Posted on 11/09/2007 1:55:47 PM PST by NYer
|
Initially this seemed like an easy task, for the primary reason my Presbyterian heart was turned toward home was because the truthfulness of the Catholic Church was proved to me through the study of Scripture. Books upon books upon tapes upon CD s reiterate the sound biblical footing of our Catholic faith. Regardless, I encountered difficulties as I thought of my perceived audience.
Vincible Foes
First, I remembered that from which I came and the hoards of anti-Catholics who believe there is no biblical defense of Catholicism. They believe the Bible is their book and that if it defends anything, it defends their theological platforms. If this were true, my talk would have been very short and this article over.
But this isn’t true. The Bible is not their book. It exists today first because of the grace of God, but secondarily because of the Catholic bishops, priests, monks, and laity who preserved, protected, copied, and venerated the canon of inspired books we now call the Bible. The entire biblical canon from Genesis to Revelation is a defense of the Catholic Church. From this standpoint, one talk or brief article merely scratches the surface.
Second, I remembered the many people who have been so swayed by the opinions of biblical critics that any biblical defense of the faith is useless, for the Bible to them is at best a collection of myths and fables. Again, this makes for a short presentation.
|
How does a Catholic use the Word of God to unlock the heart of a friend or family member outside the faith? My approach is what I call "The Verses I Never Saw." This is what sparked my own conversion, as well as those of hundreds of others we have worked with through the Coming Home Network International. |
Third, I remembered the many lifelong Catholics who believe a biblical defense of their faith is unnecessary. From birth and baptism they have believed it all, and though they greatly revere the Scriptures, they need no proof. Yet, I know from personal experience where this attitude leads: Thirty percent of my Protestant youth groups and churches were made up of ex-Catholics who could not defend their faith against our biblical onslaught. Eventually they not only became convinced that the Bible defended Protestantism, but that they had been saved from "the whore of Babylon." It is very important, especially in this day of high-tech Internet evangelization, that Catholics rediscover the biblical defense of their faith.
But there was a fourth difficulty. As in sports, there is no one simple defense against all attacks. For example, in football the defense changes with each play to address the changing offense. So with the defense of our faith, the challenges are as varied as Protestantism itself. The verses that might unlock a Presbyterian’s heart are radically different than those that might convince a Baptist or a Lutheran or a Pentecostal or Methodist or a Mormon. You get the idea.
So where does one begin? How does a Catholic use the Word of God to unlock the heart of a friend or family member outside the faith? My approach is what I call "The Verses I Never Saw." This is what sparked my own conversion, as well as those of hundreds of others we have worked with through the Coming Home Network International.
Scripture Says What?
Not unlike any average Evangelical Protestant minister, I loved my Lord Jesus Christ, I was committed to proclaiming and following His truth with abandon, and I believed in sola scriptura — that the Bible was the one inspired, infallible "firm foundation" of my life and faith. I also believed that I knew the Bible very well, from cover to cover, and that it held no surprises that could shatter my Protestant faith.
Then a long-lost seminary classmate introduced me to the first "verse I never saw." Scott Hahn pulled the same trick on me that someone had once pulled on him. He asked me, "What is the pillar and bulwark of your faith?"
|
Scott Hahn pulled the same trick on me that someone had once pulled on him. He asked me, "What is the pillar and bulwark of your faith?" |
My knee-jerk response — as had been his — was, "Why, the Bible, of course!"
"But what does the Bible specifically say is ‘the pillar and bulwark of faith’?"
I was puzzled. I could not remember any place where this specific phrase was found in Scripture.
"Let’s look at 1 Timothy 3:14-15, then," he said. Now, I had studied and taught through 1 Timothy many times and expected no surprises, so I read aloud without hesitation, "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
For a second, I wondered whether someone had somehow secretly inserted that never-before-noticed text into my Bible! The apostle Paul tells Timothy that the pillar and bulwark of the truth is somehow the Church. I had no mental file folder for this idea. As a Calvinist, I believed that the Church was an invisible fellowship of all true believers, not identifiable with any one institutional communion. How could this invisible, universal hodgepodge of opinions be the "pillar and bulwark" of anything? And could my Presbyterian denomination qualify as this trustworthy foundation for truth? Hardly — nor in my opinion could any other denomination I knew. So, what did Paul mean by "church"? This verse left me weak in the knees, not yet leaning toward Catholicism, but shaken in my confidence in sola scriptura.
