Did the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

[MoreCoffee]

Thanks.......
The foremost SDA expert aimed in his book to discredit the voice of Justin Martyr as being biased against the Sabbath.

That is interesting. Who is the foremost SDA expert?

Ellen White had views about Catholic teaching that are inaccurate. And I think her stated views on history are erroneous. She is highly revered by some SDA people.

 

[Cribstyl]

That is interesting. Who is the foremost SDA expert?

Ellen White had views about Catholic teaching that are inaccurate. And I think her stated views on history are erroneous. She is highly revered by some SDA people.

Being the only SDA even given exclusive access to the vault at the Vatican, Bacchiocchi's contradicted Ellen G White about when Sunday worship began.

First, he recognized Justin's testimony as an early Church witness about when Sunday worship first began.

FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY:
A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RISE OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Chapter 7


ANTI-JUDAISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY


Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin, whose writings constitute our major source of information for the first half of the second century, witnessed and participated in the process of separation from Judaism which led the majority of the Christians to abandon the Sabbath and adopt Sunday as the new day of worship. Their testimonies therefore, coming from such an early period, assume a vital importance for our inquiry into the causes of the origin of Sunday observance

Then came his opinion that Justin saw Sabbath as temporary and unimportant......



Justin Martyr

Philosopher and Christian martyr, of Greek culture and extraction,29 Justin Martyr offers us the first extensive treatment of the Sabbath and the first detailed description of Sunday worship. The importance of his testimony derives, above all, from the fact that our author, a trained and professing philosopher, in the treatment of the problem of the Sabbath, as F. Regan observes, "does strive for a perceptive and balanced approach."30 Moreover, since he lived, taught and wrote his Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho in Rome under the reign of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), he allows us a glimpse of how the problem of Sabbath and Sunday was felt in the capital city.31 His assessment of both is indeed valuable to our in vestigation.

The attitude of Justin toward the Jewish Sabbath appears conditioned both by his concept of the Mosaic Law, and by his feeling toward the Jews—the latter having possibly colored the former. Barnabas, of Jewish extraction, with his allegorical method attempted to empty such Jewish institutions as the Sabbath and circumcision of all temporal and historical value, attributing to them exclusive spiritual or eschatological significance. Justin, on the contrary, being of Gentile origin, ignored the moral and corporal value of the Mosaic legislation, and regarded the law, as James Parkes states, "an unimportant portion of the Scriptures, a temporary addition to a book otherwise universal and eternal, added because of the special wickedness of the Jews."32 For example, to Trypho, Justin explains: We, too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all your festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and your hardness of heart.33

SDA present questionable historical facts to support their claims.

 

[Soyeong]

Like it or not, Catholicism carried the torch of Christianity. One of their arguments about keeping The Ten Commandment is:

It is rather unfortunate that those who carried the torch were so ignorant about the role of the law and the Jews.

Sabbatarians hold that the Sabbath is part of the decalogue, which is the immutable law of God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the ten commandments are "fundamentally immutable" (no. 2072). However, the Church considers the Sabbath to have two.aspects: an essential part to worship the Lord on one day per week and a ceremonial part as to the exact day.

Mark 7:6-9 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

Essentially most of that video was about trying to justify rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish their tradition, so it would fall under Jesus' same criticism. Just like the Pharisees, the Catholics had good intentions in establishing their tradition, but ultimately they were wrong for rejecting the commands of God.

What's being said at 1:30 is completely extra-biblical.

Revelation 1:10 I came to be, in the Spirit, on the Day of the Lord; and I heard behind me a loud voice, like a trumpet,

The Day of the Lord as a specific meaning in Jewish eschatology, and would be he expected his audience to know. The context of Revelation is about Last Judgement, which the OT refers repeatedly to as the Day of the Lord, so it fits with that. It is unlikely he was making a reference to the day of the week, which has no relevance to his vision.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Now, in regard to the collection being made for God’s people: you are to do the same as I directed the congregations in Galatia to do. 2 Every week, on Motza’ei-Shabbat, each of you should set some money aside, according to his resources, and save it up; so that when I come I won’t have to do fundraising. (CJB)

Every week, on Motza’ei-Shabbat. The Hebrew expressions means, literally, "departure of the Sabbath"; it signifies Saturday night. It translates the Greek phrase which means, literally, "every one of a week," that is, every first day of the week.

