you really don’t have an argument with Athaniasius.

And as I’ve said before, you’ve yet to provide any compelling evidence which suggests the deuterocanon is not Scripture. There is no evidence that Christ made any distinction between the deuterocanon and the rest of the Old Testament. This makes sense since He used the Septuagint, which contained the deuterocanon.

 

[po18guy]

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.

Your continuing error is that you rely solely on the fragmentary, incomplete written record of historical events. As well, you have been infused with the SDA bigotry and hatred toward the Catholic Church - even though the Orthodox Churches are essentially identical! Hypocrisy!

Jesus left Apostles in charge. They met to break the bread on Sunday, the day of resurrection and the day of Pentecost. Jesus gave them the authority to change the sabbath (“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”) - even if He Himself did not actually make the change. But, He did make the change by rising and sending the Spirit on Sunday. Jesus broke the sabbath by healing others, and was condemned for it on numerous occasions. Like the Sadducees, you are greatly mislead.

Jesus did not rest on the sabbath. He descended to the dead (which the SDA claim are sleeping) and preached the Gospel to them. Why would He do that if they were actually sleeping?

Saturday is for observantJews. I will not be judged as to my sabbath, as Paul wrote. Why do you ignore Paul? You blame the Catholic Church for being legalistic when the SDA is far worse in this regard.

Please re-read the entire New Testament. You are missing whole chunks of it by relying on SDA theology.

You are greatly mislead.

 

[po18guy]

Paul, as a practical matter, why don’t you go to C.A.R.M. and other prominent protestant sites and convince them of your arguments. Once you have finished that, please come back here and school us.

 

[Paul_Bates]

John 6: 35-59 vs. Sirach 24:21

Are we reading the same John 6? Where is there any mention of not being put to shame? John 6 is institution of the Holy Eucharist, and Sirach 24 definitely prefigures it.

Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits. For my spirit is sweet above honey, and my inheritance above honet and the honeycomb. My memory is unto everlasing generations. They that eat me, shall yet hunger and they that drink me, shall yet thrist. He that hearkeneth me, shall not confounded: and they that work by me, shall not sin. They that explain me shall have life everlasting.

Explain how this is not a prefigurement of John 6, where Jesus institutes the Eucharist.
What I’m saying is only abut Sirach 24:21 where it says: He who obeys me will not be put to shame, he how serves me will never fall. This is what I’m reading, this is so vague it can be very easy allegedly “quoted.”

Exactly how are storing up treasure in Heaven and “place thy treasure in the commandments of the most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold” unrelated to each other? You admit there are similarities, and that is what references and allusions are all about.

What proof have you that this was directly quoted?

First, there is no use of the word “Word” in John 1:3, which reads: All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. Wisdom 9:1 reads: God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word. It’s clear that these two verses compliment each other.

Second, it doesn’t matter whether the word is capitalized or not; there is no instance in the Old Testament where “word” is capitialized. It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is the Word made flesh. A lowercase “word” can refer to Jesus as much as an capitalized “word” can.

Even if Wisdom was referencing Genesis, that doesn’t refute my point; it strengthens it.

In Sirach it is saying that God made the world by his word. This is similar to Genesis. John 1:3 says that the Word was with God and the Word was God. The Word is Christ. If anything, John 1:3 is referencing Genesis for a few reasons. One, God spoke all into existance. Two, Jesus is God in the flesh, Holy Spirit is God the spirit and the Father is God the father. Again, both of these words created the universe. God (the Son) spoke the world into existence. Thus both Genesis and John 1:3 are correct.

You are right though, word was not capitalized in the Old Testament. Hebrew is a semetic language and; like it’s sister Arabic, does not have capital and lowercase letters. It is interesting that your Church’s translation of the Bible differentiates between word by capitalizing it in John 1:3 and not in Wisdom 9:1.

You are right, the Bar Kokhba revolt lead to Jerusalem being toppled, not the temple. Keep in mind; however, that I’m answering multiple questions from many people. Again, it doesn’t matter though, my point is still valid.

 

[pablope]

Keep in mind; however, that I’m answering multiple questions from many people. Again, it doesn’t matter though, my point is still valid.

PB…some tips on how to respond.

To respond to a post that you want to include, at the bottom right of the post, you will see the “Quote” button. Click that and a reply box with the post will show up.

To reply to specific parapagraphs/statements…to free up the text, delete this "

’ at the end of the post.

To put a qoute box, highlight the post…and click the “Quote” button. It is on top of the reply box, left of the “#” sign.

