Taking questions from Sabbatarians...

[Protector]

Metamorphoo;9866255] I think most Christians would agree that the Ten Commandments are still in effect for Christians today. No Bible translation of the Ten Commandments (as outlined in Exodus) that I’ve ever read uses the term “Lord’s Day” instead of Sabbath, but I was taught that “Remember to keep the Lord’s Day” was one of the Ten. The Ten Commandments were the core stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. If in the “spirit of the law” the Sabbath does not = the Lord’s Day, then I think that this is a problem for Sunday-worshipping Christians, regardless of your denomination.

Very well put, Metamorphoo.

If you read in the Pentateuch the scriptures in which God gave to Israel which outlined the reasons for Sabbath observance, they can be summarized as: (1) to remember the Creation (Ex. 20:8-11); (2) to remember their redemption from Egypt (Deut. 5:15); and (3) to remember that God is the one that makes them holy (Ex. 31:13). For a long time, I couldn’t understand how the Creation, the Exodus and becoming holy all tied to the Sabbath. As I studied and read, however, different pieces began falling into place.

The most important point there is, " to remember the Creation (Ex. 20:8-11);" i.e. nothing to do with the Eucharist, or the Resurrection. The Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion (call it what you will) can be celebrated (partaken of) at any time, since according to 1 Cor.11:26,(D-R) ***“For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.” *** it keeps us in remembrance of the supreme sacrifice of our Lord on the cross. The Resurrection is commemorated on Easter Sunday by most Christians. One supposes that the ideal situation for Roman Catholics is to observe both the 7th Day Sabbath and the First day of the week (Sunday). That would be truly wonderful don’t you think? They would then be giving honour to God for the Creation, and on the Sunday remembering the Lord’s death till He returns,

It is important to remember that for Jews, the biblical festivals (of which the Sabbath was considered the Queen) not only looked back to something important in their history; they also looked forward to what God was going to do in the future. So not only did the Sabbath look back to the original Creation that God said was good, it also looked forward to the New Creation … the time when He would make all things new, restoring Creation to the way it was before the Fall. Not only did the Passover look back at their deliverance from Egypt, it also looked forward to the day when the Lord would deliver man spiritually from enslavement to sin. And in that redemptive process, we are to remember that it is the Lord who makes us holy, the One who changes our character. It is nothing we can do on our own. **Thus, the “spirit of the Sabbath” tells the story of God’s Creation/Man’s Fall **and need for redemption/God’s redemption and restoration of Creation to its original goodness.

One problem with, ***Man’s Fall *** for Catholics at any rate, is that, according to an article in the “Australian” newspaper, Cardinal Pell when

"Asked by journalist Tony Jones if he believed in the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.

“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said. www.theaustralian.com.au/…mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-…

So then, if there was NO FALL, what need have we of a Saviour? But as St Paul tells the
Corinthians (1 Cor.15:22) "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

quote from Metamorphoo:

To me, the principle of Sabbath was the key to grasping Pauline concepts and bringing peace to my confused heart. The problem during the early years of the Church … and one that continues today … is the fact that we are in an “already, but not yet” stage. We have a foot in the Eighth Day (otherwise we wouldn’t be “new creatures in Christ”) but we still live in a temporal world. I think this lies at the heart of the disagreements between Seventh Day Sabbath observers versus those who worship on Sunday … or on any other day of the week. Paul understood this, and gave latitude to these perspectives.

As a Seventh Day Sabbath observer I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, as mentioned in a different thread, the Church of Rome has recently(?) introduced a Saturday service which with a little bit of seasonal and latitudinal adjustment could serve as a Divine Worship Service for 7th-Day Sabbath observers.

Thank you for an excellent, and unbiased post.

Protector

 

[MartinJordan]

2 Corinthians 5:17:

This verse by St. Paul is reiterating that if we are in Christ, then we are a new creation. Thus if we follow Christ, we set the Lord’s Day (the day of his Resurrection the 8th day) as our day of Worship.

MJ

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shibolet,

Thanks for your response. I am confident that my response is not going to answer all (if any) of your concerns. But, let me try…

The basic issue, at least as I see it, is that The Old Testament set the stage for the New Testament. Christ being the fulfilment of God’s Promise is made know to all by His Life, Death and Resurrection. Correct me if I am wrong - but, the Jews do not believe that Christ is the fulfillment of the prophecies and are still awaiting the arrival of the Messiah. Is this accurate?