Traditions to Contend With
Then I discovered another "verse I never saw": 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
Oh, I had seen this verse before, but what I had not noticed before was that the traditions — or "teachings," as my Protestant Bible had translated this term — that Paul insisted the Thessalonian believers follow and adhere to were not merely the written documents that would one day make up the New Testament, but also oral traditions.
In fact, as I re-examined all of Paul’s letters, several things became very clear: First, Paul’s normal, preferred way of passing on the faith was through preaching and teaching; second, the only reason we have any letters at all was because he could not get to the people in person; and third, what he taught in his letters presumed upon the knowledge they had already received from him in person — much of which is never recorded in any New Testament document!
|
Whoa! Jesus abides in His followers and we abide in Him not just through our diligent obedience but through partaking of Him in the Eucharist! Again, as a Presbyterian, I had no mental file folder for this. |
Then a third "verse I never saw" raised its ugly head: 2 Timothy 3:14-17, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
I was certainly quite aware of this text, for it was upon the second half of this text that I taught and defended sola scripura. Whenever I quoted this text, I would hold up the Bible as the presumed equivalent of what Paul meant by "all Scripture." What I had not previously considered, however (already a bit wobbly from the first two surprise verses), was whether this was an accurate representation of what Paul understood as "Scripture." When he wrote this letter, the New Testament was not even entirely written, let alone collected into a book. The canon of Scripture would not be finalized for another 300-plus years by gatherings of Catholic bishops at the councils of Carthage, Rome, and Hippo. This meant that Paul could only have been referring to the Old Testament! Did I believe that only the Old Testament was "inspired by God and profitable for teaching"? No, of course not. So this verse not only did not teach sola scriptura, but the first half again taught the importance of oral tradition.
The Spirit of Unity
A fourth "verse I never saw" was John 14:26, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Coupled with John 16:13 — "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" — this verse made me painfully aware of a contradiction in my life and ministry.
These verses emphasize how the Holy Spirit will teach the followers of Christ so that they know and remember all that Jesus taught to be true. So what happened? Why was there so much confusion and contradiction between those who love Jesus, who have received the Holy Spirit, and who diligently study His inspired, infallible Bible? What I had not seen in these very familiar verses is that Jesus was not implying that every Christian throughout all time would have this guaranteed knowledge of the truth: He was speaking primarily to His hand-chosen Apostles! They would be the ones to receive this special gift of the Holy Spirit to give them a special infused knowledge and wisdom so that they could initiate and lead the Church in truth. All Christians would receive the Holy Spirit (through Baptism) at differing levels according to the gifting of God (cf. Eph. 4:7, 11–14).
In time, a fifth "verse I never saw" crept up on me: John 17:11, "And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."
So where was this unity, especially among faithful Christians who accepted the Bible as the Word of God yet could not agree on what it said? In this prayer, Jesus was praying specifically for His Apostles, upon whom He would build His Church, and Scripture teaches that "the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16). In other words, unity is something that therefore must already exist, but where and how?
"Catholic" Verses?
The sixth "verse I never saw" startled me in a familiar spot. My favorite, most-preached-upon portion of Scripture was the familiar metaphor of the vine and the branches. I especially emphasized to my congregations the truth of John 15:4, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me."
|
Few conversions come about primarily through biblical proof texts and arguments, though these texts can be used by the Holy Spirit. All conversions come about by grace, and so the most important thing we can do to unlock the hearts of potential converts is to pray for them and love them. |
For years I had given my interpretation of what it meant to "abide in" Jesus and how He abides in us, but as far as I knew, there was no place where He specifically defines what this meant . . . until a friend drew my attention back to John 6:56, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Whoa! Jesus abides in His followers and we abide in Him not just through our diligent obedience but through partaking of Him in the Eucharist! Again, as a Presbyterian, I had no mental file folder for this.
The seventh "verse I never saw" was another one that I preached on often and assumed I had an adequate response to for any Catholic apologist: Matthew 16:17–19, "And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’"
There’s much to discuss here, but in short I had always assumed that pointing to the original Greek undercut any Catholic proof for Petrine authority. The Greek word here for Peter is Petros, which can mean "pebble" whereas the word for rock is petra, which means "large boulder." Like so many other Protestant pastors, I explained that Jesus was obviously not building His Church on this "pebble" called Simon Peter but upon the faith he had been given from God the Father.
