The Sign of Jonah...HELP!!!

[MountainRecluse]

Are we trying to apply mathematical precision to the principle of God’s word?

But Jesus specifically states that there are 12 hours in a day. So I’m going by the Lord’s math, not mine…

He doesn’t say “sometimes 6, sometimes 12, sometimes 24”…

 

[MountainRecluse]

The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign – a supernatural evidence – in proof of His Messiahship. Jesus expressly declared that the only sign He would give to prove He was the Messiah was that He should be just three days and three nights in the tomb.

Stop and think for a moment what that means. Consider the tremendous import – the overwhelming significance – of Jesus’ statement. Jesus staked His claim to being your Savior and mine upon that only sign! If He remained just three days and three nights inside the earth, He would prove Himself the Savior – if He failed in this sign, He must be rejected as an impostor!

It is a fact that no one witnessed the resurrection. When the women arrived at the tomb, Jesus was already resurrected. “He is not here: for he is risen, as he said” (Matt. 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6). Any thinking person can see that the tomb being found empty on Sunday morning says nothing of the time of the resurrection.

How about the apostles’ meeting on the first day of the week, does it say anything about when the resurrection happened? Let’s check and find out.

John 20:19 “Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you.”

This happened on the same day the tomb was found empty and the resurrected Christ first showed Himself. But why were the disciples assembled that evening? It says, “… for fear of the Jews.”

Act 20:7 “And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

Here is a religious assembly on the first day of the week. But does it say they assembled because the resurrection happened on Sunday? It does not. And this is not even a Sunday meeting. This is the time of day we call Saturday night! Paul must have been preaching all day Saturday and this account mentions the time when they took a break to take their evening meal – “break bread” – before Paul resumed preaching. And notice it, Paul stopped at midnight (obviously to get some sleep) to depart the next day, Sunday morning. Paul indulged in the labor of walking 20 miles from Troas to Assos on Sunday while his companions engaged in the labor of rowing and sailing a boat for 60 miles. Why? Because Sunday was a regular working day for them!

Now, here’s the last text in the bible where we find the assembling on the first day of the week.

1Co 16:2 “Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

Paul here instructs the brethren to gather fruit on the first day of the week. Why? Again, because the first day of the week is, for a Christian, one of the days where he may labor and do all his work.

Wow. Right on point! This is exacly my concern. How many times do we just overlook these details because tradition tells us to ignore or rationalize them…

 

[MountainRecluse]

1. “the Breaking of Bread” refers to the Eucharist. I know that there are anti-sacramentalists who disagree with this, but they are, frankly, wrong.
2. How you get from the text you quote to the conclusion that Paul preached all day Saturday until midnight is – puzzling. The plain statement of the text is that they came together “on the first day of the week” and he preached until midnight.

No, he instructs them to put into the collection (at their regular weekly gathering) for the suffering Church at Jerusalem whatever they can, based on their means, so that he will not need to take up a “special collection” when he visits. He wants them to give out of their charity, not in response to influence of the visiting Apostle. Again, you are seeing in the text meanings that support the conclusion you have already drawn. What possible reason could there be for Paul to instruct them to gather fruit on the first day of the week and not any other (non-sabbath) day?

While we’re looking at Scriptural texts, what do you make of the fact that EVERY post-resurrection appearance of Jesus for which a day is given occurs on the first day of the week? And what is the significance of the Revelation to John, which takes place “on the Lord’s Day?” Is there any evidence that the Jews referred to the Sabbath as “the Lord’s Day?”

Now THIS is what I was looking for. A more detailed rebuttal here. Continuing my studies…

 

[Mailman]

1. “the Breaking of Bread” refers to the Eucharist. I know that there are anti-sacramentalists who disagree with this, but they are, frankly, wrong.

When Jesus introduced the Lord’s Supper to His disciples He said, “I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16). Yet, the day after His resurrection, after walking with the two disciples to Emmaus, “… as he **sat at meat **with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.” Here Jesus “brake bread” but it was not the Lord’s Supper, which He said He would not take again. It was a meal – “He sat AT MEAT.”

In Acts 2:46, the disciples, “continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and **breaking bread **from house to house, **did eat their meat **with gladness.” Here again “breaking bread” means eating a meal. Not on the first day of the week, but DAILY.

When Paul was shipwrecked on the voyage to Rome, the sailors had been fasting out of fright. But “Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing. Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is your health… And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat” (Acts 27:33-35). Here Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry.

In all these texts, “breaking bread” means, simply, eating a meal – dividing flat loaves of bread for a meal. However, should anyone still insist the phrase refers to the Eucharist, here is a text where the term is used before there ever was a Lord’s Supper: “And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake [them]… ” (Mat. 15:36). The same event is recorded in Mark 8:6. “… and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake…”

“It “breaking bread”] means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal… The readers [of the original NT letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds” (E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 1991, pp. 839-840).

1. How you get from the text you quote to the conclusion that Paul preached all day Saturday until midnight is – puzzling. The plain statement of the text is that they came together “on the first day of the week” and he preached until midnight.

Paul continued his speech until midnight. “And there were **many lights **in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.” Clearly, the meeting happened AFTER SUNSET, prior to midnight, the first day of the week. Now, at that time days begin and end at sunset. That “first day of the week” began on Saturday sunset and ended Sunday sunset. Therefore, the meeting, and Paul’s preaching, took place on Saturday night.

Several translations, including The Good News Bible, Today’s English Version, New English Bible, Today’s English Version, The New Testament in Modern English, and the Jewish New Testament, state that this occurred on Saturday night.

No, he instructs them to put into the collection (at their regular weekly gathering) for the suffering Church at Jerusalem whatever they can, based on their means, so that he will not need to take up a “special collection” when he visits. He wants them to give out of their charity, not in response to influence of the visiting Apostle. Again, you are seeing in the text meanings that support the conclusion you have already drawn. What possible reason could there be for Paul to instruct them to gather fruit on the first day of the week and not any other (non-sabbath) day?

This was a special collection “for the saints” – members of the Jerusalem church. They needed, not money, but food. Paul had given similar instruction to other churches for this “collection.” Here is his instruction to the Romans:

“But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem… When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you in Spain” (Rom. 15:25-28).