If, as Catholics believe, Christ is the fulfillment of the Promise, that He founded His Chruch on Peter (He didn’t found a synagogue) and gave Peter (and his successors) the authority to bind and lose - well, among other things, changing the day of worship to Sunday from the Sabbath would fall within the parameters of Peter’s Authority.

My view of Saul the Pharisee is that of a zealot, as one totally dedicated to God and the Law of Moses. So much so that he was willing to have what he considered apostate Jews (those who were following this crucified Rabbi Who was rejected by the religious leaders) executed - and was enroute to Damascus to bring about his vision of what should take place. Saul was focused on Sabbath observence and all of the other aspects of the Law until he encuntered Christ along the Damascus Highway. I am sure you are familiar with the story.

So, Saul is transformed as one awaiting the fulfillment of God’s Promise into Paul who now is experiencing this fulfillment - and being given the order to preach the message of Jesus being the fulfillment I think this is one way to address your concern about Heb 7.

The ‘uprooting’ part, as you put it, is that the Jews needed to be made aware that they were no longer to wait - that the waiting is over - and that Christ is the fulfillment to God’s Promise. There is a basic incompatibility between groups that are awaiting the fulfillment of the Promise and those who believe that the Promise has been kept. I honestly do not know what else to say.

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)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Protector,

I think Cardinal Pell has been misunderstood.

One problem with, ***Man’s Fall *** for Catholics at any rate, is that, according to an article in the “Australian” newspaper, Cardinal Pell when …

So then, if there was NO FALL, what need have we of a Saviour? But as St Paul tells the
Corinthians (1 Cor.15:22) "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Here are some links that will give you the Catholic position on this matter. The Cardinal is not incorrect in what he said - and there is no problem with Catholic theology in this matter.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm (Creation of Man)

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm (The Fall)

newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm (Garden of Eden)

I think you will find an abundance of information at these links.

God bless

 

[Protector]

tqualey;10083629]Hi, Protector,

I think Cardinal Pell has been misunderstood.

Tom Q, I thank you so much for your rapid response to my quote from the “Australian” newspaper. It is such a relief to learn that once again the media has got it wrong.

However, what he (allegedly) said would appear to be at variance with the Roman Catholic Catechism viz.,

Cardinal Pell said it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.

“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said. theaustralian.com.au/…m…tory-e6frg6nf-…

IV. MAN IN PARADISE

374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

**375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, **were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

No offence, but Cardinal Pell (allegedly) says that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden did not exist, and the story was just a beautiful way to explain the truth of Creation in a way that would have been acceptable to the mindset of the people of the day. On the other hand the Catechism reaffirms the traditional view, that there were two original parents for the human race; that they were in Paradise (a Persian word for GARDEN) where they enjoyed a wonderful relationship with their Creator. I do so hope that this is in accord with your view also Tom Q.

BTW My sincere appologies to all for my entire post being OFF-TOPIC
Protector

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Protector,

Maybe there is another way to look at this. There have been those who claim that man was created evil, that man became evil after The Fall, that there is no such thing as having a Free Will or Original Sin - and that the ‘test’ did not involve an apple. Of this group - only the last one is accurate (apples are not mentioned in Genesis! ) So, what is it that Catholics believe?

God really did create everything out of nothing and everything He created was good. Let’s fast forward now to the We really did have one set of First Parents (I think Adam and Eve are nice names but, their names are not a matter of Faith). Our First Parents were created (like everything else) good and were in a good environment. They were given a test and God allowed the Devil to tempt them. Our First Parents failed this test by their own choice from the misues of their free will. As a result of the sin of our First Parents, each of us is born with Original Sin - and the basic goodness our First Parents had was weakened. We are not evil, but there is a genuine pull towards evil. These are

One of the issues is just how much ‘extra’ material does one need? Do we need to have essentially modern looking people, in a lush garden, with docile animals acting in a docile manner? Do we need a sinister looking snake coiled around the Tree? Do we need them sewing aprons out of leaves and an angel with a flaming sword is posted so they do not return to the Garden they were just evicted from?

While I can not speak for the Cardinal - as I understand what he said, he was not endorsing my last paragraph - but the one above that. Does this mean that we do not take Genesis literally? No. Catholics are free to believe a literal interpretation of Genesis - as long as that literal version incorporates everything I have identified as a matter of Faith. Catholics are also free not to believe the literal verson of Genesis - as long as they believe all of the items I have listed above.

I hope this helped.