But then someone pointed out what was truly obvious: Jesus didn’t speak Greek; He spoke Aramaic, and in both cases He would have used the same word, Kepha: "Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church." The differences in the Greek arose from the translators changing a feminine noun into a masculine name.
Unlocking Our Hearts First
These are only seven of the many "verses I never saw" that opened this convert’s heart to the Catholic Church. Are these verses "silver bullets"? Are they the guaranteed keys to unlock the mind and heart of any non-Catholic friend or relative? No, I’m afraid not. I know many faithful non-Catholics who see these verses and others, who know all the Catholic answers to them, yet are far from ready to come home. Few conversions come about primarily through biblical proof texts and arguments, though these texts can be used by the Holy Spirit. All conversions come about by grace, and so the most important thing we can do to unlock the hearts of potential converts is to pray for them and love them.
So why learn these verses? For this we need to take some advice from the airlines. Whenever we fly, what does the flight attendant tell us to do in the event of a loss of air pressure? Are we to first put the air mask on our children or on ourselves? Ourselves. We cannot adequately help anyone unless we first take care of ourselves. We need to know our faith and why we believe what we do, and we especially need to know the wonderful truths of the Bible so we can pass them on to others. But in all cases, the first heart that always needs to be unlocked by the Bible is our own.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Marcus Grodi. "Unlocking the Convert's Heart: The Bible as a Key to Conversion." Lay Witness (July/August, 2007).
This article is reprinted with permission from Lay Witness magazine.
Lay Witness is a publication of Catholic United for the Faith, Inc., an international lay apostolate founded in 1968 to support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.
So it is your position that the empty tomb was discovered on a Saturday, rather than the generally accepted Sunday at daybreak? That would have to be your interpretation of Luke 24:1, where the same set of words is used as is found in the passage in Acts.
This was a meal, a potluck if you will, that they were eating together.
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1Cor 10:16
And I find your interpretation of the meaning of the 'first of the week' to be a bit strained.
Are you a follower of William Miller?
No one questions that Paul, a Jew, quoted OT Scripture to demonstrate to the Bereans that the Messiah, predicted in those texts, had been born. No one! But you are trying to draw an impossible parallel with 1st century Christians before the New Testament was even written.
Christ was wrathful against the Jews of his day because they instituted non scriptural ORAL traditions and elevated them to the place of scripture:
As I demonstrated in my post, Mark 7:9 refers to human tradition (that we should reject) and not apostolic tradition (that we must accept). Look at Eph. 4:20 where Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!” , or Phil. 4:9 where Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.
Douglas, step into the time machine and travel back to the 1st century. These early converts had NO BIBLE! They learned everythring through ORAL TRADITION.
The term used in scripture is "First of the Sabbaths". The Greek word is Sabbaton and is only used in scripture to denote these special seven Sabbaths between Passover and Pentecost. [Leviticus 23:15-16]
The Church....for 2000 years.....and the translators have attempted to show a Sunday morning resurrection but it won't fly when you read the Greek. All the Gospels will bear this out. The women are visiting an empty tomb on "The First of the Sabbaths". To a first century Jew there is no doubt in their mind that Matthew and the others are speaking of the first Saturday after Passover. The translators, in vain..... attempt to show this a "First Day of the Week. They are wrong.
Ready for challenge #2?
Just a minute, Bob, I have a question for you in this regard. The Gospels report that Jesus observed the Sabbath, there are even several incidents where he is accused of violating Sabbath law (Jn. 9:16, Jn 7:23, Mk. 3:4). In various passages of Scripture, the Lord restates all of the decalogue except for one commandment. Which commandment did he not restate?
I wasn't making the point that they were using the new testament to verify Paul's teaching. I was making the point that they were using the old testament to verify Paul's teaching.
Scripture says as much:
Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
The "law and the prophets" is a common term for the sacred books of the old testament.
As I demonstrated in my post, Mark 7:9 refers to human tradition (that we should reject) and not apostolic tradition (that we must accept). Look at Eph. 4:20 where Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!” , or Phil. 4:9 where Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.
Apostolic tradition is fine if it lines up with scripture. But the gospel truth was being lost and corrupted even in biblical times. Churches were being taken from the apostles and control wrested:
3Jn 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 3Jn 1:10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
Above is an example of a church taken over by heretics. Maybe it was remedied, maybe not, but human organizations were already being corrupted.
