Taking questions from Sabbatarians...

[PRmerger]

Bonus:
Paul did not rest
Paul did not bless
Paul did not hallowed Sunday

What verses tell you this?

Or are you of the opinion, “Where Scripture is silent, we should be silent?” That is, if it’s not mentioned in the Scriptures we assume it never happened?

God did not rest
God did not bless
God did not hallowed Sunday.

God hallows all days, Lucky.

Sunday, the First Day is mentioned only 9 times in the KJV.

Mary being a virgin is only mentioned twice.

Are we to assume that you don’t believe Mary was a virgin because it’s not mentioned more than 9 times?

Also, what number of times is necessary to tell us that the Scriptures are proclaiming a truth? 10? 15?

And what verse in Scripture tells you that the more times something is mentioned the more important it is? Chapter and verse, please.

These things I remember out of my head.
Here is a good site that explains some more.
seventhdaybaptist.org/content/sabbath

You are not permitted to proselytize here, Lucky.

Just a friendly warning.

It would be a shame for you to be banned for it’s good for you to be here and dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics who can pose questions to you that you have never coonsidered.

And for the people that is so focused on the Adventist Church, wake up, the 7th Day Baptist was there before them.

But not before our great great grandparents.

 

[PRmerger]

Something tells me that Lucky is a Seventh-Day Adventist in disguise.

No matter. It is good for him to be here.

His beliefs are getting challenged, and it’s giving him pause, to be sure!

 

[Pythons]

Simply directly ask him if he believes that it was possible that Christ COULD HAVE fallen into temptation…
…I.E. if it would have been possible that Jesus could have fell for any temptations subsequent to the Incarnation.
…Next directly ask him if he rejects the ‘Communion of the Saints’ ( that the dead who died in Christ are aware right now ).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lucky,

There certainly has been a flurry of activity…

But, let’s stay focused and let’s be accurate… as I try and catch up. You really did make a lot of claims in this one post, Lucky - and I would be interested in knowing just what is your source or -better yet - sources. Hopefully, there are on-line source(s) you can provide, so we all have the opportunity to review what you are telling us. I do not know about you, but from my experience on CAF sometimes someone will say something and give a source - and when one goes there to research what has be claimed - I find the source does not match, much less support, the claim that has been made. Sometimes this is a simple matter of misunderstanding, and sometimes it isn’t.

Now, when you talk about the ‘Vaticanus’ are you referring to the ‘Vatican Codex’? Here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/04086a.htm

Based on your statements, since the ‘Vaticanus’ has so many omissions - how did these books become incorporated into the Canon of Sacred Scripture?

Again, you have made several novel claims - (‘Evolution’, ‘Purgatory’ and ‘Infant Baptism’ - it is probably best to leave the ‘etc.’ alone until we get these three clairified. So, really, just where did this come from?

While I read the two different renderings of Gen 3:15 - I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. There are many different versions of this partiular verse - just go into any religious book store and see what they have or… “Bible Gateway” (not a Catholic source) is an on-line source for about 100 different versions of the Bible. This particular verse is available in all and you may want to see some of the variation: biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%203:15&version=NIV (this is just the NIV version).

I really am curious as to why, inspite of this flurry of posts, you have not yet responded to my question about what is it in Matt 16 that prohibits Peter from making WHATEVER changes he determines as appropriate (being the leader of the Apostles)? Now, that WHATEVER part would honestly include not only moving the place of worship from the Temple, and no longer requiring male circumcision - but, you guessed it … now worshipping on Sunday.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but your response to PRmerger concerning her giving you a ‘Protestant response’ seemed to have a bit of an edge to it. Is this what you intended? Additionally, PRmerger identifies herself as a ‘Catholic’ and over many, many post that I have personally read, she supports the teachings of the Catholic Church. By the same token, you too identify yourself as a ‘Catholic’ but yet in your few posts have yet to demonstrate a real knowledge of what it is the Catholic Church teaches.

And, just to be crystal clear about this - your posts seem to be in direct keeping with the teachings of the 7thDA. Now, really, if you are, in fact a Catholic, here is an excellent link where you can get the official teachings of the Catholic Church: scborromeo.org/ Looking at this link first will give you what is really taught - and not what some may only think is taught. If, you have made an error in identifying your actual religion, please go back and make the necessay correction(s). It really does not make any difference to me (and, I do not think to anyone on this thread) what your religion is - just let’s be clear and candid with one another so the genuine time spent on dialogue is fruitful.

