why is sunday instead of saturday the sabboth?

[Angelos]

Did Gentiles Keep The Sabbath?

Christ’s custom was to enter the synagogue “on the sabbath day” (Luke 4:16). The Bible also tells us that He is “Lord of the sabbath” (Mark 2:28) and that He never changes (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8).

You are pulling my leg, right??

First, Jesus was a Jew “born under the Law to save us from the curse of the Law”. Second, Jesus violated the Sabbath several times as the Lord of the Sabbath! Last, God is not Sabbath and Sabbath is not God: God does not change, NOT Sabbath
Protestant101;3861117:

But what other New Testament evidence is there of Sabbath observance? Are there other passages revealing what day Paul kept—and what day he used to teach the Gentiles that God was converting at that time? Let’s examine a series of verses.

Paul and Barnabas Teach on the Sabbath

ACTS 13:14-15, 42-44 contains an account of Paul and Barnabas teaching Jews on the Sabbath: “But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, You men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on” (vs. 14-15).

It was natural for Paul and Barnabas to teach on Saturday because they were Jewish and because they proclaimed the Good News to the Jews first!

The account picks up in verse 42: “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.” Why would he not tell them to just show up the next day—Sunday—instead of requiring them to wait an entire week, until the next Sabbath, for further instruction?

The account says nothing of Paul telling the Gentiles that they no longer had an obligation to keep the Sabbath—that it had been done away. While one might suppose that the Jews still carried this obligation, why did Paul not at least explain to the Gentiles, in a message about the “grace of God,” that the Law had been nailed to the cross? He could have easily explained that the Sabbath was no longer binding in the New Testament era

Notice verse 43: “Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of god.”

But more time passed. People wanted to hear more of the “word of God.” Paul required everyone to wait another week—a second time. Another lost opportunity to point the Gentiles to Sunday. Now read: “And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God” (vs. 44). “Continuing in the grace of God” meant learning to observe the Sabbath!

I have two simple questions for you:

1. What were those Gentiles doing in the synangogue on Sabbath???
2. Why did Paul NOT state that those people had to wait for another week because they had to observe the Sabbath??? Because Paul’s appoinment had nothing to do with religious obeservations, but with the cultural aspects and habits of those people. Since they listened to Paul the first time on a Sabbath, Paul wanted them to do the same thing one week later.An easy way of remembering when to gather and on what occasion!

Gentiles Also Assemble on Sabbath

The next passage, ACTS 15:1-2, 14-21, yields important understanding. Examine it closely. Certain Jews had come to Antioch seeking to teach newly converted Gentiles that they must keep the law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved. It states “no small dissension” arose between Paul and Barnabas and these teachers. A conference of ministers was necessary to resolve the question of what was binding on Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles and elders.

James announced the final decision: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (vs. 19-20).

Let’s examine James’ statement. Some assert that James did not tell them that the Ten Commandments were binding on Gentiles. Of course, he did not say this! The Commandments were not in question. Rather, circumcision and obedience to the law of Moses were the issues in dispute.

I have examined James’ statement over and over and over. He somehow does not impose on Gentiles the obligation to keep the Sabbath.

 

[inJESUS]

Not too long ago, however, I learned that ancient rabbinical literature spoke of an “eighth day of creation,” which would be inaugurated with the advent of the Messiah

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Dear Protestan101,

Please go back and read MarysRoses posts on this thread from the beginning of her posts…you will see sound clarification of the Catholic Church’s official teaching on this; and sound exegetical clarification regarding the 8th day sacrifice of first fruits. Do some research on that if you are serious about understanding the New Covenant.

God bless!

 

[Metamorphoo]

interesting but any link?

 

[inJESUS]

Metamorphoo, very interesting. Thank you for the info

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;3860959:

Well; I don’t know about us “getting somewhere;” for I have always held this understanding. There are many sources of Catholic writings (official ones) which would state clearly that I am correct in saying how the Roman Catholic Church has changed the “obligation” to Sunday, from Saturday; and the CCC certainly does not refute that idea, even if you could prove what you are saying. How you can say this “does not change the Sabbath” is beyond me, for it certainly does for Catholics. It’s kind of like you always say how “trinity” is not explicitly in the Bible; yet it is there.