Speaking of Paul and his letters Peter said:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
People wrest and twist scripture to their own destruction.
Douglas, step into the time machine and travel back to the 1st century. These early converts had NO BIBLE! They learned everythring through ORAL TRADITION.
That's not correct. They had the law and the prophets in written form:
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?
Mat 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Mar 2:25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?
Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this Scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
I can list many more verses where they read from the "old testament". But they also were circulating and reading AT LEAST Paul's letters in biblical times:
1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
And if you notice back in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter lumped in Paul's letters with "the rest of the scriptures."
Sorry to cut in on this...I happen to have a little free time.
He was accused of violating JEWISH law. Jewish tradition. He never violated scriptural sabbath commandments.
He certainly restated the sabbath law and went further...he let the Jews of the day know that they had polluted it:
Mat 12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
Mat 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
It's lawful to do well on the "sabbath days". In this statement Christ not only affirms the validity of the weekly sabbath, but also of the annual sabbaths, the Lord's holy days.
I think one has to consider that at the time of this writing there was no CATHOLIC church. There was only the christian church.
There were no masses, no vestments, no statues, no rosaries, no confession, no pope. The church taught salvation by faith and not works.
The attempt of Catholicism to claim THIS scripture as the revelation of their truth is misleading to say the least.
Diego has throughly hashed this out from a scriptural standpoint a number of times in this forum. Perhaps he still has a link to one of his posts?
The Modern King James version:
Joh 20:1 The first of the sabbaths Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, darkness still being on it, and she saw the stone taken away from the tomb.
It was STILL dark when the tomb was discovered. This means it was either before sunrise or after sunset.
This was a meal, a potluck if you will, that they were eating together. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1Cor 10:16 And I find your interpretation of the meaning of the 'first of the week' to be a bit strained. Are you a follower of William Miller?
The point of telling of this incident in Acts was to document a miraculous healing by Paul.
Act 20:7 And on the first of the sabbaths, the disciples having been assembled to break bread, being about to depart on the morrow, Paul reasoned to them. And he continued his speech until midnight.
They were assembled together to "break bread".
Paul spoke until midnight.
Act 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper room where they were assembled.
It was dark, just after midnight.
Act 20:9 And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead.
Eutychus fell asleep and fell out of the window and died.
The point was to document a healing.
However, those who follow the TRADITION of changing the sabbath can't help but try and use this as a scriptural precedent.
Are you a follower of William Miller?
I don't know who that is. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ.
You should become better acquainted with the Early Church Fathers. That is where you will find the history of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]"
(Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release"
Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).
In the existing documents that have come down to us, St. Ignatius is the first to use the word catholic in reference to the Church. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum where he would be devoured by lions for his faith, he wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8).
Are their writings infallible?
Jesus was accused of many things - wrongly. Mark 2:28 not only reinforces the Sabbath commandment but shows that Jesus understood more fully what it meant and its purpose. To bring up false accusations to prove a point only weakens your position.
In accordance with your "Now that you have a clearer understanding of papal infallibility, please cite as many examples as you choose of errors in teachings on a matter of faith or morals." I am ready to move on to these other teachings.
These are writings ... not Scripture ... like reading a history book (you do read history books, don't you?) Here is a link to a non-Catholic site.
No ... you misread my post but that's okay. Can you still answer this question. "In various passages of Scripture, the Lord restates all of the decalogue except for one commandment. Which commandment did he not restate?"
It is not recorded that He stated the fourth commandment. What does that prove? Nothing. The Sabbath was never in question at that time. That would come later. But we are warned in 1 John 2:3-6 to keep the commandments and walk as He walked. In 2 Peter we are warned of false prophets and heresies coming into the church. The Truth is Jesus kept the Sabbath and He alone is our example. Really I have long tired of this topic and am ready to move on. You have no scriptural Commandment which supercedes the Sabbath commandment. It is not emphatically stated - Let’s all go the synagogue on Sunday now and forget the Sabbath. It’s not there. Let’s move on.
Our Lord defends his disciples when the Jews attacked them for not observing the Sabbath, ending his comments by saying: "For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath" (Mt. 12:1–8). Or again, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mk. 2:27). The fact that Jesus rebukes too severe an interpretation of Sabbath law (Lk. 13:10–16, 14:1–5; Jn. 5:9–18, 7:22) suggests that he was not pleased with the way that the Sabbath was being observed. Christ perfectly observed the Sabbath as he did all of the old covenant. However, after he enunciated a new covenant at the Last Supper, his emphasis seems to be on Sundays. Sunday was the day he was found to have been resurrected, and his first two appearance to the twelve disciples were on the following two Sundays (Jn. 20:19, 20:26). Again, five weeks later—on Sunday—the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.