Looking forward to hearing back from you on Matthew 16.

God bless

The Vaticanus does not contain Genesis, nor Revelation. Half of Songs are removed, most of the Letters to Churches in the New Testament is also removed.

The Vaticanus is one of the sources of the King James Version, it was compiled from around 2000 to 3000 scrolls.

The modern Bibles that are created these days come from the Westcott & Hort text, they mixed the Textus Recepticus with the Vaticanus.
It now includes text for:

1. Evolution
2. Purgatory
3. Baby Baptism
   etc…

The Reformers removed Books from the Bible where they did not agree with the content of the text.
Examples:
Barnabas 10:7
Again, neither shalt thou eat the hyena; thou shalt not, saith He,
become an adulterer or a fornicator, neither shalt thou resemble such
persons. Why so? Because this animal changeth its nature year by
year, and becometh at one time male and at another female.

They did not agree with this so it was removed.

The funny thing is that they created the King James to be a independent from the catholic Church, and now since the 1900’s they now use mainly the Vaticanus Manuscript.

Gen 3:15
Douay: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

KJV: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pythons,

I think these are excellent questions for a Catholic to answer… But, I really do think my question to Lucky about his understanding of Matthew 16 came in before yours … and, I know you would not want to ‘cut in line’, eh?

So, I’ll tell you what … just as soon as Lucky answers my question about why he thinks there are limits on Peter (or his successors) authority… I will wait for him to respond to yours … and, should he tarry on his response(s) - I will ask him your questions, myself! I don’t think you can beat a deal like that, eh?

Now, I must confess, receiving a timely response has been a bit disappointing - but, I am confident that when it comes it will be worth the wait! To date, he has treated us to some real whoppers - so, if there is a real pattern here - we will be amazed at what promises to be a ‘nove approach’ to Catholic Doctrine!

God bless

Simply directly ask him if he believes that it was possible that Christ COULD HAVE fallen into temptation…
…I.E. if it would have been possible that Jesus could have fell for any temptations subsequent to the Incarnation.
…Next directly ask him if he rejects the ‘Communion of the Saints’ ( that the dead who died in Christ are aware right now ).

 

[Porknpie]

Maybe I am wrong about this, but your response to PRmerger concerning her giving you a ‘Protestant response’ seemed to have a bit of an edge to it. Is this what you intended? Additionally, PRmerger identifies herself as a ‘Catholic’ and over many, many post that I have personally read, she supports the teachings of the Catholic Church. By the same token, you too identify yourself as a ‘Catholic’ but yet in your few posts have yet to demonstrate a real knowledge of what it is the Catholic Church teaches.

Tom, Lucky is saying that they are a 7th day baptist…

Sunday, the First Day is mentioned only 9 times in the KJV.

These things I remember out of my head.
Here is a good site that explains some more.
seventhdaybaptist.org/content/sabbath

And for the people that is so focused on the Adventist Church, wake up, the 7th Day Baptist was there before them.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Porknpie,

Oh. I totally missed that.

Actually, besides the Jewish worship on the Sabbath and the 7thDA … I was not aware of anyone else with this as a doctrine. I learned something today.

One of my favorite sources is Wiki - normally get the major items and then can branch out to get more detail. So, the 7thDB were founded sometime between 1617-1651 (records may have been lost in a fire for the early date …there is this 34 year gap of records … and then we pick up again in 1651. Hey, I’m reasonable… what do you say we just split the difference and say it was founded in 1634?

Now, just in case anyone else was as ignorant as me … according to Wiki: “Other than the belief that Christian Sabbath is Saturday rather than Sunday, Seventh Day Baptists are very similar to other Baptists. However, due to the Baptist tradition of freedom of conscience, even within Baptists, there are a lot of variations in doctrines. The same principle applies to Seventh Day Baptists. The Seventh Day Baptists do not hold a binding creed, and the belief system is relatively more flexible than mainstream Christianity, and the teachings Seventh Day Baptists hold may also vary from member to member. Some of the basic beliefs are baptism of believers by immersion; the practice a non-liturgical form of worship, and the belief of religious freedom and the separation of church and state.” Reading items like this must be cause enough for John Calvin to turn over in his grave!!

