Sunday Worship as an Apologetic Argument

[Messenger]

Basically I am saying… who cares what the quotes say… these books do not hold authority over anyone and are not what we base our belief on.

So I’m confused. I have always wanted someone to clear this up for me.

When one belongs to an organization it is because they give allegance to what they say. If there is anything in that organization that is contrary to what the individual believes, the organization and the individual conflict, thus making the individual not an official member of the organization, (thus one of the reasons some people offshoot and start other churches or just seperate from the faith altogether). To be an official member you must heed the oral and written statements of the pope since he is the divine authority for catholics, his own claim.

If it is true that Catholics do not base their faith on the writings of the official church doctrine (official catechism) then how can you remain in the church? (by the way when I say basing your faith on church doctrine I mean in the sense that that church has studied the doctrine from the bible)

Am I misunderstanding this? Perhaps someone can shed light on this to me.

 

[SDA2RC]

If that is indeed true, please forgive me. I am the last person to want to mis-use any churches sayings. I retract that statement (if what you say is correct) and offer yours in its place… which still says the same thing.

God Bless!

I appreciate that… I do know that a lot of times when I was SDA, I used similar, in fact some of the exact same quotes that you did. What I found was A.) that I could not verify most of the quotes because I did not have access the the originals… therefore it was intellectually dishonest of me to use them b.) Catholics don’t consider them authoritative anyway.

The authoritative Catechism of The Catholic Church can be found on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website, or there is a link to a searchable catechism on my blog (sda2rc.blogspot.com), you will never go wrong sticking to the official catechism and official documents.

Finally… the official Catechism does not say the same thing as the quotes you listed, but it DOES say that Saturday is the Sabbath and that Sunday, the Lord’s Day, follows the Sabbath.

 

[SDA2RC]

So I’m confused. I have always wanted someone to clear this up for me.

When one belongs to an organization it is because they give allegance to what they say. If there is anything in that organization that is contrary to what the individual believes, the organization and the individual conflict, thus making the individual not an official member of the organization, (thus one of the reasons some people offshoot and start other churches or just seperate from the faith altogether). To be an official member you must heed the oral and written statements of the pope since he is the divine authority for catholics, his own claim.

If it is true that Catholics do not base their faith on the writings of the official church doctrine (official catechism) then how can you remain in the church? (by the way when I say basing your faith on church doctrine I mean in the sense that that church has studied the doctrine from the bible)

Am I misunderstanding this? Perhaps someone can shed light on this to me.

So here is the thing… the official Catechism yes… but there are TONS of non-official catechisms (such as the one you quoted from) which may be useful, but are not binding. Even if a bishop does approve a Catechism for use in his diocese, that catechism is only for that Diocese. Currently no Dioceses have their own catechisms, they all hold to the Official Church Catechism, which can be found on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops page or the Vatican Website.

Our beliefs are based on God’s Word… The Catechism is a summary of our beliefs and teachings. If that didn’t answer your questions, just let me know… I am not sure if I was clear.

 

[Messenger]

to answer your question about where I’m finding the sources for my arguement, I left some out because of the length of the post. Due to being in the navy I do not have access to my entire library right now (it being at home) but I will post some sources of reference.

Please understand I am not trying to say that other Christians are ignorant or do not have the capacity to understand scripture. Perhaps I spoke in the wrong way. “I can deduce” would have been better. But it does seem pretty clear. Passages are easily misunderstood by even the most sincere reader. Setting the six verses in question aside for a moment, we are in agreement that it was under the authority of the church that the change is made. I would sincerely like to understand what makes the church feel they have the authority to make such a change, (I don’t mean that in a bashing kind of way… pure curiousity)?

And, now contemplating the verses in question, what about them does anyone disagree with in regards to my explanations?

About the “most christians disagree”:

I wonder what would happen if you asked 80% of them why they believe what they believe. There are a lot of bench warmers in church now a days. And God does illistrate that a lot of people will be deceived in the last days.