Throughout the book of Acts, Luke reports mass conversions of the Jews in Jerusalem, and notes that many were devout Jews and priests (Acts 2:5,41; 6:7) who remained "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). There is no suggestion in the New Testament that these devout Christianized Jews gave up Sabbath worship. The church in Asia, with Paul as its teacher, was confronted by Jewish-Christians who insisted that new Christians be circumcised as Old Testament law commanded. The disciples met in Jerusalem in the year 49 to resolve this matter. At that Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:10–21), Peter, James, and the other apostles set aside the law of circumcision, a law that was a sign of God’s covenental relationship with the chosen people and which was an "everlasting pact " (Gen. 17:13). While there was much debate in Jerusalem on whether or not Gentile Christians should be exempted from circumcision, the council was silent on the matter of Sabbath worship; this suggests that Sabbath versus Sunday worship was not an issue at that time.
Around the year 60, circumstantial evidence suggests that the Roman church began to worship on Sunday. For instance, in the year 50 the Christian church in Rome was considered to be a sect of Judaism; fourteen years later these same Christians were clearly understood to be distinct from the Jews. (Nero blamed the Christians for the fires in Rome in 64.) That such a sharp change could occur in this short span of time suggests that there was a significant external difference in the practices of the two faiths. The change of Christian worship from Sabbath to Sunday would certainly have allowed for this distinction.
The Council of Jerusalem’s decision on circumcision may have changed the way the early Church viewed Sabbath as well. One can almost hear the discussions of the Gentile Christians of the time: "Did not the Council of Jerusalem set aside the ‘everlasting’ law of circumcision? Should not the Church then set aside the other old covenant law—the Sabbath law?" Jewish Christians, similarly. would have questioned how many of the old covenant Sabbath regulations applied under the new covenant, for Sabbath rules were legion and varied from one rabbi to the next. Thus in the era following the Jerusalem Council it seems inconceivable that the apostles were not asked about the observance of the Sabbath.
It is not surprising then to find several New Testament comments addressing this matter. Let us begin with Colossians 2:17–19: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." This verse has been vigorously debated. What is meant by "Sabbath day"? How are we to understand "Let no man judge you"?
The Old Testament usage of the terms listed in Colossians 2:16 ("festival," "new moon," and "Sabbath") make clear beyond question that Paul is referring to the weekly Sabbath. In the Old Testament, Sabbath convocations—that is, the list of Sabbaths (days), new moons (months), and fixed festivals (seasons)—were listed in ascending or descending order. The ascending order of 1 Chronicles 23:31—". . . and whenever burnt offerings are offered to the Lord on Sabbaths, new moons, and feast days, according to the number required of them"—is echoed in 2 Chronicles 2:4, 8:12–13, and 31:3; whereas a descending order—"And it shall be the prince’s part to provide the burnt offerings, the grain offering, and the drink offerings, at the feasts, on the new moons, and on the Sabbaths, as all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel"—is used in 1 Chronicles 23:31. In Colossians 2:16–17 Paul uses the same structure as the Old Testament writers, allowing us to be sure that he is writing about not only the yearly and seasonal Sabbaths, but also about the weekly Sabbath.
When Paul writes "Let no one pass judgment on you," the text suggests that the ones who were doing the judging were the Jewish Christians who were practicing the old covenant convocations and other dietary aberrations of Christianity. Finally, Paul writes that the Sabbath is a shadow of things to come, and that the substance is in Christ. It is clear from this text that Paul, like the Old Testament writers, considered all the Old Testament convocations as inseparable; indeed, in saying that all three are a mere shadow of things to come, he makes no distinction between the first two terms and the third. Paul concludes that the reality lies in Christ. The Greek literally reads: "but the body is of Christ," meaning that all of our lives and all of our energies need to be submitted to Christ who is ever present to us and that the old covenant convocations such as the Sabbath are no longer binding.
In Paul’s letter to the Romans, written around 57–58, he says, "For one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day observes it to the Lord" (Rom. 14:5–6). The apostle is speaking here about the day which is being observed to the Lord, i.e., the day of worship. He notes that this is up to each person to decide. It must be noted, however, that Paul does not specifically mention the Sabbath here.