Here we see that it was not a collection of money, but fruit that was being sealed for shipment to the needy saints in Jerusalem. (The Greek word can also refer to grain, wine, and other produce which can be stored a long time without spoiling.) That’s why Paul instructed the Corinthians to “lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). These contributions were to be “laid aside” and “stored up,” not brought to a church service and collected there. Until Paul’s arrival, each individual was asked to “store up” his contributions – surely in his home. Paul knew that this collection would be bulky enough that it would take several people to transport it to Jerusalem (v. 4) – not what one would expect if money were collected.

But why was the collection to be done on the first day of the week? Obviously, Paul intended to arrive at Corinth during the early part of the week and to leave with or send the collection before the following weekend. Paul wanted no delay to hold up the delivery of this food to the needy brethren.

 

[Mailman]

While we’re looking at Scriptural texts, what do you make of the fact that EVERY post-resurrection appearance of Jesus for which a day is given occurs on the first day of the week?

There are only TWO of these post-resurrection appearances recorded in the Bible. I repeat, only TWO. The first occurrence we’ve already taken up, in John 20:19. It was Jesus’ first opportunity to appear to His disciples. For 3-1/2 years He had been constantly with them on all days of the week. His meeting with them, of itself, could not establish any day as the resurrection day.

His second appearance occurred “after eight days” of that first recorded appearance (John 20:26). So, this second appearance did not happen on the first day of the week. Out of the two appearances, therefore, only one occurred on the first day of the week and this only because it was Christ’s first opportunity to appear to His disciples.

There is a third recorded post-resurrection appearance of Jesus but where there is no given day. “After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias…” (John 21:1). The fact that the disciples were out fishing on this particular day when Jesus appeared shows that it was a regular working day for the disciples – nothing special on that day, not the day of Christ’s resurrection or the Sabbath day. Yet Jesus appeared to them that day! Now, this proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the day of Jesus’ appearance has nothing whatsoever to do with the day of His resurrection.

The contention is that Christians should always meet on the first day of the week because Jesus in John 20:19 met His disciples on the first day of the week. If that is so, then churches should always meet on the beach (John 21:1), or on Monday or Tuesday (John 20:26).

And what is the significance of the Revelation to John, which takes place “on the Lord’s Day?” Is there any evidence that the Jews referred to the Sabbath as “the Lord’s Day?”

Was John worshipping on Sunday and had the vision on that day? How do you know the term “Lord’s Day” refers to Sunday when nowhere in the Bible is “Lord’s Day” defined as the first day of the week?

If “Lord’s Day” were referring to any day of the week, we would have to conclude that John meant the seventh day, since Jesus said He was “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). Also, the pre-incarnate Christ called the Sabbath “My holy day… the holy of the Lord” (Isa. 58:13). And in the fourth commandment, He said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.” Obviously, then, the seventh day Sabbath is not our day. It is the Lord’s day!

However, the context of John’s vision shows that John wasn’t referring to a day of the week at all. Revelation is a prophecy of end-time events. Clearly, then, the “Lord’s Day” is synonymous with the “Day of the Lord” – a future time, mentioned numerous times in Bible prophecy (Jer. 46:10; Acts 2:20; 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; I Thes. 5:2; 2 Thes. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:10)., when God will intervene in human affairs, executing punishment and sending Christ back to this earth to bring world peace. John meant that he was carried in vision by God’s Spirit TO THAT TIME.

 

[CEM5]

Hello folks! First thread and post here.

I posted this on another site but never received and answer from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective…It is about the sign of Jonah and how could there have been a Sunday Resurrection if you really analyze Scripture…

I want to hear perspectives (especially from Catholics/Orthodox/etc) about HOW Jesus could have been crucified on a Friday and risen on Sunday…( I have only part of the article here, in quotes and italics with the link at the bottom)

*"WHEN DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?

The tradition of a Sunday Morning resurrection is very much a part of modern Christianity. Most everyone thinks of a Sunday morning resurrection. After all the Sunrise services seem to imply that this is when Jesus arose from the dead. But Jesus said, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).” “Three days and three nights” means seventy-two hours. Jesus defined the length of a day in John 11:9. Our Lord said, “Are there not twelve hours in a day?” Well, if there are twelve in a day, then there are twelve hours in a night. And therefore, three days and three nights would be 72 hours.

 If Jesus was placed in the grave at sundown as the Scriptures teach.  See Luke 23:54;  "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath (Passover Sabbath was Thursday on that week) drew on."  Then His resurrection had to be seventy-two hours later at sundown.  If you accept a Sunday morning resurrection then Christ stayed in the grave for three days and four nights.  Not three days and three nights as Jesus said.

Have you ever wondered how Jesus Christ could be crucified on Friday and be resurrected on Sunday after being buried for three days? Well, that’s impossible! You cannot squeeze three days between Friday and Sunday. By no stretch of the imagination is it possible to stretch the period from Friday evening to Sunday morning into “three days and three nights.”

We believe that Jesus Christ died on a Wednesday. We do not believe that Jesus died on Friday. Let’s turn to Matthew 12:40, and notice Christ’s own prophecy pertaining to His death, burial, and resurrection. “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).” “Three days and three nights” means seventy-two hours. Jesus defined the length of a day in John 11:9. Our Lord said, “Are there not twelve hours in a day?” Well, if there are twelve hours in a day, then there are twelve hours in a night. And therefore, three days and three nights would be 72 hours. Anything less than 72 hours would not fulfill the prophecy of Jonah or the words of Jesus Christ."*

biblelineministries.org/articles/basearch.php3?action=full&mainkey=WHEN+DID+JESUS+RISE+FROM+THE+DEAD%3F

If this is true, than that means Jesus rose late Saturday night (Sabbath) and the empty tomb discovered early Sunday morning. It would also seem fitting for Him to rise on the actual Sabbath considering he is the “Lord of the Sabbath”…

What have you guys got? I’m hoping I get a response here! Thanks!

Hello MountainRecluse,

Those sites you quote from are not Catholic and those people do not seem to understand ancient Judaism and their traditions and customs.

Ask any Jewish historian how they deem a night and day. There you will be told that one night and day = any part of that day. The Jews don’t say “day and night” - it is “night and day” as one “day”.