The use of "one" father than "first" shows that Paul was thinking in Hebrew, not Greek. In the Jewish calendar, days commence at sundown, so the "first day of the week" refers to a time between sunset Saturday and sunset Sunday. The only other use of this Greek phrase in connection with Paul speaks of an evening event where he preached so long that Eutychus went to sleep and fell off the window ledge; this was probably Saturday night.

It should also be noted that it was against Jewish custom to handle money on the Sabbath, so the collection would have been done while they were still gathered, but after it ended at sundown.

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

This was the teaching that Paul was arguing against in Colossians, not against God's instructions. The festivals of God are rehearsals of things to come and were given to us teach valuable things about the Messiah. Fulfilling them gives us a fuller understanding of them so it makes them more important to keep, not less. The Fall festivals have not even been fulfilled yet, so Paul is encourage them to continue doing as God has instructed and to ignore the criticisms of others who were teaching self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body. Following the commands of God would not be referred to as following a self-made religion.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so if fulfilled means to do away with, then he also did away with the prophecies in regard to his second coming. Rather, "to fulfill the law" is a rabbinic term that means to interpret the law in a way that adds meaning to it, fills it up with meaning, or completes our understanding of it. That's precisely that Jesus was doing in the second half of Matthew 5.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Like it or not, Catholicism carried the torch of Christianity. One of their arguments about keeping The Ten Commandment is:

Sabbatarians hold that the Sabbath is part of the decalogue, which is the immutable law of God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the ten commandments are "fundamentally immutable" (no. 2072). However, the Church considers the Sabbath to have two.aspects: an essential part to worship the Lord on one day per week and a ceremonial part as to the exact day.​

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) does teach Catholics to honour and obey the moral law of God and also that the ten commandments give the essential components of the moral law of God. Nevertheless the specifics of the each of the ten commandments are obviously tied to the culture and technologies of the ancient world. Thus the glossary of the CCC defines the moral law as follows:

Moral Law is a rule of conduct established by competent authority for the common good. In biblical terms, the moral law is the fatherly instruction of God, setting forth the ways which lead to happiness and proscribing those which lead to evil. The divine or eternal law can be either natural or revealed (positive). Natural moral law is inscribed in the heart, and known by human reason. Revealed law is found in the ancient law (Old Testament), notably the ten commandments, and in the new law (Law of the Gospel), the teaching of Christ, notably the Sermon on the Mount, which perfects the ancient law (see CCC sections 1950–1974).​

So, as can be seen from the definition and from the sections in the CCC, Catholic teaching does not insist on Sabbath observance nor ought Sunday to be observed as it was by the Israelites in ancient times rather Sunday is to be observed with joy as celebrating the gift of God himself to the faithful in the person of Jesus Christ which giving of himself was especially evident in the incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ and the union (through christian baptism) effected between the faithful as the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the faithful are sons and daughters of God because they are united to the Lord Jesus Christ. The faithful are the body of Christ and are precious to God as a man or woman accounts his own body precious and cares for it. Thus we receive rest both in this life and the next because we are united to the Lord. It is simple, though some make everything seem complex.

So one ought to understand CCC section 2072 in the light of what is said of the moral law in sections 1950 through 1974.

 

[Soyeong]

If moral law is only in regard to man's relationship to his fellow man, then none of the first four of the Ten Commandments are not moral laws, including the law against idolatry. However, if moral law is also in regard to man's relationship with God, then all of God's commands qualify as moral law.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Cribstyl

Here is an intelligent, short and to the point video about Sunday worship's origin.

I do not succumb to Catholic beliefs and practices. I do my best to report historical truths. My goal is to present that the foundational day of worship was established on biblical arguments made thousands of years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joHiQsgDTs4
​

SDA claim to use the Catechism to show what Catholics believe. Are they telling the truth about what Catholics believe? It's should obvious to them how Sunday is not kept as a 24hr Sabbath as describe in the law.
​

Good video clip.