From these texts it seems clear that Paul considered Sabbath observance a matter of personal conviction that was not important in itself. Moreover, since Paul was presumably responding to the churches in Colossae, Galatia, and Rome about matters which concerned them, it seems clear that some Christians were worshiping on days other that Sabbath in Rome and in Asia Minor around 54–58.
Around the years 80–90, Christians were thrown out of the synagogues. This may have provided further stimulus for Christians to change their worship from Sabbath to Sunday. The apostle John wrote his gospel in this same time frame, significant because it provided for Christians an explanation of how God could change an "everlasting" law. John wrote how the world had been symbolically created anew in Jesus. One implication of this is that with the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ one eternity had ended and another had begun. God could therefore abrogate an everlasting law and still not contradict himself.
In Syria, following the death of the last apostle, a guide for the teaching of Christians was written called the "Doctrine of the Apostles," or the Didache. Its use was reported by church historians but the document itself was lost for centuries. It was found around 1900 in a manuscript dating back to the year 1000. The Didache taught: "On the Lord’s own day, gather together and break bread." This is a clear reference invoking Christians to worship on Sunday written around the year 100.
There is widespread belief among Christian scholars that the institution of Sunday worship occurred in the apostolic or post-apostolic age in commemoration of the Resurrection.
The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130–135) is the first explicit mention of Lord’s day worship being based on the Resurrection. Barnabas writes: "Finally He [God] says to them: ‘I cannot bear your new moons and Sabbaths.’ You see what he means: It is not the present Sabbaths that are acceptable to me, but the one that I have made; on that Sabbath day, which is the beginning of another world. This is why we spend the eighth day in celebration, the day on which Jesus both arose from the dead and, after appearing again, ascended into heaven."
In the year 135 Jerusalem was sacked and the Roman emperor Hadrian prohibited Sabbath worship throughout the Roman Empire. Hadrian also prohibited anyone of Jewish descent from living in Jerusalem. A new Christian community was recruited for Jerusalem from other nations, and the bishops of Jerusalem until the mid–third century bore Greek and Roman names. Thus, after 135, even the Jerusalem Church worshiped on Sundays. Hadrian’s prohibition against Sabbath worship spelled the end of the Sabbath-or-Sunday problem for the early Church. Another council was not necessary.
Holy days that were meant to commemorate some event. Certainly this was not meant to be misconstrued to mean The Sabbath because that would contradict the teachings of Christ. We have holidays now (July 4, Dec. 25) that one may debate whether one should celebrate or not. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Oops that pesky "private interpretation" thing.
The ordinances of circumcision and festival and seasonal days are certainly "shadows". Our bodies will be changed to immortal and there will be no more seasons in heaven. That has nothing to do with the Law. Read Pauls exhortation in Romans 3:31. Re-read John 14:15. I am sorry but it doesn't pass muster.
I wasn't familiar with that version, so I had to look it up. Apparently the guy that wrote it would agree that it is not consistent with almost all the other English versions. So you probably want to rely on better sources than his.
Joh 20:1
Green seems to have misunderstood the Greek prōi (πρωΐ́) which shows it was early in the morning, or at dawn. (The Jewish Holy day ran from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown; so they would be talking about dawn on Sunday there.) See either the King James: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
or the Geneva for a better translation: Nowe the first day of the weeke came Marie Magdalene, early when it was yet darke, vnto the sepulchre, and sawe the stone taken away from the tombe.
If that isn't clear enough, the parallel in Luke makes it even more clear: From the Textus Receptus: ορθρου βαθεος, orthros (bathus orthros) or very early dawn. Here again the KJV "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. " or the Geneva is clear: "Nowe the first day of the weeke early in the morning, they came vnto the sepulchre, and brought the odours, which they had prepared, and certaine women with them."
Or look at the RC Douay Rheims, or the modern ESV;
In short, those of you who are MKJV/LITV only are in pretty small company.
I don't know who that [William Miller] is.
Ok. from some of your comments, I had thought you might be Seventh Day Adventist. Looks like I guessed wrong on that.
Possibly so. Without authority from God though. If Jesus arose on Sunday morning at daybreak that would mean He kept The Sabbath even during death. He is our example. If we love Him we should do what? The answer is keep His commandments. Not wing it. We were warned heresies would come into the church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.