Thus,

Friday = one night and day
Saturday = one night and day
Sunday = one night and day

Also, because the Jews observed their day of rest [Sabbath] beginning on Friday at sundown, and could not do ANY work or touch any dead body, they asked permission to remove the Lord’s dead body and intern it into a grave before the start of their Sabbath.

Because there was no time to properly prepare the body with herbs, and oils, (the hour of the Sabbath was approaching), they had to quickly place Jesus’ body in the Tomb so as not to be in violation of breaking the Sabbath observations. This occurred on FRIDAY.

On the second day, Saturday until evening they had to still observe the Sabbath. So it wasn’t until Sunday at dawn (the third day) that Mary Magdalene and the other women could return to properly anoint and prepare the deceased Lord Jesus’ body. Because Jesus had risen on SUNDAY, it is called The Lord’s Day as the Gospels deemed it.

Those sites can try any way they want to but this is recorded fact, and Jewish history of how they “count” their days.

The Jewish people still observe their Sabbath beginning at dusk on Friday (usually with the appearance of the first night star) and end their Sabbath on Saturday and attend Synogogue on Saturday.

Hope this helps! God bless you,

CEM

 

[CEM5]

The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign – a supernatural evidence – in proof of His Messiahship. Jesus expressly declared that the only sign He would give to prove He was the Messiah was that He should be just three days and three nights in the tomb.

Stop and think for a moment what that means. Consider the tremendous import – the overwhelming significance – of Jesus’ statement. Jesus staked His claim to being your Savior and mine upon that only sign! If He remained just three days and three nights inside the earth, He would prove Himself the Savior – if He failed in this sign, He must be rejected as an impostor!

It is a fact that no one witnessed the resurrection. When the women arrived at the tomb, Jesus was already resurrected. “He is not here: for he is risen, as he said” (Matt. 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6). Any thinking person can see that the tomb being found empty on Sunday morning says nothing of the time of the resurrection.

How about the apostles’ meeting on the first day of the week, does it say anything about when the resurrection happened? Let’s check and find out.

John 20:19 “Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you.”

This happened on the same day the tomb was found empty and the resurrected Christ first showed Himself. But why were the disciples assembled that evening? It says, “… for fear of the Jews.”

Act 20:7 “And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

Here is a religious assembly on the first day of the week. But does it say they assembled because the resurrection happened on Sunday? It does not. And this is not even a Sunday meeting. This is the time of day we call Saturday night! Paul must have been preaching all day Saturday and this account mentions the time when they took a break to take their evening meal – “break bread” – before Paul resumed preaching. And notice it, Paul stopped at midnight (obviously to get some sleep) to depart the next day, Sunday morning. Paul indulged in the labor of walking 20 miles from Troas to Assos on Sunday while his companions engaged in the labor of rowing and sailing a boat for 60 miles. Why? Because Sunday was a regular working day for them!

Now, here’s the last text in the bible where we find the assembling on the first day of the week.

1Co 16:2 “Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

Paul here instructs the brethren to gather fruit on the first day of the week. Why? Again, because the first day of the week is, for a Christian, one of the days where he may labor and do all his work.

Paul is not instructing them to gather fruit. Rather, Paul is telling the community of believers to put aside each week (Sunday) during their gathering for the Breaking of the Bread, (the Eucharist), their portion of “gifts” to share among the less fortunate. It was easier (less of a burden) to put aside a portion of their “earnings” each week, rather than make one collection when Paul would come to visit these churches, (he traveled among the various Christian churches – he wasn’t in one place only). Paul would then collect the offerings and then upon revisting those less fortunate churches, would share those offerings to ease the burden of the less fortunate in the other churches. This is what was done - read the book of Acts.

As for no one witnessing the resurrection – not so. Jesus appeared in His resurrected, glorious, immortal body to His Apsotles and disciples. When Mary (and the other Mary - not Jesus’ mother) went to the tomb on Sunday morning, the guards were still there guarding the huge, heavy stone which sealed the tomb. This assured all that no one came to steal away Jesus’ body, as well as indicated that no one left the tomb either. Suddenly there was a huge earthquake and an angel appeared. The guards shook with fear and “became as dead men”. The angel spoke to the two women and told them that Jesus had risen and told them to look at the place where Jesus’ body had been interred. Later, Mary Magdalene saw Jesus and embraced Him. Mary ran and told Peter. Later that night, Sunday night, Jesus appeared to the rest of the disciples. (Thomas came later, and touched the wounds of Jesus - see, anyone with such grave wounds would not have been alive, yet Jesus was!! - Recall that the wound in Jesus’ side had pierced not only His lungs, but His heart as well!).

The same day of the evening that Jesus resurrected from the dead is Sunday evening. The first day of the week = Sunday, when Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[CEM5]

When Jesus introduced the Lord’s Supper to His disciples He said, “I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:16). Yet, the day after His resurrection, after walking with the two disciples to Emmaus, “… as he **sat at meat **with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.” Here Jesus “brake bread” but it was not the Lord’s Supper, which He said He would not take again. It was a meal – “He sat AT MEAT.”

In Acts 2:46, the disciples, “continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and **breaking bread **from house to house, **did eat their meat **with gladness.” Here again “breaking bread” means eating a meal. Not on the first day of the week, but DAILY.

The Church has always celebrated the Breaking of Bread daily and to this day, still does. The “breaking of bread” is what the Eucharist is. It is the Body and Blood of Jesus, just as Jesus said it was. He instituted this Sacrament. Jesus’ kingdom of God happened upon the Cross. When Jesus died, then rose from the dead, victory was His for He conquered death.That is why Jesus then partook of the bread and ate to show them that He is still of flesh and bone and not a ghost!!

1 Corinthians 10:16 NRSA
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 11:24 NRSA
and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

1 Corinthians 11:27 NRSA
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:29 NRSA
For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.