God bless

Tom Q, I thank you so much for your rapid response to my quote from the “Australian” newspaper. It is such a relief to learn that once again the media has got it wrong.

However, what he (allegedly) said would appear to be at variance with the Roman Catholic Catechism viz.,

No offence, but Cardinal Pell (allegedly) says that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden did not exist, and the story was just a beautiful way to explain the truth of Creation in a way that would have been acceptable to the mindset of the people of the day. On the other hand the Catechism reaffirms the traditional view, that there were two original parents for the human race; that they were in Paradise (a Persian word for GARDEN) where they enjoyed a wonderful relationship with their Creator. I do so hope that this is in accord with your view also Tom Q.

BTW My sincere appologies to all for my entire post being OFF-TOPIC
Protector

 

[Protector]

Tom Q, thanks once again! My responses will be very brief as this conversation has gone way off the O.P’s topic, “Taking questions from Sabbatarians”

tqualey;10084635]

God really did create everything out of nothing and everything He created was good.

I agree!

Catholics are free to believe a literal interpretation of Genesis - as long as that literal version incorporates everything I have identified as a matter of Faith. Catholics are also free not to believe the literal version of Genesis - as long as they believe all of the items I have listed above.

That is how it should be Tom Q.

Thank you for your post.

Protector.

 

[Protector]

Porknpie;10058146]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.

Hello Porknpie; Those people of whom you say that, “they too hid their religion on their profile”, may just have omitted their “denomination” for surely they were Christians first, and 7DB second. It may not have been deliberate deception, but rather an attempt to allow the Christianity to be foremost in the debate and to limit the negative connotations of the label (denomination) from clouding the issue. Then again maybe they had no label, for as Paul said to the Corinthians, (I Corinthians 1:12-13 D-R) “Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. (13) Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Are we not “All of Christ!”

Protector

 

[PRmerger]

Hello Porknpie; Those people of whom you say that, “they too hid their religion on their profile”, may just have omitted their “denomination” for surely they were Christians first, and 7DB second. It may not have been deliberate deception, but rather an attempt to allow the Christianity to be foremost in the debate and to limit the negative connotations of the label (denomination) from clouding the issue. Then again maybe they had no label, for as Paul said to the Corinthians, (I Corinthians 1:12-13 D-R) “Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. (13) Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Are we not “All of Christ!”

Protector

Indeed, Christians are "all of Christ.’

Until we start talking about what it means to be “of Christ”.

Then, it is necessary to discuss theology, doctrine. dogma. And to the degree that one proclaims the Truths consonant with that which the Apostles preached, is the degree that he remains “of Christ.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Protector,

I think you have identified a real problem here - and it orbits around candidly discussing religious topics. This is CAF - and that “C” does stand for Catholic. Everyone is free to self-identify as they chose. The snga, however comes when you have those who clearly identify themselves and those who do not. Self-identification can be anything from Atheist to Zen groups - but, by actually being accurate to others, dialogue is promoted.

From my limited experience, those who are ‘bashful’ about telling others what they believe wind up causing a bit of confusion on the part of those who chose to respond. I am simply not sure where some are coming from Ah, but, this is not nearly so bad as those who claim to be ‘Catholic’ are are really something else. This is simple dishonesty and it shows up in their posts quite dramatically.

May I suggest that you actually identify which denomination you belong to - I think you should be proud of where you stand. If not, well, that is something for you to address with diligence and all deliberate speed. None of us, ‘…know the day or the hour!’

God bless

Hello Porknpie; Those people of whom you say that, “they too hid their religion on their profile”, may just have omitted their “denomination” for surely they were Christians first, and 7DB second. It may not have been deliberate deception, but rather an attempt to allow the Christianity to be foremost in the debate and to limit the negative connotations of the label (denomination) from clouding the issue. Then again maybe they had no label, for as Paul said to the Corinthians, (I Corinthians 1:12-13 D-R) “Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. (13) Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Are we not “All of Christ!”

Protector

 

[Protector]

PRmerger;10087250] Indeed, Christians are "all of Christ.’

Until we start talking about what it means to be “of Christ”.

Then, it is necessary to discuss theology, doctrine. dogma. And to the degree that one proclaims the Truths consonant with that which the Apostles preached, is the degree that he remains “of Christ.”

Hello again dear PR.

I totally agree with all of that, and would recommend that any person that feels the need for in-depth debate with such as yourself should ( like me) enroll in the Pauline University of All Subjects **Biblical. **

Protector.

 

[PRmerger]

Hello again dear PR.

