Posted on 06/14/2023 10:48:04 AM PDT by vespa300
Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Roman catholic church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at romeschallenge.com ...
Catholics did not write this....
Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.
1 Corinthians 16:1-2
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.
Revelation 1:10
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet,
TRUE! To the Christian saved by Grace every day is a Sabbath because Christ ceased his work of Salvation when he rose from the dead on the “First day of the Sabbaths”.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!
By GRACE are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS lest any man should boast.
Horrible exegesis. You're looking at this scripture from a false viewpoint. The false viewpoint is that Jesus Christ and the first Christians did NOT observe God's sabbaths and holy days. That alone is an untenable position when looked at either biblically or historically.
Romans 14 clearly and absolutely is NOT referring to holy days or Sabbaths. The greek words for either of those is not present in the text. In fact the "days esteemed" are very likely the days in the meat market when meat sacrificed to idols were availble. Early Christians had to sort out whether it was acceptable to eat otherwise clean meat that had been sacrificed to idols. When read in this context it's clear and obvious that they're talking about food and eating. In fact most of the verses refer to food and drink in some way.
Trying to apply a false teaching about God's Sabbath to scriptures that don't refer to that leaves one standing on shaky ground. when looked at without the false teaching that God's holy days mean nothing
did you click through and read the text...nowhere in the New Testament is this position of yours articulated
It’s amazing how many people don’t believe in the Ten Commandments. They think Jesus destroyed the law when he fulfilled it. I better not see any of these people quote or post the 10 commandments. They have managed to talk themselves out of 10 and into just 9.
Completely non-scriptural claptrap. It's feel goodism to justify violating God's laws. I'm not accusing you of anything because you're simply parroting a lie that's been around for centuries.
Jesus healed, among other things, on the Sabbath.
He was called out for it by the Pharisees of His day.
Did Jesus sin in this?
That is just cutting and pasting texts. It dodges the question. The consensus of the early Church, who was part of that Church? I can tell you 100% it did not involve people from North of the Alps. The NT Churches, there were 30 or so were only in Europe in 2 places, Italy and Greece.
Anyone who studies the canon of scripture will tell you there is no canonical list until the late 2nd century after Marcion, a Gnostic heretic tried to get the Church of Rome to adopt only a select set of books as canonical. He was excommunicated by Pius I, Bishop of Rome around 144AD. The first ECF to identify a 4 Canonical Gospel was Saint Irenaus around 180 AD (who was in communion with the Bishop of Rome). The Muratorian Fragment, the earliest canonical list, which is from the Church of Rome is a later 2nd century list which has 21/22 of the books that would be part of the 27 book NT canon.
The key to canonicity was is the book appropriate for the Liturgical worship in the Church, which was Eucharistic in its theology, that is the body and blood of Christ was being received.
At the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History (Book 3, Chapter 25) gives the concise summary of the Canon. Only 21 books are Universally accepted, Revelation is highly debated, and many not all, accept many Churches accept Jude, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.
At the same time when there was no Canon, the Council of Nicea in 325 gathered. Some 318 Bishops dealt with Arius and his Christological heresy, based on his interpretation of certain biblical text, and professed the Nicene Creed that Christ is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father
The Latin-Roman Bishops and clergy were as follows. The only 1 from North of the Alps was from Southern France (Catholicism in union with Rome was there in 2nd), Hosius of Cordoba from Spain (Presided over the council and was one of the main writers of the Creed), a Bishop from Roman-North Africa, 1 from South Italy in Calabria and 1 from Roman-Illyricum along with 2 Priests that were the Pope’s personal reps.
So it is quite clear that all of you North of the Alps folks were not even part of the Church. All the orthodox Tradition you all hold to you got it from the Church of Rome, which evangelized everything from Poland (inclusive) all the way to the British Isles, which is where most American religious sects get their origins from, Rapture protestants, Oneness Pentecostals, JW, Adventist, Mormons, all have their roots from English/Scottish/Welsh Protestantism.
The early Church that canonized the bible in the 4th century was the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope/Bishop of Rome. Period!
Post on FR?
Even turn on your computer?
The stove? There are, after all, stoves with Sabbath modes on them.
I wonder if they cook food or warm something up in the microwave on the Sabbath, too.
All three of these have been lifted out of context and history in order to justify following a teaching that did not solidify until nearly 300 years later.
Hey if you want to believe that it's fine. MOre power to you. I'll believe what it says in the bible.
Tell me the date the early Church 100% compiled the 27 book NT that you protestants, assuming you are a Trinitarian protestant, at least have the orthodox doctrine of God, or if you are one of these anti-Trinitarian sects that split from Protestantism..
Give you the history and development of the NT canon. Who was involved, times, dates, etc
denominations
...?
She does not lay claim to being a mere “denomination”.
You won’t find that word on the lips of Holy Mother Church.
Who is she?
Now Rome takes a look at every first day text in the New Testament. Wow......she starts off hard and heavy. Because many of you have claimed Sunday worship is because of the resurrection. Except there’s no text for that. A protestant says....”show me the text”
Well, Here Rome not only shows you the text.......she kinda of embarrasses you with it:
Quote from Rome:
Having also called attention to the texts of the Acts bearing on the exclusive use of the Sabbath by the Jews and Christians for thirty years after the death of the Saviour as the only day of the week observed by Christ and His apostles, which period exhausts the inspired record, we now proceed to supplement our proofs that the Sabbath (Saturday) enjoyed this exclusive privilege, by calling attention to every instance wherein the sacred record refers to the first day of the week.
The first reference to Sunday after the resurrection of Christ is to be found in St. Luke’s gospel, chapter 24, verses 33-40, and St. John 20:19.
The above texts themselves refer to the sole motive of this gathering on the part of the apostles. It took place on the day of the resurrection (Easter Sunday), not for the purpose of inaugurating “the new departure” from the old Sabbath (Saturday) by keeping “holy” the new day, for there is not a hint given of prayer, exhortation, or the reading of the Scriptures, but it indicates the utter demoralization of the apostles by informing mankind that they were huddled together in that room in Jerusalem “for fear of the Jews”, as St. John, quoted above, plainly informs us.
No he didn't. But don't confuse the onerous rules about the Sabbath instituted by the Jewish religion with the Sabbath of the bible. Most people don't know there's a difference.
Holy Mother 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.