“It “breaking bread”] means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal… The readers [of the original NT letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds” (E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 1991, pp. 839-840)…

Breaking of bread does mean to eat a meal as well, however, one has to look at context, which clearly your sources of reference tend to ignore for their agenda is one of duplicitness to “prove” the Catholic Church “wrong”. They should read the Didache! It is remaining in most part in its orginal manuscript. Have you read this “teachings of the Twelve Apostles”? By the way: the Sacrament the Lord gave us has variuos names: the Host; the Eucharist (which means “to give thanks”)’ The Body and Blood; The Bread and Wine; and so on…

The “breaking of bread” is what we do at every Mass: we gather around the table and share the Bread of Life – which is our Lord – and eat!

Paul continued his speech until midnight. “And there were **many lights **in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.” Clearly, the meeting happened AFTER SUNSET, prior to midnight, the first day of the week. Now, at that time days begin and end at sunset. That “first day of the week” began on Saturday sunset and ended Sunday sunset. Therefore, the meeting, and Paul’s preaching, took place on Saturday night.

Several translations, including The Good News Bible, Today’s English Version, New English Bible, Today’s English Version, The New Testament in Modern English, and the Jewish New Testament, state that this occurred on Saturday night.

And has been already explained: This “Saturday night” in Jewish LUNAR calendar, makes it the beginning of the next “day” – which is the Lord’s Day: Sunday!! See, Jewish people do not use the Solar calendar even to this day! You would do better to use reliable and knowledgable sources of information - those ones you use are not very knowledgeable! As well, those “bibles” are not what the Early Church used nor put together. Those bibles are butchered versions and lacking the fullness of God’s word.

blessings,
cEM

The “fruit” of your labours…ever hear that statement? This is what Paul is referring to – not actual fruit. People would sell their items (whether it be land or products of their labour) and give the money to Paul so as to share with the other less fortunate churches.

 

[CEM5]

Was John worshipping on Sunday and had the vision on that day? How do you know the term “Lord’s Day” refers to Sunday when nowhere in the Bible is “Lord’s Day” defined as the first day of the week?

If “Lord’s Day” were referring to any day of the week, we would have to conclude that John meant the seventh day, since Jesus said He was “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). Also, the pre-incarnate Christ called the Sabbath “My holy day… the holy of the Lord” (Isa. 58:13). And in the fourth commandment, He said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.” Obviously, then, the seventh day Sabbath is not our day. It is the Lord’s day!

However, the context of John’s vision shows that John wasn’t referring to a day of the week at all. Revelation is a prophecy of end-time events. Clearly, then, the “Lord’s Day” is synonymous with the “Day of the Lord” – a future time, mentioned numerous times in Bible prophecy (Jer. 46:10; Acts 2:20; 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; I Thes. 5:2; 2 Thes. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:10)., when God will intervene in human affairs, executing punishment and sending Christ back to this earth to bring world peace. John meant that he was carried in vision by God’s Spirit TO THAT TIME.

“Day of the Lord” is NOT equivalent to “The Lord’s Day”. They hold different meanings. The Book of Revelation is not only a future event but emcompasses that of the past as well, and was a book written in code for those who needed to hear a comforting message while Christians were being visciously persecuted.

The Lord’s Day is Sunday.

Here is what scripture tells us when the Lord’s day was celebrated:

Ac 20:7 -
On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread,

Re 1:10 -
I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet

The “Lord’s Day” and first day of the week is SUNDAY, when the Apostles met and the faithful followers would all gather and celebrate Mass and partake of the Eucharist (body and blood of Christ): the breaking of bread. (1Co 10:16 - The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?)

From the beginning, the Christians celebrated Mass and the sharing of the Eucharist on Sunday: the day when Christ Jesus rose from the dead. This is why it is called the Lord’s day and why Christians celebrate on Sundays. Saturday was a day Jews celebrated the Sabbath in the Temple. Christians do not celebrate in a Temple, for God destroyed the Temple. The Lord’s Day is SUNDAY.

Ac 20:7 -
On the first day of the week, (SUNDAY) when we met to break bread, (that is celebrate the Eucharist: The Body and Blood of our Lord) Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight.

Here is an English translation of the Didache, (the writings of the Apostles):

Chapter 9. The Eucharist.

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever…

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day.

But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

Nowhere do the Apostles ever write that the Sabbath is to be kept. Instead they constantly write that we are to gather on the Lord’s Day (Sunday).
Sabbath does not mean Saturday. The commandment does not say that the seventh day is Saturday. It commands man to work six days, and rest on the seventh.

 

[MountainRecluse]

Thanks for all the responses folks! I am still checking all this info out…:yukonjoe:

 

[Mailman]

Paul is not instructing them to gather fruit. Rather, Paul is telling the community of believers to put aside each week (Sunday) during their gathering for the Breaking of the Bread, (the Eucharist), their portion of “gifts” to share among the less fortunate. It was easier (less of a burden) to put aside a portion of their “earnings” each week, rather than make one collection when Paul would come to visit these churches, (he traveled among the various Christian churches – he wasn’t in one place only). Paul would then collect the offerings and then upon revisting those less fortunate churches, would share those offerings to ease the burden of the less fortunate in the other churches. This is what was done - read the book of Acts.

Where in Acts? Is it too difficult to give a chapter and verse?

If you read the biblical accounts carefully and without any preconceived ideas in your mind here is what you will learn:

1. 1 Cor. 16 says nothing about gathering for a weekly service to do the collection.
2. The collection was a special one, specific for the needy in Jerusalem only and not to other “less fortunate churches.” See 1 Cor. 16:3 which is corroborated by Rom. 15:26.
3. This outpouring of support may have been that described in Acts 11, when a famine prompted members to “send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea… by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (v. 28-30).
4. The verses say nothing about worshipping on Sundays.
5. The collection was meant to stop when Paul comes to Corinth: “… that there be no collections when I come.” It was done at one specific time, when Paul passed through – “I will come by you in Spain.”
6. The verses say nothing about collecting money.
7. It says, “Let every one of you lay by him in store.” They were to lay by, store up. Store up by himself – at home. Not lay by at the church house – lay by him – at home. And they were to “store up” – store up whatever they have gathered in their farms that day, “so that there be no gatherings when I come.” Fruits, vegetables, grains, are gathered out of the ground and stored – kept in storage until ready to be transported.
8. 1 Cor. 16:4, “and if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me” – coupled with verse 3 referencing “them,” shows that it took several people to transport this collection to Jerusalem. This would not be necessary if it was simply cash and coins being collected.