The 7thDB probably splintered off of some Protestnat group - but England in 1651 was a very disordered and dangerous place with civil war between Cromwell and the Royalists (british-civil-wars.co.uk/timelines/1651.htm) So, anyone with some specific information on which group the 7thDB splintered from - please share it. My guess is that number-wise they were not a very large group.

Later on, the 7thDA were founded by Ellen White in about 1863 So, the way I count… the 7thDB are about 230 years older then the 7thDA. There is somewhat of a connection between Rev William Miller (a Baptist lay preacher) and Ellen … so… it is possible to say that the 7thDB gave Bill Miller the idea (maybe…) and that then caused a spark in Ellen (another maybe) and … here we are… so many splinters all over the place!

One of the problems I ran into Porknpie, is that who ever is in charge ofPR for the 7thDB group … they need to take some tips from the PR campaigns of the 7thDA group. Without a doubt - these ‘upstart’ 7thDA are better known and apparently larger in numbers!

Thanks for the heads-up…

God bless

Tom, Lucky is saying that they are a 7th day baptist…

 

[mission10]

Hi everyone,
To give a brief background, I have family involved in United Church of God (ucg). This group is the biggest splinter group from Worldwide Church of God (wcg). Herbert W Armstrong (hwa) was the founder of wcg. This group attends church on Saturday the Sabbath and is groomed to view all other churches as “lost” except for a handful that follow hwa doctrines.

They teach that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday thus a Saturday resurrection. One of the claims is that two sabbaths took place, they provide Matthew 28.1 as the proof stating the original greek was plural.

Here is a quote from an article found on ucg website.

"So they bought the spices after the Sabbath, and then they prepared the spices before resting on the Sabbath. This is a clear contradiction between these two Gospel accounts—unless two Sabbaths were involved!

Indeed when we understand that two different Sabbaths are mentioned, the problem goes away.

Mark tells us that after the “high day” Sabbath, which began Wednesday evening at sundown and ended Thursday evening at sundown, the women bought the spices to anoint Jesus’ body. Luke then tells us that the women prepared the spices—activity which would have taken place on Friday—and that afterward “they rested on the Sabbath [the normal weekly Sabbath day, observed Friday sunset to Saturday sunset] according to the commandment.”

By comparing details in both accounts, we can clearly see that two different Sabbaths are mentioned along with a workday in between. The first Sabbath was a “high day”—the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which fell on a Thursday. The second was the weekly seventh-day Sabbath."

When I read this I become confused. Any thoughts on where I can start in explaining how this view is in error

 

[PRmerger]

Hi everyone,
To give a brief background, I have family involved in United Church of God (ucg). This group is the biggest splinter group from Worldwide Church of God (wcg). Herbert W Armstrong (hwa) was the founder of wcg. This group attends church on Saturday the Sabbath and is groomed to view all other churches as “lost” except for a handful that follow hwa doctrines.

They teach that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday thus a Saturday resurrection. One of the claims is that two sabbaths took place, they provide Matthew 28.1 as the proof stating the original greek was plural.

Here is a quote from an article found on ucg website.

"So they bought the spices after the Sabbath, and then they prepared the spices before resting on the Sabbath. This is a clear contradiction between these two Gospel accounts—unless two Sabbaths were involved!

Indeed when we understand that two different Sabbaths are mentioned, the problem goes away.

Mark tells us that after the “high day” Sabbath, which began Wednesday evening at sundown and ended Thursday evening at sundown, the women bought the spices to anoint Jesus’ body. Luke then tells us that the women prepared the spices—activity which would have taken place on Friday—and that afterward “they rested on the Sabbath [the normal weekly Sabbath day, observed Friday sunset to Saturday sunset] according to the commandment.”

By comparing details in both accounts, we can clearly see that two different Sabbaths are mentioned along with a workday in between. The first Sabbath was a “high day”—the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which fell on a Thursday. The second was the weekly seventh-day Sabbath."