**Ok, Protestant101, I will leave it to you and your lawyering tactics to remain of your mindset on this matter. For clarification, so as you dont decieve your followers and those who may not know; You are sure now that the Catholic church never uses the word “change” in her catechism as you pretend it does. Yes it is true that many catholic authors may use the word “change” but not how you once thought it did prior to this thread, They apply the word “change” for the meaning from the catechism word “replace” ceremonial observances replaces the sabbath, not change the sabbath to sunday. I hope we are clear on this, and I am confident, that you will now stop using the word change as you once did to the sabbath, now only if you can reveal this to your leadership.

I notice you have changed your terminology from sabbath ceremonials to “obligations”. This again is going to lead you off track of what the catholic chrurch teaches and practices. For one to understand the ceremonials from the sabbath, one has to understand the old testament sabbath ceremonials which I know you do not follow, but the Catholic church follows them fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Maybe this can be another topic of discussion. Where in the ceremonials of the old covenant sabbath, have been replaced by our new high Priest Jesus on the 8th day sunday, where we rest in God, there exists a high priest (Jesus) his family (blood relatives the catholic church) a sacrificial victim (lamb of God), an altar, a shared meal, and rest in God in his Eucharist.

Tell me protestant 101, does there exist anywhere in the world, where the Lord of the sabbbath is honored according to the precepts of the sacrificial PERPETUAL LAWS of the old sabbath covenant laws fulfilled in Jesus Christ, other than the Roman Catholic church? Are the Jews and SDA’S honoring God with a victim sacrifice of flesh and blood today in the temple? See why the replacement has taken place, it is by divine providence, that the temple of God has been destroyed and not rebuilt, and why scripture states the " old order of things are close to disappearing "

Please remember, when you quote the Catholic church Please quote the body of Jesus Christ in context. Dont exchange Your definition of the word “change” in place of “replace” of the definition explained here at depth by the Catechism of the Catholic church. I am content that you know this truth now, no matter your defiance, you have been exposed to the Catholic church’s truth on this matter about your definition of the word “change”

Peace be with you**

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101;3861098:

Gabriel of 12;3860959:

**Ok, Protestant101, I will leave it to you and your lawyering tactics to remain of your mindset on this matter. For clarification, so as you dont decieve your followers and those who may not know; You are sure now that the Catholic church never uses the word “change” in her catechism as you pretend it does. **

Actually; if you will read my posts more carefully; you will see that I have not yet named a specific publication - CCC or otherwise to back up my statements about the change; and also, I did not ever “pretend” this about the CCC. I have said that the CCC quotes provided here in this thread mean the same thing as a change; if you “replace” something, you do make a change. That’s not “layering” it is a physical result of the Catholic Church’s “replacement” dogma on the Sabbath.

I can see that you are tenaciously clinging to something you do not even know about. Your church does openly claim what I have said it does. The question remains; do you even know where to look?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;3861912:

Protestant101;3861098:

Actually; if you will read my posts more carefully; you will see that I have not yet named a specific publication - CCC or otherwise to back up my statements about the change; and also, I did not ever “pretend” this about the CCC. I have said that the CCC quotes provided here in this thread mean the same thing as a change; if you “replace” something, you do make a change. That’s not “layering” it is a physical result of the Catholic Church’s “replacement” dogma on the Sabbath.

I can see that you are tenaciously clinging to something you do not even know about. Your church does openly claim what I have said it does. The question remains; do you even know where to look?

Its one thing to remain on topic, and discuss, but it is unfair when you are relating your lawyering tactics about the subject matter on different information that you mysteriously claim too, and then end by questioning my own faith. You have done better work than this to go to such levels of insult. I have asked for your sources, and I have admitted to the word change being used by others. but not by the catechism as you claim.

I dont know If you want a second grade level of speech inorder for you to understand what has been said here? or if this is another one of your tactics to pull away from, when you have been caught making a misquote about your teachings, accusing the catholic church changing the sabbath to sunday.

How about this definition, Saturday is the Sabbath, Sunday is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one can take a saturday and change it to a sunday, this is a false claim from SDA’s against Protestants and Catholics. This teaching from SDA’s is a deception to take what is true, and twist it against the practices of the first century Christian church. What has been replaced are the ceremonials from the sabbath practiced in their fulfilled status in Jesus Christ himself to be practiced on Sunday the Lord’s Day. How is that for second grade understanding.

Now one just needs to know about these ceremonials from the sabbath old covenant, that are now practiced on the Lord’s Day? This is the question you should be asking. Not making the ridiculous claim that protestants and catholics changed saturday Sabbath to Sunday.