To say 1 Cor. 16 shows Sunday was already being observed by the apostles as 1) the resurrection day and 2) the Christian day of worship, is to read into the Bible an unwarranted personal opinion.

As for no one witnessing the resurrection – not so. Jesus appeared in His resurrected, glorious, immortal body to His Apsotles and disciples. When Mary (and the other Mary - not Jesus’ mother) went to the tomb on Sunday morning, the guards were still there guarding the huge, heavy stone which sealed the tomb. This assured all that no one came to steal away Jesus’ body, as well as indicated that no one left the tomb either. Suddenly there was a huge earthquake and an angel appeared. The guards shook with fear and “became as dead men”. The angel spoke to the two women and told them that Jesus had risen and told them to look at the place where Jesus’ body had been interred. Later, Mary Magdalene saw Jesus and embraced Him. Mary ran and told Peter. Later that night, Sunday night, Jesus appeared to the rest of the disciples. (Thomas came later, and touched the wounds of Jesus - see, anyone with such grave wounds would not have been alive, yet Jesus was!! - Recall that the wound in Jesus’ side had pierced not only His lungs, but His heart as well!).

The same day of the evening that Jesus resurrected from the dead is Sunday evening. The first day of the week = Sunday, when Jesus rose from the dead.

Check your Bible again. Read the account in Matthew 28:1-6 carefully and with an open mind. Did anyone see Jesus rising from the grave? Did the women witness the actual resurrection? No. When the women saw the angel of the Lord, the angel tells them: “He is not here: for he is risen….” Jesus was already raised when they arrived. He was nowhere to be found when they went to “see the place where the Lord lay.”

You are making assumptions in interpreting these scriptures. The first assumption you made is that Jesus’ resurrection caused the huge earthquake. But Matthew tells us, unequivocally, what caused the earthquake. He writes: “And behold there was a great earthquake: FOR the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon it” (28:2). Now, had Jesus rose that very moment when the earthquake occurred, He would surely have appeared to the women right there and then when they approached the tomb. But Mary went inside the tomb and left the place without seeing Jesus (v. 8). Only much later did Jesus appear to them (v. 9).

The second assumption you made is that the resurrected Jesus could not leave the tomb because of the stone blocking the door and so the angel had to be sent to roll back the stone. But Jesus had now been glorified. He was now spirit and not subject to the physical laws.

 

[Mailman]

The Church has always celebrated the Breaking of Bread daily and to this day, still does.

The Roman Catholic Church - yes - but not God’s Church.

The “breaking of bread” is what the Eucharist is. It is the Body and Blood of Jesus, just as Jesus said it was. He instituted this Sacrament.

The Passover was instituted an ordinance forever (Exo. 12:17, 24). At the last Passover supper Jesus changed the manner of observance of this ordinance. No longer do we kill a lamb and eat it, since the Lamb of God has been sacrificed once and for all. Instead, we take the bread, as His broken body, and the wine, as His shed blood, as a memorial, looking back to His death.

We are told to observe this ordinance once a year: “Thou shalt keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.” Christ set us an example (1 Pet. 2:21), observing it at its set time once a year (Luke 2:41-42).

In the first institution of this ordinance we read: “And when the hour was come, he [Jesus] sat down, and the twelve apostles with him… And he took bread… this do in remembrance of me. Likewise…” (Luke 22:14, 19-20).

It was “when the hour was come,” that Jesus first introduced the bread and wine. There was a definite time – a definite hour – when He held this supper, setting us an example. He commanded them to observe it – “THIS DO.” And why? “In remembrance of me,” Jesus said. It was, then, a memorial – in memory of His death. He instituted it on this one night, the very eve of His death. We are to do the same, following Jesus’ example, observing it at the same time He did – the same time the Passover always was observed. When we do, we continue to remember His death, annually, on the very anniversary of His crucifixion.

Jesus’ kingdom of God happened upon the Cross.

Please show some scriptures to support your statement.

When Jesus died, then rose from the dead, victory was His for He conquered death.That is why Jesus then partook of the bread and ate to show them that He is still of flesh and bone and not a ghost!!

Same here.

Breaking of bread does mean to eat a meal as well, however, one has to look at context, which clearly your sources of reference tend to ignore for their agenda is one of duplicitness to “prove” the Catholic Church “wrong”.

And how do you know Mr. Bullinger is out to discredit your church? Just because he’s got a contrary opinion doesn’t mean he has some dark agenda. The guy is only giving us the common usage of the word. Do you suppose he would say [if asked] that break bread in Luke 22:19 would also mean eating a meal? You accuse people too hastily that it makes one wonder if God has given you the authority to judge others.

Yes, one has to look at context. But what is context to you may not be context to the other fellow. To you, when Christ, or His disciples, is breaking bread on the first day of the week that, of itself, would indicate that the breaking of bread is the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. And it may not even have to take place on the first day of the week. For as long as this was done by Christ or His disciples AFTER Christ’s resurrection, then the breaking of bread, to you, must mean the Lord’s Supper.

But not everyone sees it the way you do. People with no preconceived opinions about Sunday and those who are not out looking for scriptures to justify Sunday observance don’t see anything there remotely suggesting the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Look at Luke 22:19: “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body given for you: this do in remembrance of me” (v. 19). Only here does context (in this case, “this is my body…”) shows this breaking of bread is the Passover supper.

They should read the Didache! It is remaining in most part in its orginal manuscript.

And how do you know they have not read the Didache? But, really, what is the relevance of the Didache to how that particular figure of speech is used? “Breaking bread” means the eating of food. The bread that was taken during the Last Supper is also food – the only difference being this food [in the form of bread] now represents the body of Christ. When context shows the term is used to describe the eating of the body of Christ, then we take it to mean that. Otherwise, it simply means eating food or a meal.

Regarding original manuscripts, I hope you know that a manuscript being old and original does not mean its writings reflect the beliefs of others near its time. Just because some original manuscript is called “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles” does not mean that that is what it really is. According to the church historian Harnack, indications are that the author of the Didache belonged to a Gentile-Christian party which repudiated all communion with Jews, including Jewish Christians (Kurtz, in Church History, Vol. I, commenting on Harnack’s view).

