Taking questions from Sabbatarians...

[Lucky_Catholic1]

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

Hey

So much writing, it seems you guys really have a issue with the Adventist Church.
I just wonder why you guys never mention the Baptist Church.

Well he gave a Protestant view, so that makes him a Protestant.
Before Vatican 2, he was classified as going to hell.

Now we know him as a separated brother.

 

[Crescentinus]

Hey

So much writing, it seems you guys really have a issue with the Adventist Church.
I just wonder why you guys never mention the Baptist Church.

Well he gave a Protestant view, so that makes him a Protestant.
Before Vatican 2, he was classified as going to hell.

Now we know him as a separated brother.

I think it’s because the SDA is more anti-Catholic.Not only that, it’s also because the Baptists are theologically diverse. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[MartinJordan]

Bible verse?

You mentioned 600 A.D. as start of infant baptism. But way before that Church fathers who lived much closer to the times spoke with wisdom about how infants can be baptised.

Besides entire households had been baptised as Bible verses will attest. You don’t believe entire households have babies or infants?

There are even plenty of examples of precursor to Baptism in the Old Testament wherein the head of the household would as in solidarity to get all the males (infants of age 8 days for example) circumcised.

Im only touching the tip of the iceberg.

MJ

 

[PRmerger]

Before Vatican 2, he was classified as going to hell.

If someone knowingly rejects Jesus, where do you think he will go? What does your pastor say about someone who does this, Lucky?

That being said, could you please provide your source for the Catholic teaching that says that “he was classified as going to hell”? Thanks.

 

[Porknpie]

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 -

I went off topic because Protector said he was not going to Church. Out of love for him I am pointing out that scripture says that we are to assemble together. His actions go against scripture…as well as T. Hopefully he’ll respond and that will be that.

Baptism: The bible says repeatedly,** “whole households” **. From the time of Christ, the Church was baptizing infants… before the bible existed…some 370+ years. There is a clear historical Church record of infant baptism as the previous post highlights, both before the bible was canonized AND after. In all directions that the apostles went baptisms included infants. Do you believe Christ taught with error? Infant baptism created NO controversy as circumcision was performed on the 8th day. The bible and Tradition are consistent.

Your reliance on the bible alone is a problem as you are not interpreting it correctly and adhere to a man made theology. To believe in delayed baptism at the age of reason, the age of 7, the age of 8 or the age 16 or 21, is to invent something that is not in the biblical text and not in history until recent times.

The question for you remains, where in the bible does it say infants are not to be baptized and that baptism should be delayed until the age of reason? Infants were circumcised at the age of 8 days old. Infant baptism was consistent with the OT covenant practice regarding age. This created no controversy.

What part of the word “whole” (households) excludes infants? “Whole” defined below.

Merriam-Webster

2 : **having all its proper parts or components **: complete, unmodified
3 a : constituting the total sum or undiminished entirety : entire
b : each or all of the
4 a : constituting an undivided unit : unbroken, uncut

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic of the OP please

 

[Shibolet]

Hi, Shibolet,

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?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shibolet,

I really would like your reference for the Sabbath being changed by the 4th Century Church.

Thank you for a truly novel (at least for me) approach to the Pharisees - and their effort to save Jesus…

God bless

tqualey;10083529:

Hi, Shibolet,

Not really. The concept of a coming Messiah is of the return of the Jewish People from Diaspora to the Land of Israel. So, we no longer expect the coming of an individual Messiah but his return from the Diaspora. It makes no sense to believe in an individual Messiah. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect
a different Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. But where to go for the evidence that God’s People themselves is the Messiah? Take a look at Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord comes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One. “Anointed” is what it means Messiah. Then, Jeremiah says that Israel is supposed to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Peter never had anything to do with changing the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday. Even Paul didn’t do it. For Paul, it would make no difference what day one observes or even if he does not observe any at all. (Rom. 14:5,6) The change must have been effected by the Church in the 4th Century.

Do you mean to imply that Paul turned out against Moses and the law after he met Jesus?
Kind a weird! But about the crucified Rabbi who, in your words was rejected by the Jewish
leaders, I am not too sure about that either. Do you know why was Jesus crucified? Because his disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. Then, the Pharisees, believe it or not, tried to prevent him from being arrested by asking him in the following words: “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” (Luke 19:38-40) The Pharisees themselves were trying to save Jesus from the cross. Then, Pilate himself nailed Jesus’ verdict on the top of his cross: INRI. That’s the reason why Jesus was crucified and not caused by the Jewish authorities but by Jesus’ disciples themselves.

If Jesus must be looked at as the fulfillment of the Jewish covenant or the Law, there is no other name to call this but Replacement Theology.

I understand what you mean. We no longer wait for the return of the Messiah. He is already back, as this last exile of almost two thousand years is over. Do not forget that we
have already built our third Commonwealth. All we wait is for a change in world politics in
order to rebuild our Temple.

 

[PRmerger]

Peter never had anything to do with changing the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday.

You don’t know that, Shibolet. You are only taking the word of a fallible pastor who proclaimed this.

But you never read in a single page of Scripture that Peter “never had anything to do with the changing of the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday.”

That is a man-made tradition that you’ve succumbed to.

 

[Lucky_Catholic1]

List of Churches that keeps the Sabbath
the-ten-commandments.org/sabbathkeepingchurches.html

538 different Churches keeping the Sabbath.