 

[Messenger]

Our beliefs are based on God’s Word… The Catechism is a summary of our beliefs and teachings.

Thank you. That helps.

With respect then, how do you account for some changes to the bible itself, such as the deletion of the second commandment:

Ex 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.

and replaced with the split of the 10th commandment into the 9th and 10th.

This was done I think by the pure authority of the papacy. If true, then how do you explain your statement.

With Love

 

[SDA2RC]

to answer your question about where I’m finding the sources for my arguement, I left some out because of the length of the post. Due to being in the navy I do not have access to my entire library right now (it being at home) but I will post some sources of reference.

Great… I would appreciate it… What you will often find it that someone said well… XYZ did this, or XYZ did that, but yet they cannot show any primary historical writings to support what they are saying. In any study, primary sources are key to understanding the truth… you know what they say about opinions.

Please understand I am not trying to say that other Christians are ignorant or do not have the capacity to understand scripture. Perhaps I spoke in the wrong way. “I can deduce” would have been better. But it does seem pretty clear.

I understand where your coming from, that is why I called you on it… I once thought it was really clear too… but it all is based on what your using for reference in interpretation. Take for example your statement about Genesis 2 and the creation of the Sabbath. Re-read the passage and tell me this… was a Sabbath ever mentioned? Was anyone commanded to keep the Sabbath in Genesis 2? Was anything talked about in regards to a weekly observance of the 7th day of creation in Genesis? Can we really say, from scripture alone that Genesis two is the creation of the weekly sabbath binding on any man.

We can say that God rested on the 7th day and blessed and sanctified THE 7th DAY OF CREATION… but that is as far as the scriptures allow us to go with that text. Anything else is just reading into scripture something that is not there.

Passages are easily misunderstood by even the most sincere reader. Setting the six verses in question aside for a moment, we are in agreement that it was under the authority of the church that the change is made.

Absolutely.

I would sincerely like to understand what makes the church feel they have the authority to make such a change, (I don’t mean that in a bashing kind of way… pure curiousity)?

Sure… well first… was it a change? For example if the law was done away with… there was no change needed. Second… lets start with these texts,
"(Mat 16:19 NASB) “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

"(Mat 18:18 NASB) “Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Tell me what you think the word “Whatever” means in these texts?

And, now contemplating the verses in question, what about them does anyone disagree with in regards to my explanations?

Yes… Pick one and we will discuss it.

I wonder what would happen if you asked 80% of them why they believe what they believe. There are a lot of bench warmers in church now a days. And God does illistrate that a lot of people will be deceived in the last days.

Agreed… But God also makes some promises to his Church that are relevant here…

 

[SDA2RC]

Thank you. That helps.

Ahh you missed the bait… you didnt ask what we consider to be God’s Word…

With respect then, how do you account for some changes to the bible itself, such as the deletion of the second commandment and replaced with the split of the 10th commandment into the 9th and 10th.

First… who told you we deleted a commandment? Thats just silly. Go to usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus20.htm

This is the official Catholic Bible used by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops… but for that matter you can go to ANY Catholic Bible and do the same… anyway… read along in the Catholic Bible with your Bible and tell me what was deleted. I will be waiting to hear your answer.

 

[SDA2RC]

Messenger,
In the “10 Commandments” there are actually about 14 Commands, therefore someone had to figure out how to number them… The Jews, The Catholics and Lutherans, and Most protestants do it differently. However, all of us believe in the EXACT SAME COMMANDMENTS… you can also see this in the Catechism… all of the commandments are held by Catholics.

Adventists (I used to too) frequently say that we deleted the second commandment… but in reality, we generally believe that:

1. 
   *]I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.
   *]Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
   Are both part of one commandment which is speaking to the exclusiveness of God… so while you would number them as two commandments, we would say that both of them are one whole commandment.
   