It isn't Catholics who changed the Sabbath. The Sabbath day has never changed but its significance as a sign and a type of things to come has come to an end, as it should, because the Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled it. Christ himself is our rest and his works as well as his passion, resurrection, and ascension are the works that please God so that we, who are his body, need not work to please God but may rest in the completed work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus keeping days is no longer a law under which we must labour but rather keeping the Lord's day is a joyous celebration in remembrance of the day on which Jesus Christ our Lord rose from the grave and brought life and immortality to light. We honour the Lord on his day not as a matter of servitude but as sons and daughters rejoicing in the joy of our Lord.

It's very simple, really, Christ has risen and our sins are forgiven. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. That's the message of the gospel in a nutshell. Of course there is more, much more, than mere forgiveness in Christ but there is definitely forgiveness in him.

That is why we celebrate the Lord's day. It is the day we were objectively set free from bondage to sin.

.



.

 

[Cribstyl]

It is rather unfortunate that those who carried the torch were so ignorant about the role of the law and the Jews.



Mark 7:6-9 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!


Essentially most of that video was about trying to justify rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish their tradition, so it would fall under Jesus' same criticism. Just like the Pharisees, the Catholics had good intentions in establishing their tradition, but ultimately they were wrong for rejecting the commands of God.

What's being said at 1:30 is completely extra-biblical.

Revelation 1:10 I came to be, in the Spirit, on the Day of the Lord; and I heard behind me a loud voice, like a trumpet,

The Day of the Lord as a specific meaning in Jewish eschatology, and would be he expected his audience to know. The context of Revelation is about Last Judgement, which the OT refers repeatedly to as the Day of the Lord, so it fits with that. It is unlikely he was making a reference to the day of the week, which has no relevance to his vision.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Now, in regard to the collection being made for God’s people: you are to do the same as I directed the congregations in Galatia to do. 2 Every week, on Motza’ei-Shabbat, each of you should set some money aside, according to his resources, and save it up; so that when I come I won’t have to do fundraising. (CJB)

Every week, on Motza’ei-Shabbat. The Hebrew expressions means, literally, "departure of the Sabbath"; it signifies Saturday night. It translates the Greek phrase which means, literally, "every one of a week," that is, every first day of the week.

The use of "one" father than "first" shows that Paul was thinking in Hebrew, not Greek. In the Jewish calendar, days commence at sundown, so the "first day of the week" refers to a time between sunset Saturday and sunset Sunday. The only other use of this Greek phrase in connection with Paul speaks of an evening event where he preached so long that Eutychus went to sleep and fell off the window ledge; this was probably Saturday night.

It should also be noted that it was against Jewish custom to handle money on the Sabbath, so the collection would have been done while they were still gathered, but after it ended at sundown.

Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

This was the teaching that Paul was arguing against in Colossians, not against God's instructions. The festivals of God are rehearsals of things to come and were given to us teach valuable things about the Messiah. Fulfilling them gives us a fuller understanding of them so it makes them more important to keep, not less. The Fall festivals have not even been fulfilled yet, so Paul is encourage them to continue doing as God has instructed and to ignore the criticisms of others who were teaching self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body. Following the commands of God would not be referred to as following a self-made religion.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so if fulfilled means to do away with, then he also did away with the prophecies in regard to his second coming. Rather, "to fulfill the law" is a rabbinic term that means to interpret the law in a way that adds meaning to it, fills it up with meaning, or completes our understanding of it. That's precisely that Jesus was doing in the second half of Matthew 5.

Many disputable arguments........ I will respond to one issue.
If the law says...... Keep these commandment or die. There are two options to fulfill the law. The options are #1. keep all the commandments. #2. die.

So if Christ's death fulfills the law. The law has no longer power, if you're dead to it by the body of Christ.






Gal 2:19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” [fn]
Living by Faith means I'm dead to the law...(not to sin/forgiveness)
Righteousness is not gained by keeping the law.

The law is no longer the standard because the new covenant spells out righteousness apart from the law.

 

[Soyeong]

Many disputable arguments........ I will respond to one issue.

Silly me, I had assumed that if you had expected people to watch a 10-minute video, then you would expect them to respond to more than one point.

If the law says...... Keep these commandment or die. There are two options to fulfill the law. The options are #1. keep all the commandments. #2. die.