When I read this I become confused. Any thoughts on where I can start in explaining how this view is in error

Here’s a Catholic response:

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-crucifixion-wednesday-or-friday

 

[mission10]

Thanks for your quick response.I enjoy Mr. Akin’s writings. I’m still confused on the two sabbaths that are supposedly held the week of Christs’ death.

Here is a link to the ucg article. The part that I am struggling with is under this heading: Two kinds of “Sabbaths” lead to confusion
ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/jesus-wasnt-crucified-friday-or-resurrected-sunday/

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for your quick response.I enjoy Mr. Akin’s writings. I’m still confused on the two sabbaths that are supposedly held the week of Christs’ death.

Here is a link to the ucg article. The part that I am struggling with is under this heading: Two kinds of “Sabbaths” lead to confusion
ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/jesus-wasnt-crucified-friday-or-resurrected-sunday/

I don’t think there were 2 sabbaths. One was the Passover. The other is the Sabbath Saturday.

 

[Porknpie]

Hi, Porknpie,

Oh. I totally missed that.

Actually, besides the Jewish worship on the Sabbath and the 7thDA … I was not aware of anyone else with this as a doctrine. I learned something today.

Credit to Coptic a couple of months back as we had another 7DB posting. I can’t remember the name but they too hid their religion on their profile. I had a grad school roommate who was a SDA but I’ve never met a 7DB and didn’t know anything about them until Coptic found the info. I’ve known wonderful Baptists too. Not one of them would hide their religion if they posted on CAF.

 

[mission10]

I try and be real careful with what I read from this group. It can at times seem very persuasive. They claim that the words “high day” refer to the annual sabbath which they claim to be the feast of unleavened bread.
They link scripture that says “high day” but don’t explain how they get the interpretation that: high day = annual sabbath. So its hard to know if they are speaking the truth.

They claim Matthew 28:1 in the original greek that thw word sabbath was plural. I personally don’t split hairs over the greek to often. I just wonder if this is true or not. The new american bible shows the word sabbath as singular for that verse.

This is the only example I get stuck on and have no explaination for which in ucg eyes diminishes why I worship on the Lord’s day.
Thanks for your help. There is not much written on refuting ucg doctrines. They are similar to sda and jw but with their own twist on scripture.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mission 10,

Trying to refute those who follow Herbert … then his son Garner Ted … then after his father kicked him out and took over until his attorney replaced the old man … well … let’s see - where would you like to begin! The Armstrong group seems to be a case study in self-deception that expanded (like their bank account) to group deception based strictly on the traditions of men.


How about Matthew 24? veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_24 Here we find Christ warning us about false prophets popping up all over - and for every time (no shortage of the phonies now … or all throughout history).

Don’t lose heart - the Catholic Chold is the One founded by Christ on weak and sinfull Peter and his successors. You have access to the many excellent posts on this thread - the so-called sabbatarian argument simply does not hold water.

God bless

I try and be real careful with what I read from this group. It can at times seem very persuasive. They claim that the words “high day” refer to the annual sabbath which they claim to be the feast of unleavened bread.
They link scripture that says “high day” but don’t explain how they get the interpretation that: high day = annual sabbath. So its hard to know if they are speaking the truth.

They claim Matthew 28:1 in the original greek that thw word sabbath was plural. I personally don’t split hairs over the greek to often. I just wonder if this is true or not. The new american bible shows the word sabbath as singular for that verse.

This is the only example I get stuck on and have no explaination for which in ucg eyes diminishes why I worship on the Lord’s day.
Thanks for your help. There is not much written on refuting ucg doctrines. They are similar to sda and jw but with their own twist on scripture.

 

[SecretaryMonday]

By comparing details in both accounts, we can clearly see that two different Sabbaths are mentioned along with a workday in between. The first Sabbath was a “high day”—the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which fell on a Thursday. The second was the weekly seventh-day Sabbath."

When I read this I become confused. Any thoughts on where I can start in explaining how this view is in error

A while ago, a thread was started on Christ being supposedly resurrected on a Saturday, not Sunday, based on private interpretation of Greek passages etc. There was a lot of discussion involved, and although it wasn’t specifically about UCG ideas, it might contain something useful to you.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=639895

 

[shaky]

My point is that no where in scripture you will find the change from Sabbath to Sunday.

This change was made by The Catholic Church in around 300ad, more specifically Council of Laodicea which happened at 321ad.