Don’t be fooled by nice names and titles. If Satan can be transformed into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14) and his ministers into “ministers of righteousness” (v. 15), his writings can also masquerade as writings of Christ’s apostles. You don’t see a church that’s named “Church of Satan,” do you? But that doesn’t mean Satan has no churches. If he’s got ministers, then he must have churches as well.

Have you read this “teachings of the Twelve Apostles”? By the way: the Sacrament the Lord gave us has variuos names: the Host; the Eucharist (which means “to give thanks”)’ The Body and Blood; The Bread and Wine; and so on…

The “breaking of bread” is what we do at every Mass: we gather around the table and share the Bread of Life – which is our Lord – and eat!

I know all about that. I grew up a Catholic and studied in Catholic schools all the way to college.

 

[Mailman]

And has been already explained: This “Saturday night” in Jewish LUNAR calendar, makes it the beginning of the next “day” – which is the Lord’s Day: Sunday!! See, Jewish people do not use the Solar calendar even to this day!

It says the disciples broke bread “upon the first day of the week.”

So, when did the disciples break bread? It was when the first day of the week just started, right? Now, since their days start at sunset, then they must have broken bread at about 6 PM. That, in our time, is Saturday night 6 PM. Would that be right?

Then it says Paul preached “until midnight.” So, Paul must have preached after breaking bread and kept preaching until midnight. In other words he stopped preaching at midnight of that first day of the week. Now, what is midnight of the first day of the week in our time? That’s midnight of Sunday since Sunday starts at midnight, right? So, Paul stopped preaching when the day we call Sunday was about to start. In other words, Paul stopped preaching when your “Lord’s Day” was about to start.

You would do better to use reliable and knowledgable sources of information - those ones you use are not very knowledgeable! As well, those “bibles” are not what the Early Church used nor put together. Those bibles are butchered versions and lacking the fullness of God’s word.

That’s your opinion. Keep it to yourself. I could say the same about you and your bibles. But the apostle Peter tells me that I should “have reverence for Christ… and honor him as Lord.” And this is how, he says, I honor Him as Lord: “Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you, but do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15-16).

Charity, my friend, is one mark of a true follower of Christ.

The “fruit” of your labours…ever hear that statement? This is what Paul is referring to – not actual fruit. People would sell their items (whether it be land or products of their labour) and give the money to Paul so as to share with the other less fortunate churches.

And how did you know that’s what Paul was referring to? He didn’t say “fruit of your labours,” did he? He said “fruit” – in the Greek, karpos.

I wonder if you have you read this? - “And if to live in the flesh: this is to me the fruit of labour…” (Phi. 1:22). In the Greek it says “karpos ergon.” Translated into English that’s “fruit of labour.” There’s no need to add anything to the inspired words. If it means that, it says it.

Sometimes we just need to stop the habit of adding words to the sacred texts to fit a preconceived notion. We make the Word of God of none effect by such a practice.

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

If you read the biblical accounts carefully and without any preconceived ideas in your mind…

The problem is that this is humanly impossible. Everything that comes in through our senses is interpreted according to our perceptions. Catholics read with the preconceived ideas that were handed down to us from the Apostles. This perspective (frame/point of view) is called Sacred Tradition. The Apostles taught that we are not to read scripture apart from it.

Justin Martyr (also Justin the Martyr, Justin of Caesarea, Justin the Philosopher, Latin Iustinus Martyr or Flavius Iustinus) (103–165) 1) 1 Cor. 16 says nothing about gathering for a weekly service to do the collection.

1. The collection was a special one, specific for the needy in Jerusalem only and not to other “less fortunate churches.” See 1 Cor. 16:3 which is corroborated by Rom. 15:26.
2. This outpouring of support may have been that described in Acts 11, when a famine prompted members to “send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea… by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (v. 28-30).
3. The verses say nothing about worshipping on Sundays.
4. The collection was meant to stop when Paul comes to Corinth: “… that there be no collections when I come.” It was done at one specific time, when Paul passed through – “I will come by you in Spain.”
5. The verses say nothing about collecting money.
6. It says, “Let every one of you lay by him in store.” They were to lay by, store up. Store up by himself – at home. Not lay by at the church house – lay by him – at home. And they were to “store up” – store up whatever they have gathered in their farms that day, “so that there be no gatherings when I come.” Fruits, vegetables, grains, are gathered out of the ground and stored – kept in storage until ready to be transported.
7. 1 Cor. 16:4, “and if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me” – coupled with verse 3 referencing “them,” shows that it took several people to transport this collection to Jerusalem. This would not be necessary if it was simply cash and coins being collected.

To say 1 Cor. 16 shows Sunday was already being observed by the apostles as 1) the resurrection day and 2) the Christian day of worship, is to read into the Bible an unwarranted personal opinion.

I am sure it seems unwarranted to you, since your spiritual ancestors separated themselves from the Apostolic Tradition 500 years ago. One person within that Sacred Tradition was an early defender of the faith known as Justin Martyr who lived between 103–165. In his first apology, he tells one of the Roman rulers about the Christian (Catholic) practices.

CHAPTER LXVII – WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRIS- TIANS.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

It is quite clear that the Catholic understanding of the Scriptures is reflected here by the early second century.

You are making assumptions in interpreting these scriptures.

Indeed we do! We take the course of the Bereans, who are described as being “noble”. They first listened and accepted the Apostolic instruction, then studied the scripture in the light of what was passed on to them by the Apostles. It is this kerygma that is preserved infallibly in the Church by the HS, just as Jesus promised.

approached the tomb. But Mary went inside the tomb and left the place without seeing Jesus (v. 8). Only much later did Jesus appear to them (v. 9).

 

[guanophore]

The Roman Catholic Church - yes - but not God’s Church.

I am wondering, Mailman, if you have decided that you are done posting on CAF. Non-Catholics are welcome to post here, but they are required to respect our faith. Insults of this kind are a direct violation of forum rules, and often lead to members getting their posting privileges suspended, or they are banned.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, Mailman, as I have pointed out to you before. I am sure that there is nothing that any of us here can do to pursuade you that the Catholic Church is God’s Church, but if you wish to keep posting here, it would behoove you to respect the fact that we believe this.