   On the other hand,
   1. 
      *]You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
      *]You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
      You would consider both of these commandments to be part of one commandment. While we believe that there is a difference between Coveting women (not a belonging) and someone’s belongings, therefore we believe that these are two.
      
      A catholic could just as easily ask, why did you Adventists Change the 10 commandments and cut out the 9th commandment, and split the 2nd commandment into two. In reality you didnt, and in reality, we didnt cut anything out either… we just number them differently.
      
      Here is a Catholic article on this subject.
      
      Here is an Adventist Article on this Subject.
      
      Notice the last lines in both articles.
      
      Unfortunately, the idea that we deleted a commandment is still circulated by people who are ignorant to the truth, and dont care about it enough to find out.

 

[JoeyWarren]

wow a 3 year old post surfacing…

 

[Messenger]

Take for example your statement about Genesis 2 and the creation of the Sabbath. Re-read the passage and tell me this… was a Sabbath ever mentioned? Was anyone commanded to keep the Sabbath in Genesis 2? Was anything talked about in regards to a weekly observance of the 7th day of creation in Genesis? Can we really say, from scripture alone that Genesis two is the creation of the weekly sabbath binding on any man.

To answer your question let me pose to you another:

Why would God bless the Sabbath day and wait for 2000 years before instituting it for man? Wouldn’t that whole group have been missing out on the blessing of that day? If one questions what indeed the Sabbath is for (a blessing to us to refocus our love and energy to God and family) it would seem apparent that God would not withold that from his people. Especially in the days of Noah when he was surrounded by evil as we are now today.

But more importantly one must consider also the context of the books and their author. The first 5 books were written by Moses. When Moses wrote Genesis He was writing it for the people of his time to be passed down to future generations. The Sabbath was a clearly understood principle understood by the Israelites by that time so it would stand to reason that he did not feel it necessary to repeat laws and edicts they already knew. Instead he was emphasizing the Sabbath’s historical root. Another example of this would be the sacrificial system.

Ge 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it

The word “Sanctify” comes from the root word qadash/kaw-dash’ , meaning:
a primitive root; to be (causatively, make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally):–appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy(-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify(-ied one, self), X wholly.

The meaning of the word used in this passage I feel more than indicates that God was intending it to be sanctioned as a day kept. Later on Moses further illistrated the Sabbath and the things which one should not do to defile it.

And if indeed the Sabbath wasn’t instituted in Genesis what is the point of that passage in your opinion?

Sure… well first… was it a change? For example if the law was done away with… there was no change needed.

The commandments being nailed to the cross is a whole other study but shortly let me make a distinction between the cerimonial laws of moses and the laws of God. The cerimonial laws of sacrifice etc. is what I think of when understanding the passage of the law being nailed to the cross. After the death of Christ, the sacrifices were no longer needed. The law of God written with His own hand is binding still, because why would God do away with those if they are what we use to mold our character around… Let’s save the law for another forum.

Second… lets start with these texts,
"(Mat 16:19 NASB) “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This is also another huge discussion probably best kept for another fourm but this is shortly my opinion on it:

Whatever this mean, it was soon expressly extended to all the apostles (Mt 18:18); so that the claim of supreme authority in the Church, made for Peter by the Church of Rome, and then arrogated to themselves by the popes as the legitimate successors of St. Peter, is baseless and impudent. As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these “keys,” on the day of Pentecost, he first “opened the door of faith” to the Jews, and then, in the person of Cornelius, he was honored to do the same to the Gentiles. Hence, in the lists of the apostles, Peter is always first named. One thing is clear, that not in all the New Testament is there the vestige of any authority either claimed or exercised by Peter, or conceded to him, above the rest of the apostles–a thing conclusive against the Romish claims in behalf of that apostle.

"(Mat 18:18 NASB) “Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Tell me what you think the word “Whatever” means in these texts?

Well, whatsoever (KJV) comes from the root word “hos”. The root word indicates nothing more special about it than its assumed meaning: anything.