I hope you can understand the difference from change and replace according to the Catholic church. I must remind you, that your earlier statement that I agreed with you on, puts you in conflict with your SDA’s teaching about accusing the change of the sabbath to sunday. I can understand your defiance position here trying to stick to your false belief about the catholic church on the subject of sabbath… But insulting my faith, Because truth by the catholic church puts you in conflict with your SDA false accusations.

I find you are learning more here than what you anticipated. Learning from the catholic church is only going to expose the truth to you. It will not sharpen your lawyering skills to debate issues, Truth like it did the first century lawyers (Pharisees) will only expose you. I pray you continue to stay here.

Peace be with you

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101;3862357:

Gabriel of 12;3861912:

Its one thing to remain on topic, and discuss, but it is unfair when you are relating your lawyering tactics about the subject matter on different information that you mysteriously claim too, and then end by questioning my own faith. You have done better work than this to go to such levels of insult. I have asked for your sources, and I have admitted to the word change being used by others. but not by the catechism as you claim.

You seem to be going off topic a lot more than I supposedly have. You keep wanting to address my character, and insult my integrity, which is one of the things that makes me question you the way I have. I do apologize for having offended you somehow; but as for “lawyering tactics;” I don’t even think “lawyering” is a real word.

I repeat my challenge, because I believe it is important and very relevant to the subject. You have made many false accusations about me personally, and Adventists in general. You call it “replace” and some call it “change.” There simply isn’t much difference. And it certainly isn’t a mortal sin to interpret those words differently. But the point remains that contrary to what you say Adventist falsely accuse Catholics of here; your Church actually does openly admit to and proclaim that they changed the Sabbath “obligation” from Saturday to Sunday, “in honor of the resurrection.”

I decided to challenge you the way I did on this point; because for some reason; you are limiting yourself, and your responses to just the Catechism in a desperate attempt to harpoon me with a specious attack on my wording, but there is a lot of official Catholic literature, both ancient and current, which fully admits what I have been saying all along. Do you know what materials to look in for such info? I don’t think so or you wouldn’t be racing down your dead-end track of personal insults instead of just showing us that you actually do know what you are talking about here.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Dear Protestant101,

I have a question for you. Being a fomer SDA, we taught that keeping the 7th day sabbath (saturday) is,or will be, the “seal of God”, and that keeping the 1st day (sunday) is, or will be the “mark of the beast”. SDAs claim the the 7th day sabbath is the seal of God because the sabbath commandment, in the 10 commandments, contains the properties of a ruler’s seal…his name, Lord your God; his role, Creator; and the dominion of his kingdom, the heavens and earth, the sea and all that is in them.

My question is, in addition to what I said above, where in the Bible is the 7th day sabbath referred to as “the Seal of God” or even as a seal? Please provide scripture references.

I have found the 7th day sabbath, in the OT to be called a “sign”, but no where in the Bible can I find it being called “the seal, a seal, his seal”. I have however found over and over when coming across the word seal, that it refers to God sending his Holy Spirit to his people, sealing them. And there is a distinct difference between “sign” and “seal”.

I would appreciate all the scriptural references you can provide regarding God’s seal applying to the 7th day sabbath for my further study.

Thank you!
Patrick Murebil

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Do you even know what your own Catechism says re changing “the day of worship?” You are fighting your own doctrines!

Here we go Protestant101 these are your words stating that the "Catechisn says re “changing” “the day of worship” these are your own words protestant101 do you deny them?’

This is what I mean by your Lawyering tactics, You introduce a word in the cathechism on a topic that does not exist. Now what would you call this? ?A LIE? or a false statement? or a deception?
If you are going to claim what the catechism says. then say what it says , dont add your own pretenses to the text to agree with your false accusations.

Now if we can get you to hold to the truth, then maybe we can get somwhere with sharing the truth with you. But if you continue to add false intentions to the catholic teachings without investigating what they actually are from the Catholic church. For example, you blatently stated what the catechism says, which was not true. Why dont you ask, what it teaches, before you (name removed by moderator)ut what it does not. Another words what ever you have been taught about the Roman Catholic church from SDA’s is a LIE period. The reason you are here is not to teach Catholics what you have been told wrongly, you are here so that Catholics can correct the Lies you have been taught about her. So to disagree with the catechism of the Catholic church, and try to fit your false teachings about her to attack her text in the catechism or make false accusations about them, only reveals to me that you have been misinformed about a 2000 year unbroken Christian Tradition that rests in the Roman Catholic church.