Give it a try.

Note: you can edit your post /reply if it does not look ok. There is an edit button after you have posted…but you about 10 minutes to edit before the ability to edit expires. Hope this helps.

 

[Paul_Bates]

I’m sorry, but I don’t see your point. If one is determined enough, they can draw any type of connection they want. I see no proof that those quotes were made intentionally. The Jews did not recognize the Apocrapha, the langauge was significantly different for Jewish scriptures. There was no prophet of God on the earth during that time. So, I don’t blame the Jews for rejecting it!

When the Pope’s own interpretor lacks faith in the project, it is not a good sign. There were no prophets on in the world at that time. Therefore, it is more likely that these scriptures are valuable but not canon. I think it comes down to the issue of Church authority. I believe that the Holy Spirit was behind the present-day Canon of Scripture all along. If God chose to use the Roman Church or not to do so, to bring about the translation of the 66 Books of the Bible-it is of little consequence. We would have our exact same Canon of Scripture with or without the Pope.

There is no evidence of any Jewish sect that I’m aware of keeping the Apocrapha as scripture. While the Sadducees were odd in their regard of scripture, the majority of the Jews seemed to have agreed with Christ as to what constituted Scripture. Even if the Jewish Canon was not closed, there appear to be no discrepancies between Christ and the general Jewish population as to what consituted Scripture at that time, and by extension-this time.

Keep in mind, the Jews were the guardians of Scripture before Christ came, and even after he came. Consider that the Jews were very proud of their scriptures and learned in them. The New Testament was written by Jews (with one writer-Luke-being the exception-as far as we know). Peter; whom you say was the first pope-was a Jew. So, your Church trusted Jews to produce the New Testament. While the majority of Jews rejected it, it was still those from among them who wrote it. You trust the Jewish accounts of Jesus. With the exception of the Apocryphal texts, you also trust the Jews with the Old Testament Canon. When it comes to scripture writing, I don’t see where the Jews (both Christian and not) have lead us astray.

Your Messiah is a Jew. Your first Pope is a Jew. Your Bible was written by Jews. So why did the Jews get it right in every other instance of Scripture-and not the Apocrapha?

 

[Pheonix]

What I’m saying is only abut Sirach 24:21 where it says: He who obeys me will not be put to shame, he how serves me will never fall. This is what I’m reading, this is so vague it can be very easy allegedly “quoted.”

It appears I didn’t do this already. I don’t know how, but it’s clear I cited the incorrect verse numbers; I apologize for that. However, my point still stands: the Eucharist is definitely prefigured in Sirach 24.

What proof have you that this was directly quoted?

Who said anything about direct quotes? I sure didn’t. I said there are references and allusions to the deuterocanon in the New Testament. Not every reference to the Old Testament is a direct quote, my friend. Further, a reference or an allusion does not have to be a direct quote; there are three ways to reference written information: direct quote, paraphrase, and summary.

John 1:3 says that the Word was with God and the Word was God.

No, it does not. John 1:3 says all things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. It is John 1:1 that says in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word is Christ. If anything, John 1:3 is referencing Genesis for a few reasons. One, God spoke all into existance. Two, Jesus is God in the flesh, Holy Spirit is God the spirit and the Father is God the father. Again, both of these words created the universe. God (the Son) spoke the world into existence. Thus both Genesis and John 1:3 are correct.

And Wisdom by comparison. You do realize you just argued for my point concerning Wisdom, correct?

You are right though, word was not capitalized in the Old Testament. Hebrew is a semetic language and; like it’s sister Arabic, does not have capital and lowercase letters.

Okay…

It is interesting that your Church’s translation of the Bible differentiates between word by capitalizing it in John 1:3 and not in Wisdom 9:1.

Wait, what? This makes no sense. As I just said (and you agree with me on this), the Old Testament never capitalized the the word “word.” John 1:3 doesn’t even use the word “Word;” John 1:1 does, and in that case the reason it’s capitalized is because John is making use of personification.

Christians commonly capitalized pronouns when referring to God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit (e.g. “I believe He is my Lord and Savior”). I have yet to see a Bible where pronouns referring to Jesus are capitalized. So I really don’t see why it matters whether something is capitalized or not; it can still refer to Christ as clear as day.

You are right, the Bar Kokhba revolt lead to Jerusalem being toppled, not the temple. Keep in mind; however, that I’m answering multiple questions from many people. Again, it doesn’t matter though, my point is still valid.