 

[Messenger]

Adventists (I used to too) frequently say that we deleted the second commandment… but in reality, we generally believe…

Very interesting. I need to study more about that before I can comment further. Will post on that in a little while.

 

[SDA2RC]

To answer your question let me pose to you another:

Hmmm… your return question never answered my questions… LOL Let me ask again.

1. was a Sabbath ever mentioned?
2. Was anyone commanded to keep the Sabbath in Genesis 2?
3. Was anything talked about in regards to a weekly observance of the 7th day of creation in Genesis?

Why would God bless the Sabbath day and wait for 2000 years before instituting it for man?

To be honest… I can’t even guess at God’s reasoning for things… He doesnt always explain. This is like asking Why God created light before the Sun? I dont know… but what I do know is that scripture never establishes a Sabbath in Genesis. God rested on one day of creation, he created animals on another day, he created water on another day. I don’t try to copy any of those… God never told me to. If your idea is simply that God rested on the 7th day of creation therefore we should too… then I would say that God created man on the 6th day of creation… should we try to attempt that too?

The problem I see is that your reading into this verse much more than is there. That is dangerous… it is not good to try to make passages fit around our beliefs, take it for what it is. God rested…

Wouldn’t that whole group have been missing out on the blessing of that day?

Again, your assuming that it would have been a blessing for the others? God blessed the day… He said nothing about blessing the People for trying to mimic him… don’t add to scripture what is not there.

But more importantly one must consider also the context of the books and their author. The first 5 books were written by Moses. When Moses wrote Genesis He was writing it for the people of his time to be passed down to future generations. The Sabbath was a clearly understood principle understood by the Israelites by that time so it would stand to reason that he did not feel it necessary to repeat laws and edicts they already knew. Instead he was emphasizing the Sabbath’s historical root. Another example of this would be the sacrificial system.

Messenger, now your guessing at why Moses did something or didnt do something. God inspired the writing, it was not purely up to Moses. Again, your putting your own speculation into scripture to support your belief. The simple fact is that there was no weekly Sabbath and no record of the Sabbath being kept before the Exodus.

Ge 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it

Right… he sanctified ONE DAY… it was the 7th day of creation. It did not say he sanctified EVERY 7th day.

The meaning of the word used in this passage I feel more than indicates that God was intending it to be sanctioned as a day kept. Later on Moses further illistrated the Sabbath and the things which one should not do to defile it. And if indeed the Sabbath wasn’t instituted in Genesis what is the point of that passage in your opinion?

See… you feel it indicates that… but scripture does not state that. This was my point. You claimed before, with no qualification, that God created the Sabbath in Gen 2… however, looking at it, He didnt… You may feel that the passage indicates it… but scripture does not state it… it is simply your opinion of the thoughts and motives of God. I do not base my beliefs on the feelings of man, God gave us something better. BTW… in my opinion the purpose of the passage was to relate to use the events of creation.

Continued…

 

[SDA2RC]

The commandments being nailed to the cross is a whole other study but shortly let me make a distinction between the cerimonial laws of moses and the laws of God. The cerimonial laws of sacrifice etc. is what I think of when understanding the passage of the law being nailed to the cross. After the death of Christ, the sacrifices were no longer needed. The law of God written with His own hand is binding still, because why would God do away with those if they are what we use to mold our character around… Let’s save the law for another forum.