I do my best not to introduce insults here, it goes nowhere with me. If I have insulted you forgive me. if I have told you the truth and it hurts, may God bless you. I am not here to pick a fight or win an argument. I am here to share the Gospel Truth about my Catholic faith, especially to those who have been misinformed about her. So I will not exchange insult for insult. You are talking to the wrong person. But what I say here on these forums, if the shoe fits then wear it, or change the shoes.

p.s If you are questioning my resources, I need no other than the Catechism of the Catholic church (to which you abused the text) and her Holy bible to reference the scriptures that she asks me to look for from each topic. To me , the catechism of the Catholic church has both sacred scripture and sacred Tradition holding her doctrines together. For one Protestant101 you are the one that brought out the catechism and wrongly misquoted it. Should I use other resources to prove a point then at that time I will and elect to do so, but to insinuate anything other only exposes your end result when one cannot make an argument, except to agree with his opposition, retorts to an insult, so as not to have to agree when he has exhausted his view. Have you ever had a debating class?

Peace be with you

 

[Protestant101]

Here we go Protestant101 these are your words stating that the "Catechisn says re “changing” “the day of worship” these are your own words protestant101 do you deny them?’

p.s If you are questioning my resources, I need no other than the Catechism of the Catholic church (to which you abused the text)
Peace be with you

So you are denying the validity of other official Catholic writings which would support my statements even clearer than the Catechism? I guess I will have to show you next post what your own church’s writings say. You appear to be avoiding this by smearing my character and intent here; so you leave me with no choice. The Catechism fully supports the other Catholic wiritings as they relate to this subject of how the Sabbath was changed, and by who. Your own church admits it; I am not sure why you are fighting it so. Can you tell us?

 

[RobHom]

So you are denying the validity of other official Catholic writings which would support my statements even clearer than the Catechism?

There is absolutely no reason for a Catholic to deny anything. The Catechism is quite clear on the issue. I fear it is your overzealousness in finding disagreement that is tainting your perceptions and judgment. Here is “precisely” what the Catechism says:

From here: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1art3.htm#2174

**Sunday—fulfillment of the sabbath

2175
Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107

    Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108

2176
The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.**

I guess I will have to show you next post what your own church’s writings say.

Hardly. I think it is you who needs an English comprehension course.

You appear to be avoiding this by smearing my character and intent here; so you leave me with no choice.

Playing the “victim” is rather disingenuous, especially after being the initiator of the rancor.

The Catechism fully supports the other Catholic wiritings as they relate to this subject of how the Sabbath was changed, and by who. Your own church admits it; I am not sure why you are fighting it so. Can you tell us?

Your statement is BOGUS…if you actually took your antagonist’s hat off for just a moment and read what was posted up above…the word “change” does not appear. The word is “replaces”, and the justifications are there as well.

That you and yours “disagree” is immaterial and irrelevant to the rest of Christianity. You are free to disagree, its your right. But your disagreement and your opinion do not a “right” make. Get over it. Get over yourself.

 

[Protestant101]

Your statement is BOGUS…if you actually took your antagonist’s hat off for just a moment and read what was posted up above…the word “change” does not appear. The word is “replaces”, and the justifications are there as well.

Well; what I was intending to try and say is that this passage of the CCC which you quote does not refute what other of your Catholic Church official writings says in DIFFERENT WORDS. Therefore, this passage in the Catechism does mean and does support the idea of other of your writings which expressly say that the Catholic Church, by sole virtue of her “authority” has changed the day of worship. Most of them don’t say they actually changed the sabbath; only the day of worship. Are you going to deny this too? To limit your rebuttal to only what the Catechism says does not tell the public the whole story of what you believe and should be teaching.

You can say all you want about me, and my motive or my intelligence, or whatever else, but I don’t feel anything close to a “victim.” I only note your behavior to me, because it shows you cannot support your stinging nettles with any proof. Perhaps, the Catholic Church is trying to distance herself from some of her earlier “infallible” teachings…?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well; what I was intending to try and say is that this passage of the CCC which you quote does not refute what other of your Catholic Church official writings says in DIFFERENT WORDS. Therefore, this passage in the Catechism does mean and does support the idea of other of your writings which expressly say that the Catholic Church, by sole virtue of her “authority” has changed the day of worship. Most of them don’t say they actually changed the sabbath; only the day of worship. Are you going to deny this too? To limit your rebuttal to only what the Catechism says does not tell the public the whole story of what you believe and should be teaching.