I think you’re confusing me with another because of the “multiple questions from many people.” I never said anything about your Bar Kokhba reference.

But might I ask this: do believe the deuterocanon are not inspired because you believe there are no references to it in the New Testament (even though I’ve shown there to be references and allusions to it)? If so, then why do we still have Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, and Nahum in our Bibles today? After all, none of these protocanonical books are referenced in the New Testament; they’re the only ones that fit this case, in fact.

 

[Paul_Bates]

Your continuing error is that you rely solely on the fragmentary, incomplete written record of historical events. As well, you have been infused with the SDA bigotry and hatred toward the Catholic Church - even though the Orthodox Churches are essentially identical! Hypocrisy!

*I have never said anything about the Orthodox Church period. Did I ever say I agreed with them? However, this is a Catholic forum where Catholic topics are debated. So why would I care about Orthodox at this point? I never said I was infused with hatred towards your Church. A great deal of my relatives belong to your Church. I simply think there are areas where your Church is in error-error does not equal hatred and bigotry. I consider it more of a concern.

But it is your Church that seems the most militant about sunday laws which persecute my faith. Don’t get me wrong, Pat Robertson is also militantly anti Sabbath rest.They forece me to obide by your sabbath. Yet I’m the one who is being judgemental? I want a world free of blue laws where I can practice my faith in freedom.*

Jesus left Apostles in charge. They met to break the bread on Sunday, the day of resurrection and the day of Pentecost. Jesus gave them the authority to change the sabbath (“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”) - even if He Himself did not actually make the change. But, He did make the change by rising and sending the Spirit on Sunday. Jesus broke the sabbath by healing others, and was condemned for it on numerous occasions. Like the Sadducees, you are greatly mislead.

Again, I would like to see your proof that the disciples changed the Sabbath. And no, breaking bread is not going to do it. Breaking bread was not only on sunday. See Acts 2:46

Jesus did not rest on the sabbath. He descended to the dead (which the SDA claim are sleeping) and preached the Gospel to them. Why would He do that if they were actually sleeping?

The dead could also be the demons who disobeyed a long time ago. However, soul sleep is a completely different area of doctrine and is not a doctrine that I’m going over in this forum. Really, though I believe in it-either way, what is-is; soul sleep does not affect your relationship with God. Therefore I’m not getting into that debate right now. Jesus physically rested however. He was dead. No matter what your take on soul sleep, it is a powerful symbolic point.

Saturday is for observantJews. I will not be judged as to my sabbath, as Paul wrote. Why do you ignore Paul? You blame the Catholic Church for being legalistic when the SDA is far worse in this regard.

Catholic Church wants to force me to obide by blue laws. They have always made life difficult for Sabbath-keepers. We do not believe that our Sabbath should be FORCED on anybody. Thus, even if there were a move to mandate businesses being closed on Saturday-we would not support it! The Sabbath must be chosen of free will. So no, we are not far worse in that regard.

Please re-read the entire New Testament. You are missing whole chunks of it by relying on SDA theology.

I read the entire Bible once in my life and the New Testament twice. Both times I read through it, I was not a SDA. When I came into contact with their doctrines; however, and compared it with my Bible-I found their explanations made more sense.

You are greatly mislead.

I’m sorry you feel that way. My core case for the Sabbath came out of the Bible-both Old and New testaments.

 

[Pheonix]

I’m sorry, but I don’t see your point.

The point is you claim Jesus or the Apostles never referenced the deuterocanon. I have demonstrated that there are refereneces to the deuterocanon in the New Testament, albeit they’re “too vague” for you.

If one is determined enough, they can draw any type of connection they want.

Like what you’re doing to try and support your arguments?

The Jews did not recognize the Apocrapha,

This is a terrible argument against the deuterocanon. The Jews rejected the deuterocanon at the Council of Jamnia, where they also rejected the entire New Testament.

Therefore, if you’re saying that the deuterocanon is not Scripture because the Jews rejected it, then by that same logic we must also reject the New Testament.

the langauge was significantly different for Jewish scriptures.

Which is exactly why the Jews rejected the deuterocanon (i.e they believed the Septuagint that Jesus used was “too Gentile” for their likings).

There was no prophet of God on the earth during that time.

How is this relevant?

When the Pope’s own interpretor lacks faith in the project, it is not a good sign.

What or whom are you referring to? Jerome? As I’ve explained before, he came to accept the deuterocanon; he even defended their status as God’s Word.