I suspect they did not find Sunday keeping in the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

I suspect they did not find Sunday keeping in the Bible.

It’s right after the verse that says we have to find everything we believe in the Bible.

Claiming that we can’t do [A] because it’s “not found in the Bible” is a man-made tradition, Lucky.

Which is so ironic, given the fact that you object so highly to doing things “not found in the Bible”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

I notice that Shibolet is a bit slow in responding to requests for providing references when asked.

Maybe I should stop holding my breath!

God bless and a very Blessed Christmas to all on the Thread

You don’t know that, Shibolet. You are only taking the word of a fallible pastor who proclaimed this.

But you never read in a single page of Scripture that Peter “never had anything to do with the changing of the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday.”

That is a man-made tradition that you’ve succumbed to.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

I notice that Shibolet is a bit slow in responding to requests for providing references when asked.

Maybe I should stop holding my breath!

God bless and a very Blessed Christmas to all on the Thread

Right back at 'cha, Tom!

And, yes, do stop holding your breath. Blue is not a liturgical color for Advent (or Christmas).

 

[Porknpie]

List of Churches that keeps the Sabbath
the-ten-commandments.org/sabbathkeepingchurches.html

538 different Churches keeping the Sabbath.

I suspect they did not find Sunday keeping in the Bible.

Lucky, go ahead and break down this list by time…sort the church listing by those that kept the Sabbath between

1. 33 AD and 500 AD
2. 501 AD and 1000 AD
3. 1001 AD and 1600 AD
4. 1601 AD and 1800 AD.
5. 1801 AD and 1900 AD
6. 1901 AD and 2013 AD

 

[Lochias]

List of Churches that keeps the Sabbath
the-ten-commandments.org/sabbathkeepingchurches.html

538 different Churches keeping the Sabbath.

I suspect they did not find Sunday keeping in the Bible.

If those 538 churches had been in existence right from the get-go along with the Catholic church, you might be on to something. As it stands, those 538 Churches are all man-made traditions, so their inclusion really doesn’t hold much water, does it?

 

[Lucky_Catholic1]

If those 538 churches had been in existence right from the get-go along with the Catholic church, you might be on to something. As it stands, those 538 Churches are all man-made traditions, so their inclusion really doesn’t hold much water, does it?

It is just obvious, they did not find sunday keeping in the Bible.
That’s the point of that post.

 

[Crescentinus]

It is just obvious, they did not find sunday keeping in the Bible.
That’s the point of that post.

This is the reason why I’m skeptical of your motives here.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lucky,

I think you fired off your quip way to fast … and missed the target. It really isn’t that ‘obvious’ since you have not drawn a valid conclusion.

The Bible only identifies three religious groups: Jews, Pagans (everyone not a Jew according to the Jews) and followers of The Way. That is it. We trace the transition of The Way to Catholic via St. Iranaus in about 110AD. If you keep to these three, you will at least have a biblical population reference.

Pagans are actually divided into two major groups: 1.) those who believe in Christ and 2.) those who don’t. The Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah and are still awaiting Him (or the Nation of Israel) to bring God’s Grace to them. Pagans who do not believe in Christ are neither waiting or involving themself with religious observance focused on the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Catholics honor Christ’s Resurrection by worshipping on Sunday.

One of the posts identified this as, “Replacement Thelology” and I really think that this is a pretty close expression. The 1st Century Jews were found to have lost their view that God was to be honored with their hearts - and John theBaptist was critical of them for failing in this matter. He told them very clearly that their form of worshipping God will be replaced - and, in a painful manner - the axe has been laid to the base of the tree (Matthew 3 and Luke 3). It can be argued that John was not diplomatic - but, he was trying to get their attention and in so doing, help to save their immortal souls. The ‘replacement’ is clearly identified in the last 1/6 of the Bible - the New Testament. The Old Testament served the purpose God intended by preparing the Way for the Lord - now that the Lord has arrived, it is our work to follow Him and we do this throught the Church He founded on Peter. Notice, Christ did not found it on the Eleven - or did He return to earth in the 16th Century and found it on Luther, or Calvin or Henry VIII or any of the thousands of other guys who tried their own hand at creating a man-made religion.

And, as I recall, Lucky - you have yet to answer my question on why this Sabbath observance is to be kept, but, Jewish washings and identification of clean and ‘unclean’ foods, circmucising males on the 8th day - and stoning those who do not honor God - are simply ignored. Really, just who did determine that the Sabbath was to be kept and all of these other Laws could be ignored?

God bless

It is just obvious, they did not find sunday keeping in the Bible.
That’s the point of that post.

 

[Lochias]

It is just obvious, they did not find sunday keeping in the Bible.
That’s the point of that post.

Those 538 churches aren’t in the Bible either, so why do they matter at all?

 

[Shibolet]

Hi, Shibolet,

I really would like your reference for the Sabbath being changed by the 4th Century Church.

Thank you for a truly novel (at least for me) approach to the Pharisees - and their effort to save Jesus…

God bless
Shibolet;10098996:
Tqualey, I said that the change “must have been effected in the 4th Century.” That’s when Christianity was adopted by Cosntantine as the official religion of the Roman Empire in 312 ACE as, so to speak, a form of payback to Constanine since the first day of the week was already observed as the day of the Sun in Rome. The Seventh-Day Adventists have a few documented evidences of how that change reached its official final stage.