It is wrong to think that the change is in the Bible.
I have supplied numerous quotes from our Church that says the Church has changed it.

It seems the people that has a problem with the Catholic Church will argue that the Bible made the change and not the Church.

It seems there are people here that has a bigger problem with the Church mentioning a other Church than accepting that with the Authority of the Catholic Church the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.

Hi Lucky

‘‘You say it is wrong to say that the Change is in the bible’’

What about Romans 14:5. One Man esteemeth One day ‘‘ABOVE’’ another. Another esteemeth everyday alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his Own Mind.

At the time Paul was writing this epistle he was speaking to both Jew and Gentile. Now if One Man a Jewish Convert to Christ still wants to keep the Saturday ‘‘Sabbath’’. He is the One Man that esteemeth one day ‘‘ABOVE’’ another.
Now Another Man a Gentile ‘‘esteemeth everyday alike’’. He does not esteemeth One day ‘‘ABOVE’’ another>Saturday sabbath.
So what Right has any SDA,SDB,COG Churches etc who say you must worship Only on sabbath Saturday and esteem this day ABOVE another. And if you don’t you are Wrong and Lost. When Romans 14:5 Shows that Another Man ‘‘esteems everyday alike’’ ??

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shaky,

Excellent point!

You know…I’m still trying to get an answer from any of these Sabbatarians as to why they do not keep the rest of the Law. Serioulsy - none seem to have any concern for

• circumcision of males on the 8th day after birth
• ritual washings before and after eating
• not eating ritually unclean foods
• and stoning (to death) those who break the Law … and about 700 other items in the Law

I am unable to figure out why the Sabbath is the only one of any interest. What makes this of interest is that the Pharisees took quite an interest in Sabbath observance - and apparently were more then willing to punish those who broke the Sabbath - and in Mark 2 we find Christ telling them that, “The Sabbath was made for man…” and not the other way around! Am I mistaken, or would the Sabbatarians just re-write Mark 2 so that man was made for the Sabbath…?

If the entire Law can be summed up in love of God and love of neighbor - where does anyone see the Christian basis putting the Sabbath observance in the position that the Sabbatarians have done? As I see it, this focus on the Sabbath appears to be nothing more then an obscession that has dominated and then bullied rational thought.

God bless

Hi Lucky

‘‘You say it is wrong to say that the Change is in the bible’’

What about Romans 14:5. One Man esteemeth One day ‘‘ABOVE’’ another. Another esteemeth everyday alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his Own Mind.

At the time Paul was writing this epistle he was speaking to both Jew and Gentile. Now if One Man a Jewish Convert to Christ still wants to keep the Saturday ‘‘Sabbath’’. He is the One Man that esteemeth one day ‘‘ABOVE’’ another.
Now Another Man a Gentile ‘‘esteemeth everyday alike’’. He does not esteemeth One day ‘‘ABOVE’’ another>Saturday sabbath.
So what Right has any SDA,SDB,COG Churches etc who say you must worship Only on sabbath Saturday and esteem this day ABOVE another. And if you don’t you are Wrong and Lost. When Romans 14:5 Shows that Another Man ‘‘esteems everyday alike’’ ??

 

[Shibolet]

Good Joao Machado, I have a question for you: In Colossians 2:16, Paul included the Sabbath days as shadows of things to come. Where did he get the authority to change a law in the Decalogue and, what things to come was he talking about?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shibolet,

From my understanding, the Book of Colossians was written sometime around 58-62AD.

The earliest record I came across for Sunday worship was in 110AD

*“Those who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of The Lord’s Day, on which we came to life through Him and through His death.”

• Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians (110 AD) *

There are several references in Acts to the Jews not wanting followers of Christ in the Temple or synagogues. This probably happended during the transition from the Resurrection and Pentecost of 33AD. Surely, it would not be long after Paul converted so many Jews on Pentecost Sunday that the animosity by Jews for Jewish Christians came to a head. But, that is just a guess.

So, it is certainly at least reasonable to conclude that Sunday - and not Sabbath - worship was going on at the time of Paul’s writings and his first letter is thought to be dated from 52AD with his First Letter to the Thessalonians. So maybe sometime around 52-58AD the practice of Sunday worship had become established in the Infant Catholic Church. There is no record of who (singular?) actually made the change. There is no specific reference to Paul actually doing this.