I totally agree with all of that, and would recommend that any person that feels the need for in-depth debate with such as yourself should ( like me) enroll in the Pauline University of All Subjects **Biblical. **

Protector.

Ohmygoodness! I don’t think I can fit in anything more on my plate right now! My family would kill me if I engaged in another forum for Catholic theological discourse!

 

[Protector]

tqualey;10087673] Hi, Protector, I think you have identified a real problem here - and it orbits around candidly discussing religious topics. This is CAF - and that “C” does stand for Catholic. Everyone is free to self-identify as they chose. The snga, however comes when you have those who clearly identify themselves and those who do not. Self-identification can be anything from Atheist to Zen groups - but, by actually being accurate to others, dialogue is promoted.

From my limited experience, those who are ‘bashful’ about telling others what they believe wind up causing a bit of confusion on the part of those who chose to respond. I am simply not sure where some are coming from Ah, but, this is not nearly so bad as those who claim to be ‘Catholic’ are are really something else. This is simple dishonesty and it shows up in their posts quite dramatically.

May I suggest that you actually identify which denomination you belong to - I think you should be proud of where you stand. If not, well, that is something for you to address with diligence and all deliberate speed. None of us, ‘…know the day or the hour!’

Would it have been acceptable to you if I had described myself as “Christian” in my profile Tom Q? For that is assuredly what I am. When I describe myself as “non-Roman Catholic” I am just acknowledging the fact that, although a Christian myself I am not “coming from” a Roman Catholic background. I have made no secret about my beliefs as my posts in this and other threads bare testimony.
As to your suggestion, ***“that you actually identify which denomination you belong to - I think you should be proud of where you stand.” ***I cannot do that because I do not have a label, i.e. I belong to no denomination. I do have beliefs which happen to be in common with many denominations of Christians (including Roman Catholic), and pride has no place in a Christian’s vocabulary, except in a negative sense:

“He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.” Luke 1:51 (KJV Cambridge Ed.).

The thought comes to mind that you may be assuming that I belong to the denomination which I defended in my post #307 in this thread, and further, that I am probably the one that Porknpie is referring to in his post.

Quote from post #307:

Hello Porknpie; Those people of whom you say that, “they too hid their religion on their profile”, may just have omitted their “denomination” for surely they were Christians first, and 7DB second. It may not have been deliberate deception, but rather an attempt to allow the Christianity to be foremost in the debate and to limit the negative connotations of the label (denomination) from clouding the issue. Then again maybe they had no label, for as Paul said to the Corinthians, (I Corinthians 1:12-13 D-R) “Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. (13) Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

My defense of that denomination is no different to my defense of Opus Dei, or Father Bob Maguire in other threads on this Forum. I have appointed myself an advocate for anyone regardless of denominational allegiances.

To your statement above:

tqualey;10087673] Hi, Protector, I think you have identified a real problem here…

I could say that you have unconsciously identified another “real problem here” and that is the obsession that we seem to have on the Forum with differentiating between Christians and Christians

I hope that this post has settled the matter for you Tom Q, because we should really get back to the OP’s topic, “Taking questions from Sabbatarians”

God Bless you Tom Qualey

Protector.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Protector,

From your obviously broader base do you see conflicts between all the groups that you share something in common with - and their various (I guess) viewes on the Sabbath?

Now, concerning ‘pride’ - I did not forget it is one of the 7 Deadly Sins - but, I was not referring to sinful pride - rather, the acknowledgement of the faith that you have - and thanking God for this. St. Francis of Assisi is quoted as saying, “True humility begins with our ability to recognize our weaknesses as well as our strengths.” Simply acknowledging the truth is neither wrong or sinful - claiming all credit for what you have would be an example of cross that line into sinful pride - just like saying we do not have a talent when we do also crosses the line as pride - but, more commonly known as ‘false humility’.

And, just to let you know, tin cans that have had their lables removed - pretty much look alike. It is only when they are opened do we see just what it is inside. To have one can claim, ‘I’m a tin can just like you’ - is true for as far as it goes. The snag comes in where we recognized it does not go far enough. So, in my opinion, ‘Non-Denominational’ would be far more accurate then what you chose.