Well the Sabbath is part of the Law… so thats not really possible to do. The problem I have with the Adventist position on this is that it is a man made division of the Law. The Jews don’t recognize it and scripture never creates two laws. As far as the commandments being written on stone an thus permanent, scripture contradicts that, it clearly states that the commandmetns written in stone are the “ministry of death” and the glory had faded… it was replaced with the New Covenant or ministry of the Spirit (1. Cor. 2.3)

Whatever this mean, it was soon expressly extended to all the apostles (Mt 18:18); so that the claim of supreme authority in the Church, made for Peter by the Church of Rome, and then arrogated to themselves by the popes as the legitimate successors of St. Peter, is baseless and impudent. As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these “keys,” on the day of Pentecost, he first “opened the door of faith” to the Jews, and then, in the person of Cornelius, he was honored to do the same to the Gentiles. Hence, in the lists of the apostles, Peter is always first named. One thing is clear, that not in all the New Testament is there the vestige of any authority either claimed or exercised by Peter, or conceded to him, above the rest of the apostles–a thing conclusive against the Romish claims in behalf of that apostle.

I am disappointed that your answer was directly from godsbibletruth.com/BindingAndLoosing.html, you need to be a man of the Book, study and think for yourself about these matters… don’t simply parrot what other people say. Oh and use quotes and a reference if your going to quote something, that way we can all see the source.

Well, whatsoever (KJV) comes from the root word “hos”. The root word indicates nothing more special about it than its assumed meaning: anything.

Anything… right… so what does that fact that the Apostles of God were given the authority to bind ANYTHING mean? Would ANYTHING include a day of worship?

 

[SDA2RC]

Very interesting. I need to study more about that before I can comment further. Will post on that in a little while.

Great… read through this too…

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1.htm

This is the Catechism section on the 1st Commandment… tell me what you believe has been deleted. Thanks

 

[Messenger]

I typed out a long response to your last post. When I was about done for some reason my computer backspaced to the previous page. I lost it all so now I will have to retype it all. But for now I am getting tired of being on the computer. I will talk with you again tomorrow. Thank you for your conversation.

By the way I did not use that website you listed to post the commentary about the authority of the pope. I used a commentary program on my computer (contains about 20 different commentaries). Sorry for not listing the source. Didn’t do that intentionally. I posted it merely to save time… it expressed my view on it well.

 

[SDA2RC]

I typed out a long response to your last post. When I was about done for some reason my computer backspaced to the previous page. I lost it all so now I will have to retype it all. But for now I am getting tired of being on the computer. I will talk with you again tomorrow. Thank you for your conversation.

By the way I did not use that website you listed to post the commentary about the authority of the pope. I used a commentary program on my computer (contains about 20 different commentaries). Sorry for not listing the source. Didn’t do that intentionally. I posted it merely to save time… it expressed my view on it well.

Fair enough… it was from the "Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary" According to that website. Either way… I really encourage you to read the Bible and think about it on your own. Commentaries are great, and I use them constantly, the problem with using a commentary in a conversation like this is that they are working off the assumptions of the writer and his religious views rather than you yourself having to defend your beliefs. In my experience, most people, especially myself, learn much more when I wrestle with scripture myself. After all, we can sit and quote commentaries all day long at each other… but what we need to do is discuss scripture.

BTW… I would really like the answers to my questions about Genesis chaper 2:

1. was a Sabbath ever mentioned?
2. Was anyone commanded to keep the Sabbath in Genesis 2?
3. Was anything talked about in regards to a weekly observance of the 7th day of creation in Genesis?

 

[SDA2RC]

Messsenger you said this commentary expresses your views, so even though I hate debating commentary, I will indulge:“Whatever this mean,”
I don’t understand what the commentator is saying here?
“it was soon expressly extended to all the apostles (Mt 18:18);”

So here is my frustration with just quoting commentaries… what exactly was soon expressly extended to all the apostles? Binding and Loosing? (My question was about what does “whatever” mean, so I am not sure if this response is to my question or to binding and loosing) so that the claim of supreme authority in the Church, made for Peter by the Church of Rome,

Why does the Church of Rome make this statement? Since this expresses your views, please explain to me why it is that we make this claim about Peter and his successors?" and then arrogated to themselves by the popes as the legitimate successors of St. Peter, is baseless and impudent."