Now, tell me, if you will - why is Sabbath worship considered so crucial - when the actual Covenant was established between God and Abraham - and the act of male circumcision was the binding agreement for this Covenant. It was Peter - with absolutely no reference to any Scripture - who, under the Authority of God and Guidance of the Holy Spirit - determined that this Jewish ritual was no longer necessary for those who were following Christ. Here is the reference from Acts 15: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Acts_of_the_Apostles_15 When you look at the amount of space given to Sabbath contrasted with circumcision - I just do not see what all the fuss is about.

And, in your enthusiasm for answering that question, maybe you can explain to me just what part of WHATEVER would exclude anything from Peter’s governance - and we find that in Matthew 16 - here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_16

Actually, I would be curious to know by what authority you are challenging the right of Christ’s Church to make whatever doctrinal changes are determined necessary? Christ is the Fulfillment of the Promise - and He gave us the Catholic Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to avoid doctrinal error. He also gave us the Sacraments that come through His Church.

So,tell me, which tradition of man ‘trumps’ Christ’s Commands?

God bless

Good Joao Machado, I have a question for you: In Colossians 2:16, Paul included the Sabbath days as shadows of things to come. Where did he get the authority to change a law in the Decalogue and, what things to come was he talking about?

 

[Shibolet]

Hi, Shibolet,

From my understanding, the Book of Colossians was written sometime around 58-62AD.

The earliest record I came across for Sunday worship was in 110AD

*“Those who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of The Lord’s Day, on which we came to life through Him and through His death.”

• Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians (110 AD) *

There are several references in Acts to the Jews not wanting followers of Christ in the Temple or synagogues. This probably happended during the transition from the Resurrection and Pentecost of 33AD. Surely, it would not be long after Paul converted so many Jews on Pentecost Sunday that the animosity by Jews for Jewish Christians came to a head. But, that is just a guess.

So, it is certainly at least reasonable to conclude that Sunday - and not Sabbath - worship was going on at the time of Paul’s writings and his first letter is thought to be dated from 52AD with his First Letter to the Thessalonians. So maybe sometime around 52-58AD the practice of Sunday worship had become established in the Infant Catholic Church. There is no record of who (singular?) actually made the change. There is no specific reference to Paul actually doing this.

Now, tell me, if you will - why is Sabbath worship considered so crucial - when the actual Covenant was established between God and Abraham - and the act of male circumcision was the binding agreement for this Covenant. It was Peter - with absolutely no reference to any Scripture - who, under the Authority of God and Guidance of the Holy Spirit - determined that this Jewish ritual was no longer necessary for those who were following Christ. Here is the reference from Acts 15: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Acts_of_the_Apostles_15 When you look at the amount of space given to Sabbath contrasted with circumcision - I just do not see what all the fuss is about.

And, in your enthusiasm for answering that question, maybe you can explain to me just what part of WHATEVER would exclude anything from Peter’s governance - and we find that in Matthew 16 - here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_16

Actually, I would be curious to know by what authority you are challenging the right of Christ’s Church to make whatever doctrinal changes are determined necessary? Christ is the Fulfillment of the Promise - and He gave us the Catholic Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to avoid doctrinal error. He also gave us the Sacraments that come through His Church.

So,tell me, which tradition of man ‘trumps’ Christ’s Commands?

God bless

Hi tqualey, I have no problem at all with Christians observing Sunday. The Sabbath was not set up in the Decalogue for them to observe but for the Jews only. And it became
“such a fuss” for the Jews, to use your term above, because, according to Ezekiel 20:12,20, the Sabbath was established as a sign that the Lord has made His People holy.

The issue is not that there is any authority in myself to question anything with regards to the Church. Absolutely not. I was only questioning the authority of Paul or of the Church to consider a Jewish law as shadow of things to come. BTW, I am still to know what things to come Paul was talking about. If you have ever heard about Replacement Theology, that’s what I suspect was in the agenda of Paul. Since he was the one who gave origin to Christianity, I wonder why he had to uproot the Jewish Covenant with a better
one, in his words, guaranteed by Jesus. (Heb. 7:12,22)