God bless

Would it have been acceptable to you if I had described myself as “Christian” in my profile Tom Q? For that is assuredly what I am. When I describe myself as “non-Roman Catholic” I am just acknowledging the fact that, although a Christian myself I am not “coming from” a Roman Catholic background. I have made no secret about my beliefs as my posts in this and other threads bare testimony.
As to your suggestion, ***“that you actually identify which denomination you belong to - I think you should be proud of where you stand.” ***I cannot do that because I do not have a label, i.e. I belong to no denomination. I do have beliefs which happen to be in common with many denominations of Christians (including Roman Catholic), and pride has no place in a Christian’s vocabulary, except in a negative sense:

The thought comes to mind that you may be assuming that I belong to the denomination which I defended in my post #307 in this thread, and further, that I am probably the one that Porknpie is referring to in his post.

Quote from post #307:

My defense of that denomination is no different to my defense of Opus Dei, or Father Bob Maguire in other threads on this Forum. I have appointed myself an advocate for anyone regardless of denominational allegiances.

To your statement above:
I could say that you have unconsciously identified another “real problem here” and that is the obsession that we seem to have on the Forum with differentiating between Christians and Christians

I hope that this post has settled the matter for you Tom Q, because we should really get back to the OP’s topic, “Taking questions from Sabbatarians”

God Bless you Tom Qualey

Protector.

 

[Porknpie]

Hello Porknpie; Those people of whom you say that, “they too hid their religion on their profile”, may just have omitted their “denomination” for surely they were Christians first, and 7DB second. It may not have been deliberate deception, but rather an attempt to allow the Christianity to be foremost in the debate and to limit the negative connotations of the label (denomination) from clouding the issue. Then again maybe they had no label, for as Paul said to the Corinthians, (I Corinthians 1:12-13 D-R) “Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. (13) Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Are we not “All of Christ!”

Protector

Hi Protector,

From what TQualey said, history has shown that people periodically hide their religious affiliation which makes any discussion less fruitful. So I take you on your word - certainly implied, a logical conclusion - that you are not attending any church on Sunday, then I would suggest putting “non-affiliated Christian”.

So assuming you are not attending a church on Sunday, couple of thoughts:

• Christ established a Church…we can see this through scripture (founded on St. Peter) and through the early Church Fathers. Scripture clearly shows the early church members meeting at each others houses. They met as an early Church. Hebrews chapter 10 speaks of this early church gathering together for the Eucharist and the importance of gathering together:

19 Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuarym
20 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh,
21 and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,”
22 let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water.
23 Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope, for he who made the promise is trustworthy.
24 We must consider how to rouse one another to love and good works.
25 We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near.
26 If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins
27 but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

And where to gather? St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of St. John…who was the apostle to Jesus Christ says:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

For me, I’ll put my faith in that Catholic church that St. Ignatius speaks of…where the Bishop is, the Eucharist and the multitude reside (1.2 billion today). And I’ll attend the gathering of the faithful at least weekly if not more often.

You are choosing to sit at home. Why?

 

[Lucky_Catholic1]

And where in the bible do you find believers baptisms and baptism by immersion? Do you believe that they had baths inside of houses where one could be immersed?
[/INDENT]

Since you like going off topic it’s fine.

Show me one verse from the Bible where a baby was baptized.

The baptism of baby’s started around 600 ad. Our old Churches from that time had a bath inside for immersion.

 

[MartinJordan]

Since you like going off topic it’s fine.

Show me one verse from the Bible where a baby was baptized.

The baptism of baby’s started around 600 ad. Our old Churches from that time had a bath inside for immersion.

Lucky Catholic what is your opinion of this:

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men.** Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things,** perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D. 215]).

MJ

 

[Lucky_Catholic1]

Hi Lucky
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.

alike’’ ??

Out of context.
Feast days were stopped, and nailed to the cross.

 

[Lucky_Catholic1]

• 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
  God bless

Off Topic:
Only Bibles from the Vaticaus will contain a verse that say all foods are clean for eating.
The Old Law was fulfilled by Jesus. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains, “The Law has not been abolished, but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment.” (CCC 2053).

For example, rediscovery of the dietary law (including eating pork), is explained: “Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: ‘Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him . . .’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . . ." (CCC 582)

Typically the King James Version does not contain this.
If you want to be a Protestant you not allowed to eat pork, cockroaches, spiders, catfish, snakes, and all other unclean food.

Remember not to confuse different types of laws.
Govermental laws
Property laws
Ceromonial laws
God’s Law
Hebrew laws
Roman laws
Tax laws
Slave laws

Some laws have changed, some laws are void, and some of them are still binding.

 

[Lucky_Catholic1]

Lucky Catholic what is your opinion of this:

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men.** Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things,** perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 A.D. 215]).

MJ

Bible verse?