And how do you know Mr. Bullinger is out to discredit your church? Just because he’s got a contrary opinion doesn’t mean he has some dark agenda.

If his agenda is anything like the comment you made above, then I think it is pretty dark. You have made it clear that you do not believe the Catholic Church is God’s Church. Would you accept the studies of someone as an authority that believed otherwise?

Yes, one has to look at context. But what is context to you may not be context to the other fellow.

This is very true, and the main reason why Jesus had to appoint a Teaching Authority over his Church. It is the reason why one should not interpret the scriptures apart from the faith of those who wrote them.

But not everyone sees it the way you do. People with no preconceived opinions about Sunday and those who are not out looking for scriptures to justify Sunday observance don’t see anything there remotely suggesting the partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

If you honestly believe you do not read the Scriptures from a Sabbatarian perspective, you are only fooling yourself.

Catholics don’t have to “justify” our beliefs by Scripture, because none of our beliefs come from the Scriptures. The Catholic faith comes from Jesus, through the Apostles. The NT, written by, for, and about Catholics, reflects Catholic faith. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

And how do you know they have not read the Didache? But, really, what is the relevance of the Didache to how that particular figure of speech is used?

The writings of early Christians, like the Didache and the Apologies of Justin Martyr, confirm what the early church believed and practiced. Since your beliefs and practices are inconsistent with what is reflected in them, it puts the foundation of your doctrine into question.

I hope you know that a manuscript being old and original does not mean its writings reflect the beliefs of others near its time. Just because some original manuscript is called “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles” does not mean that that is what it really is.

So, this is how you explain away the historical facts? The problem is, Mailman, thatthe canon of scripture was not closed until several hundred years after these other documents were written. And the bishops who closed the canon in 382 AD accepted these early writings as accurate reflections of the faith.

Don’t be fooled by nice names and titles. If Satan can be transformed into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14) and his ministers into “ministers of righteousness” (v. 15), his writings can also masquerade as writings of Christ’s apostles.

Ok, so if they are not just inaccurate documents, they must be Satanic? It seems like you have to work real hard to find a way to discount these writings. It is clear why you would need to do so.

You don’t see a church that’s named “Church of Satan,” do you? But that doesn’t mean Satan has no churches. If he’s got ministers, then he must have churches as well.

Since you think the Catholic Church is not God’s Church, perhaps you believe it is one of Satan’s Churches?

I know all about that. I grew up a Catholic and studied in Catholic schools all the way to college.

It is regrettable that you had such a dismal catechesis.

 

[guanophore]

That’s your opinion. Keep it to yourself. I could say the same about you and your bibles.

My my! Must have hit a nerve, eh? This is a bit disingenuous, is it not? I mean, even if you have decided you no longer wish to post here (that is what I conclude when a person falls into insulting our faith), your opponent here will most likely continue to enjoy the privilege of posting opinions, and is under no obligation to follow your directives to refrain from doing so.

I will also note that it is not just an opinion that was being shared, either.

Sometimes the truth stings a bit.

Yes, you could say the same, and indeed you have. What are “your Bibles”? Do you have any idea where that book came from that you are using to whack us on the head?

But the apostle Peter tells me that I should “have reverence for Christ… and honor him as Lord.” And this is how, he says, I honor Him as Lord: “Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you, but do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15-16).

It is my prayer that you will incorporate this instruction deeply, and come to understand that you have come across as aggressive and insulting.

Charity, my friend, is one mark of a true follower of Christ.

Well, I guess that is all that needs to be said there!

Sometimes we just need to stop the habit of adding words to the sacred texts to fit a preconceived notion. We make the Word of God of none effect by such a practice.

There is a great difference between adding words, and adding perspective. When one approaches the Scriptures from a frame of mind that is opposed to what the Apostles believed and taught, one will most likely misunderstand what is written.

 

[Mailman]

Nowhere do the Apostles ever write that the Sabbath is to be kept. Instead they constantly write that we are to gather on the Lord’s Day (Sunday).
Sabbath does not mean Saturday.

“Constantly” implies many times. The phrase “first day of the week” occurs in exactly 8 places in the Bible. Which ones say we are to gather on Sundays for religious worship? Let’s find out.

1. Matt. 28:1 – Matthew wrote these 6 years after the NT Church came into being. Rather than point to Sunday observance, this text tells us plainly that 3 days and 3 nights after all had been supposedly “fulfilled in Christ,” the Sabbath was STILL the day BEFORE the first day of the week – still the seventh day of the week.
2. Mark 16:2 – This is Mark’s version of the sunrise visit, written 10 years after the crucifixion. This “first day of the week:” also was “AFTER the Sabbath was PAST,” according to verse 1.This text proves the same thing as the one above.
3. Mark 16:9 – This text speaks of Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene the day AFTER the Sabbath. Nothing here calls the first day of the week the “Lord’s Day” or tells us to gather on that day.
4. Luke 24:1 – This tells the same event recorded by Matthew and Mark, and it shows that on the first day of the week these women came to DO the work of a common weekday, after having rested the Sabbath day “according to the commandment.” This was written about 30 – yes, 30 years after the establishing of the NT Church. God inspired the direct statement that the “rest” of these women on the Sabbath day was according to the commandment, which statement would not be possible had Sunday now been the new rest day.
5. John 20:1 – This is John’s version of the same visit to the tomb, written 63 years after the crucifixion. It confirms the facts just stated.
6. John 20:19 – Already discussed is previous posts.
7. Acts 20:7 – Already discussed in previous posts.
8. I Cor. 16:2 – Already discussed in previous posts.

So, NOT ONE of the texts speaking about “the first day of the week” tells us to gather on that day for religious worship or to set it apart as a day of rest. Not a single one.

But that should not be surprising because even Catholic authorities admit that Sunday observance has no biblical leg to stand on. The late Cardinal Gibbon, in his book Faith of Our Fathers, agree with our findings and made this frank admission:

“Is not the observance of this law [Sunday observance] among the most prominent of our sacred duties?” – Indeed it is! – “But,” he continues, “you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Sunday, a day which we never sanctify.”

The commandment does not say that the seventh day is Saturday. It commands man to work six days, and rest on the seventh.