Stop rehashing the same, already-refuted arguments.

Therefore, it is more likely that these scriptures are valuable but not canon.

Jesus and the Apostles used the deuterocanon, and the early Church used the deuterocanon. I take that as a pretty good sign that the deuterocanon is God’s inspired Word.

I think it comes down to the issue of Church authority.

Which resides in the Catholic Church.

I believe that the Holy Spirit was behind the present-day Canon of Scripture all along.

The Catholic Church believes this too. In fact, the Holy Spirit was guiding the Catholic Church when Pope Damasus discerned the Canon of Scripture in 382 C. E. After all, you need an infallible interpretator to discern inerrant works.

If God chose to use the Roman Church or not to do so, to bring about the translation of the 66 Books of the Bible-it is of little consequence.

It is of big consequence my friend. Jesus founded the Catholic Church on St. Peter in 33 C. E. He also promised that His Church would not fall into error. Therefore, when Pope Damasus proclaimed the Canon of Scripture, all 73 books of it, we can rest easy knowing that the Lord was behind this discernment.

We would have our exact same Canon of Scripture with or without the Pope.

I don’t see how. God planned for the Catholic Church to discern the Canon before any of us were here. It wouldn’t have happend any other way.

There is no evidence of any Jewish sect that I’m aware of keeping the Apocrapha as scripture.

The Jews were xenophobic with respect to the Gentiles, which is why they rejected the deuterocanon (which was in the Septuagint).

the majority of the Jews seemed to have agreed with Christ as to what constituted Scripture.

Really? Then explain all the heated debates about what is to consitute the Old Testament?

Even if the Jewish Canon was not closed, there appear to be no discrepancies between Christ and the general Jewish population as to what consituted Scripture at that time, and by extension-this time.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Since the Septuagint already contained the deuterocanon, it makes logical sense that there would be no discrepancies on their inspired status; they were already there, being used no less!

Keep in mind, the Jews were the guardians of Scripture before Christ came, and even after he came. Consider that the Jews were very proud of their scriptures and learned in them.

Evidently, the Jews didn’t do their job very well. They don’t believe Christ is the Messiah, despite the myriad of Old Testament information that supports Him being so.

Peter; whom you say was the first pope-was a Jew.

Who later become a follower of Christ, and thus became a Christian.

So, your Church trusted Jews to produce the New Testament.

False. When the authors of the New Testament became followers of Christ, they we became Christians. They did not observe Jewish beliefs, and were therefore not Jews.

While the majority of Jews rejected it, it was still those from among them who wrote it. You trust the Jewish accounts of Jesus.

No, we trust Christian accounts of Jesus.

With the exception of the Apocryphal texts, you also trust the Jews with the Old Testament Canon.

We trust the rest of the Old Testament books because they were in the Septuagint, which Jesus Himself used.

When it comes to scripture writing, I don’t see where the Jews (both Christian and not) have lead us astray.

Jews proclaim that Jesus is not the Messiah. How’s that not straying from the Truth?

Your Messiah is a Jew. Your first Pope is a Jew. Your Bible was written by Jews. So why did the Jews get it right in every other instance of Scripture-and not the Apocrapha?

First, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. We are Chrisitians, or “fullfilled Jews.”

Second, the Jews “[got] it right in every other instance of Scripture,” huh? Then explain why they reject Christ and the New Testament. If they got it right on everything, then they would accept Christ as Lord. But since they erred on that, why can’t they have erred on other things too (such as rejecting the deuterocanon)?

 

[pablope]

I’m sorry, but I don’t see your point. If one is determined enough, they can draw any type of connection they want. I see no proof that those quotes were made intentionally. The Jews did not recognize the Apocrapha, the langauge was significantly different for Jewish scriptures. There was no prophet of God on the earth during that time. So, I don’t blame the Jews for rejecting it!

Well, the Jews not only rejected the NT, they also composed this anti-Christian prayer…

It produced an ugly prayer called the Birkat haMinim, which cursed the Christians as sectarians, and prayed to God that for these “sectarians,” “let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed art You, LORD, who breaks down enemies and humbles sinners.” (catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/can-protestants-rely-upon-council-of.html)

This prayer was to be prayed every Sabbath, and it forced the Jewish Christians to stop worshiping with the non-Christian Jews in synagogue.

So if you are going to relying on what the Jews on the Canon…and on the Sabbath…would you like to say that prayer too?

When the Pope’s own interpretor lacks faith in the project, it is not a good sign.