Protestant 101, Rob Hom, has brought out the Cathechism, to which I would of hoped you did, to prove to yourself, what you stated was not true about the Catechism. Now your adding to an argument you made falsely, about a statement; The Catholic church made, “by sole virtue of her authority has “changed” (protestant 101’s word not the catechism’s) the sabbath”. You have not even gotten to hit the ball, because of your false statement to move to another point you raise that continues to mislead. Unless you either agree with what the CCC contains, by not adding what it does not? how do you expect for your public to believe you? When you insist on believing your own deception of what the CCC does not teach or state.

**Now Rob Hom, has done a wonderful job of proving to you what the CCC records. Yet you continue to insist that it doesn’t? Do you really believe your public, cant see through this? Why dont you try and accept TRUTH first, so as to make a hit, so as to continue on with your next point. Please do not bring another point unless you can handle the first point. **

You can say all you want about me, and my motive or my intelligence, or whatever else, but I don’t feel anything close to a “victim.” I only note your behavior to me, because it shows you cannot support your stinging nettles with any proof. Perhaps, the Catholic Church is trying to distance herself from some of her earlier “infallible” teachings…?

I cant speak for Rob Hom, but speaking as your public, Rob Hom has provided you with proof. It is you who have not provided your proof, When you abused the text of the C.C.C. Why would you think “the Catholic church is trying to distance herself from some of her earlier “infallible” teachings” ? When all of her teachings are spoken, taught, and written. How can she “try” to distance herself from them? In fact they are in the C.C.C for all to read, and she puts them there for all the world to see, not try and distance herself from them as you again falsely mislead.

** I still have hope for you Protestant 101, but this circle arguing you display, makes it difficult to move to the next point. Believe me, I want very much to go to your next point. But you havent shown you are able to accept truth right in front of you. If you dont understand something the Catholic church has taught? be at liberty to ask anyone here. But please stop pretending you know what she teaches, when you try and “change” what she has and is teaching; Your knowledge of the Catholic church comes from an outsiders perspective and false belief’s about the Catholic church. By persecuting the Catholic church, you persecute against the body of Jesus Christ. Remember Saul who persecuted the Church before becoming St.Paul. Some key notes to remember about the Catholic church, she is Rock, the body of Jesus Christ on earth, she is both human and divine, because Jesus is with her always until the end of time. Once you can see this get revealed in sacred scripture, then you may be able to see why Peter (present day Pope) can speak “infallibly” (without error) on faith and morals.

Peace be with you**

 

[Protestant101]

**When you abused the text of the C.C.C. Why would you think “the Catholic church is trying to distance herself from some of her earlier “infallible” teachings” ? **
**I still have hope for you Protestant 101, but this circle arguing you display, makes it difficult to move to the next point. **Peace be with you

One of the problems with what you are trying to do to me is this “move to the next step” business. You have a pre-set, plastic track you want me to follow, and you get all upset when I do not perfectly do this. I don’t pretend anything on this forum; I have no reason to, and it doesn’t bother me in the least who does or does not believe something I say here. When I state something here that I see the Catholic Church as believing; I say it openly and un-pretending; in the hope that some will simply set me straight without stinging nettles such as you used when you accused me of “abuse” of the Catechism. I say it the way I read it; and I do appreciate those on this forum who try to correct or clarify what I see or the way I see it; and still allow Jesus and His kindness to show through in their responses.

You would make a much better witness, than an “apologist;” and this is what the seventh-day sabbath is all about. It is about people being like Jesus, and doing ALL that he says. :newidea:

 

[MarysRoses]

      ......this is what the seventh-day sabbath is all about.  It is about people being like Jesus, and doing ALL that he says.  :newidea:

Please show us where in the New Testament Jesus commands us to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

And again…

No one is denying we worship on a different day than Seventh-day Adventists, or Jews, or Moslems for that matter.

The problems is Adventists make assumptions about why we worship on a different day. We strongly disagree with their assumptions about the theology and history of Sunday. Adventists seem to think that we are “keeping” the sabbath on teh wrong day. We are saying that Sunday is distinct from the sabbath. All that was transfered (transfered, replaced, changed, pick your word, there are hundreds of languages) was the principle of regular rest and worship as a moral precept that is spiritually beneficial.