God’s Sabbath Day is a time period from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. God calls that time period “the seventh day of the week.”

Are you saying we cannot now know, today, which day of the week is the day God called “the seventh day” at creation?

God bless.

 

[Mailman]

I am wondering, Mailman, if you have decided that you are done posting on CAF. Non-Catholics are welcome to post here, but they are required to respect our faith. Insults of this kind are a direct violation of forum rules, and often lead to members getting their posting privileges suspended, or they are banned.

Sorry if that came across as insulting to your faith. That wasn’t the intention. I wanted to acknowledge the fact that it was true for the RCC, but not for the Church I believe is God’s true Church. How should I say it so that it won’t sound insulting to you?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, Mailman, as I have pointed out to you before. I am sure that there is nothing that any of us here can do to pursuade you that the Catholic Church is God’s Church, but if you wish to keep posting here, it would behoove you to respect the fact that we believe this.

Yes, I remember that subject came up before. But most Catholics take no offense and even call their church by that name. All my Catholic teachers in school and all the priests I know call their church “Roman Catholic Church.” I’m looking at a book now, written by the Catholic priest John Redford called “What Is Catholicism.” On p45 Redford writes, “Regarding the question of individual Bible reading, the Roman Catholic Church has not been as encouraging as it should have been…” Are you telling me that Mr. Redford doesn’t know his church is not called the RCC?

Maybe we should start a poll and see what Catholics here at CAF have to say about this?

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I remember that subject came up before. But most Catholics take no offense and even call their church by that name.

No, the Church chose to receive and embrace the insults of her detractors, and turn the other cheek. Although it was first coined as an insult, it now describes all Latin Rite Catholics who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

All my Catholic teachers in school and all the priests I know call their church “Roman Catholic Church.” I’m looking at a book now, written by the Catholic priest John Redford called “What Is Catholicism.” On p45 Redford writes, “Regarding the question of individual Bible reading, the Roman Catholic Church has not been as encouraging as it should have been…” Are you telling me that Mr. Redford doesn’t know his church is not called the RCC?

Clearly you were reared by Catholics in the Latin Rite, and are reading books written by Latin Rite Catholics. The Latin Rite is the most common in Europe and America. Most Catholics in these areas don’t even know there are 23 Rites in the Catholic Church. The Latin happens to be the largest and most commonly known.

Maybe we should start a poll and see what Catholics here at CAF have to say about this?

Unlike our separated brethren, we do not determine the Truth by polls or majority vote. The Church has been Catholic since her founding by Christ The Latin Rite was one of the later Rites to emerge, the first being Syriac, then the Greek.

For the record, my colleague CEM5 is in error that the Eucharist was celebrated daily from the beginning. This was only the case in certain communities for periods of time. Since a valid Eucharist was one at which the Bishop or his representative was presiding, many communities only had Eucharist once a year.

The practice of daily communion is peculiar to the Latin Rite, but it was not even practiced this way in the beginning for centuries.

For the record I will also concede your points that “breaking bread” also refers to a meal, and that Eucharist did not always accompany those meals. The context of the Eucharist is the Passover meal, and it was originally celebrated at the close of a meal, just as it was at the Last Supper. However, within 20 years there was abuse of this practice (as we can read in the book of Corinthians) so the celebration of the Eucharist was separated from the meal.

Catholics recognize that Jesus is our Sabbath. Our rest is completely fulfilled in Him, and we keep the Sabbath by remaining in Him, who has rested from His labors. We do this on the Lord’s Day (the first day of the week) to commemorate His resurrection from the dead. This is the custom that was passed on to us by the Apostles, as is reflected in the excerpt from Justin Martry I posted above.

 

[zarthan]

Hello folks! First thread and post here.

I posted this on another site but never received and answer from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective…It is about the sign of Jonah and how could there have been a Sunday Resurrection if you really analyze Scripture…

I want to hear perspectives (especially from Catholics/Orthodox/etc) about HOW Jesus could have been crucified on a Friday and risen on Sunday…( I have only part of the article here, in quotes and italics with the link at the bottom)

*"WHEN DID JESUS RISE FROM THE DEAD?

The tradition of a Sunday Morning resurrection is very much a part of modern Christianity. Most everyone thinks of a Sunday morning resurrection. After all the Sunrise services seem to imply that this is when Jesus arose from the dead. But Jesus said, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).” “Three days and three nights” means seventy-two hours. Jesus defined the length of a day in John 11:9. Our Lord said, “Are there not twelve hours in a day?” Well, if there are twelve in a day, then there are twelve hours in a night. And therefore, three days and three nights would be 72 hours.

 If Jesus was placed in the grave at sundown as the Scriptures teach.  See Luke 23:54;  "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath (Passover Sabbath was Thursday on that week) drew on."  Then His resurrection had to be seventy-two hours later at sundown.  If you accept a Sunday morning resurrection then Christ stayed in the grave for three days and four nights.  Not three days and three nights as Jesus said.

Have you ever wondered how Jesus Christ could be crucified on Friday and be resurrected on Sunday after being buried for three days? Well, that’s impossible! You cannot squeeze three days between Friday and Sunday. By no stretch of the imagination is it possible to stretch the period from Friday evening to Sunday morning into “three days and three nights.”

We believe that Jesus Christ died on a Wednesday. We do not believe that Jesus died on Friday. Let’s turn to Matthew 12:40, and notice Christ’s own prophecy pertaining to His death, burial, and resurrection. “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).” “Three days and three nights” means seventy-two hours. Jesus defined the length of a day in John 11:9. Our Lord said, “Are there not twelve hours in a day?” Well, if there are twelve hours in a day, then there are twelve hours in a night. And therefore, three days and three nights would be 72 hours. Anything less than 72 hours would not fulfill the prophecy of Jonah or the words of Jesus Christ."*

biblelineministries.org/articles/basearch.php3?action=full&mainkey=WHEN+DID+JESUS+RISE+FROM+THE+DEAD%3F

If this is true, than that means Jesus rose late Saturday night (Sabbath) and the empty tomb discovered early Sunday morning. It would also seem fitting for Him to rise on the actual Sabbath considering he is the “Lord of the Sabbath”…

What have you guys got? I’m hoping I get a response here! Thanks!