Again, since you said this expresses your view, please explain what about succession is baseless and impudent? Did not the OT Church have succession? Do we not see succession in the NT Church? I do not understand “your argument” here because you seem to throw out a claim but then don’t explain why? As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these “keys,” on the day of Pentecost, he first “opened the door of faith” to the Jews, and then, in the person of Cornelius, he was honored to do the same to the Gentiles.

Where does scripture say anything about Peter using keys to open do the door of faith to the Jews and then the Gentiles? What are the Keys? What is their significance and where do we find that in scripture? Hence, in the lists of the apostles, Peter is always first named.

Why was he always named first? Did that mean anything in Jewish Culture? Was it just that he was named first? Was there anything else extraordinary with him as opposed to the other Apostles? One thing is clear, that not in all the New Testament is there the vestige of any authority either claimed or exercised by Peter, or conceded to him, above the rest of the apostles–a thing conclusive against the Romish claims in behalf of that apostle.

Interesting… In light of this being your opinion, perhaps you could explain what it meant when Christ said that the Church would be founded on Peter? Or perhaps this passage:

(John 21:14 NASB) This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead.
(John 21:15 NASB) So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said^ to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said^ to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said^ to him, “Tend My lambs.”
(John 21:16 NASB) He said^ to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said^ to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said^ to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”
(John 21:17 NASB) He said^ to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said^ to him, "Tend My sheep.

This was directed only to Peter, any idea’s why?

So… now you see why I dont like debating commentaries. Anyway, I look forward to your answers, and this will lead us further along in our study on the Sabbath, authority is always critical.

 

[SDA2RC]

BTW… are you using any Catholic Commentaries or are you solely using protestant authored commentaries?

 

[St_Violet]

1. The verses stating anything about the first day of the week, (sunday or the “lords day”) in the new testiment only.
2. Anything discussing the fact that Christ or His disciples kept the Sabbath (seventh day) after the death of Christ.

In regards to number 2:

If one states that the Sabbath (seventh day) was done away with at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross then this passage would seem to put to rest whether or not the Sabbath (seventh day) was kept by Christ’s disciples.

It is common knowledge that Christ went to the cross and died on a Friday, thus we have good Friday. I believe there is no arguement from anyone there. Christ rose from the dead on Sunday which all will agree. With that in mind consider these passages:

Luke 23:

52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before.

(this is just after Christ’s death… a man that bought a tomb for himself donated it to Christ instead. We are still talking about Friday here).

54 That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near.

(this verse says that on Friday, the Sabbath drew near)

55 And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid.

56 Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.

In the other gosphels it states that the women were going to anoint his body on friday but had not enough time to do so because of the Sabbath. Now when they rested the Sabbath (saturday) they went back on Sunday to annoint his body for burial but noticed Jesus was gone from his tomb.

Here in John:

Joh 19:42 So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby.

Joh 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

The same thing is said. They laid Jesus to burial on the Sixth day, Friday, the preperation day. After Sabbath, on Sunday, they returned to find Jesus missing.

So one thing is clear. Right after the death of Christ, the disciples kept the Sabbath. If any change was made it would had to be authorized by someone after the fact. But where in the bible is there any passages which states the day was changed after the Sabbath kept right after the death of Christ? You won’t find it.

Now to adress the issue of the verses in the new testiment that indicate the “Lord’s day” being the Sabbath:

… refer to next post

you know the way I figured these passages is that I asked myself this:

if the disciples and the women were to tend the Jesus’s body on the sabbath, would they not be in trouble by the jewish authority? especially for tending the body of a man who is thought of as having powers from Satan. after thinking about this I realized is that I would not blame them for keeping the sabbath still.

the fact that the disciples met together, they had no idea that christ was gonna appear to them, so this also kinda marks a turning point for The Lord’s Day

 

[Messenger]

hello again,

I am sorry I haven't been able to respond back... I am kind of tied down with my duties right now.  I have duty today so I can't leave the ship.  Saturday I will come back and post answers to your questions.

God Bless