Why not talk about why you keep sabbath and we will tell you about why we keep sunday. That seems more productive. All you seem to be able to say is that we are wrong for worshiping on Sunday. In the old covenant, the sabbath was about much more than attending a worship service. As I’ve pointed out, the actual commandment says nothing about assembly. Sunday is about much more than a rest day. I quit clinging to the empty shadow of the sabbath when I saw the beauty of the 8th day symbolism in Sunday. As Christians, the Eucharist and the Ressurection are our focus, not the old covenant or tables of law.

I once had an Adventist relative upset with me. She was so angry she was shaking. She pointed her finger right in my face, jabbing at me to make her point. She said “You are profaning the very LAW OF GOD that he WROTE IN STONE with HIS OWN FINGER!!!” Having had this accusation made to me many times, though not so dramatically, I knew what to answer. I am a Christian and his law is written on our hearts, not on dead stones."

What law did Jesus give us? Love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourself. That is the sum of all the law. Jesus drove away all the old shadows that didn’t have life. I always see Adventists quoting that nothing will pass away from the law…
I wonder why they ignore the second part of the statement, … till all be fulfilled. Jesus FULFILLED all the old requirements and we are free. Why take on that burden again when he took it on himself? JESUS is our sabbath rest.

God Bless,
MarysRoses

 

[peary]

I am curious why sunday rather than saturday is considered the sabboth. My girlfriend believes people celebrate the sabboth in error and that it really should be friday night to saturday night like it was in old testament.

the only biblical evidence I can find is:

This is really very little if any evidence justifying sunday as being the sabboth. This just alludes to them breaking bread on sunday and to lay something aside. It really doesn’t tell us to change the sabboth day from saturday to sunday anywhere and does not make this clear at all.

Maybe the disciples kept the sabboth but in addition did this on sunday as well?

**No biblical references?

Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that *the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. *

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy *on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ. *

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday. **

Hope this answers your girlfriend’s inquiry. Please share these with her.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

The way I see it, I think we have two choices…

1. Keep the Saturday as the Sabbath and remember that this is the day that Jesus was laid to rest in the tomb. (Personally, I think God finishing the creation of the world on a Friday and resting on a Saturday, is a prophecy of Jesus finishing his remdeption work on a Friday and being laid to rest on a Saturday.)

or

1. Keep the Sunday as the Sabbath and remember that this is the day that Jesus rose from the dead.

I choose option 2. Would God be upset with me?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For those who worship in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ our High Priest who has claimed his victory over death from the Sabbath rest of the old creation into the new creation week beginnig on Sunday; Who has given us the passover not only from slavery but a passover from death into eternal life;

Hebrews 10:19
9 Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary
20
10 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh, **
21
11** 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 12 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, 13 as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near. **28
Anyone who rejects the law of Moses 15 is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29
**Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace? **31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
35
Therefore, do not throw away your confidence; it will have great recompense.
36
You need endurance to do the will of God and receive what he has promised.
37
“For, after just a brief moment, 17 he who is to come shall come; he shall not delay.
38
**But my just one shall live by faith, and if he draws back I take no pleasure in him.” **
39
We are not among those who draw back and perish, but among those who have faith and will possess life.

This is what happens every Sunday in heaven and earth and in every Mass:

Hebrews 12:18
4 **You have not approached **that which could be touched 5 and a blazing fire and gloomy darkness and storm
19
and a trumpet blast and a voice speaking words such that those who heard begged that no message be further addressed to them,
20
for they could not bear to hear the command: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.”
21
Indeed, so fearful was the spectacle that Moses said, “I am terrified and trembling.”
22
No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering,
23
and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, 6 and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect,
24
and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently 7 than that of Abel. 25
See that you do not reject the one who speaks. For if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much more in our case if we turn away from the one who warns from heaven.
26
His voice shook the earth at that time, but now he has promised, “I will once more shake not only earth but heaven.”
27
**That phrase, “once more,” points to (the) removal of shaken, created things, so that what is unshaken may remain. **
28
**Therefore, we who are receiving the unshakable kingdom should have gratitude, with which we should offer worship pleasing to God in reverence and awe. **29
For our God is a consuming fire.

Peace be with you**