So if Christ's death fulfills the law. The law has no longer power, if you're dead to it by the body of Christ.

Instead of interacting with my points, you pretty much just ignored them and reasserted your views. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so you should interpret "fulfilling the Law" in the same way that you interpret "fulfilling the Prophets". That of course leads to problems if prophecies in regard to his second coming would be done away with. As I also pointed out, the phrase "to fulfill the law" was a rabbinic term that means to explain or interpret law. In a synagogue, a rabbi take his place on the Moses Seat where he would read from one of the scrolls and then interpret it or clarify its meaning, thereby fulfilling the law.

From: What Does It Mean to "Fulfill the Law"?

The translation of "to fulfill" is lekayem in Hebrew (le-KAI-yem), which means to uphold or establish, as well as to fulfill, complete or accomplish.2 David Bivin has pointed out that the phrase "fulfill the Law" is often used as an idiom to mean to properly interpret the Torah so that people can obey it as God really intends. The word "abolish" was likely either levatel, to nullify, or la'akor, to uproot, which meant to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. For example, the law against adultery could be interpreted as specifically against cheating on one's spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so in rabbinic parlance he was "fulfilling the Law." In contrast, if a pastor told his congregation that watching x-rated videos was fine, he would be "abolishing the Law" - causing them to not live as God wants them to live. Here are a couple examples of this usage from around Jesus' time:

If the Sanhedrin gives a decision to abolish (uproot, la'akor) a law, by saying for instance, that the Torah does not include the laws of Sabbath or idolatry, the members of the court are free from a sin offering if they obey them; but if the Sanhedrin abolishes (la'akor) only one part of a law but fulfills (lekayem) the other part, they are liable. 3

Go away to a place of study of the Torah, and do not suppose that it will come to you. For your fellow disciples will fulfill it (lekayem) in your hand. And on your own understanding do not rely. 4 (Here "fulfill" means to explain and interpret the Scripture.)

From: Didn't Christ Fulfill the Law? | Biblically Kosher | Biblical Eating

Ancient rabbis frequently used the terms "abolish" and "fulfill" to describe a person's application of the law and its commandments. One who "abolishes" the law is one who neglects or disregards it. One who "fulfills" it is one who practices and upholds, and affirms it. For example, a famous collection of ancient rabbinic proverbs teaches:

Whoever fulfills the law in poverty will ultimately fulfill it in wealth, and whoever abolishes the law in wealth will ultimately abolish it in poverty. (Pirkei Avot 4:9)

From: What do You Mean... Yeshua "Fulfilled the Law"? (Mt. 5:17) - Nazarene Space

To begin with it should be known that this reference to "fulfilling" the Torah vs. "destroying" the Torah is actually a common use of a Hebrew idiom still used by Rabbis today in the Yeshivas. To "fulfill" the Torah is an idiom meaning "to teach the meaning of the Torah and observe it correctly," that is to fulfill its true meaning. While to "destroy" the Torah is an idiom meaning "to incorrectly teach the meaning of the Torah and/or to violate the Toarh," That is to destroy the true meaning of the Torah. Even today in the Yeshivas and the Beit Midrashes Rabbis will get in heated debates with one another, poinding a fist on a table and declaring "you have destroyed the Torah", or give another Rabbi a compliment saying "you have fulfilled the Torah." It bears noting that in the next several verses Yeshua weighs in on controversies over the interpretation of various commandments in the Torah and gives us their true and correct meaning, so Yeshua's use of the term "fulfill the law" vs. "destroy" the Law is totally in keeping with the normal idim of the Hebrew language for these terms.

From: Rabbi and Talmidim | Follow The Rabbi

Fulfilling the Torah was the task of a first century rabbi. The technical term for interpreting the Scripture so it would be obeyed correctly was "fulfill." To interpret Scripture incorrectly so it would not be obeyed as God intended was to "destroy" the Torah. Jesus uses these terms to describe his task as well (Matt. 5:17-19). Contrary to what some think Jesus did not come to do away with God's Torah or Old Testament. He came to complete it and to show how to correctly keep it. One of the ways Jesus interpreted the Torah was to stress the importance of the right attitude of heart as well as the right action (Matt. 5:27-28).

----------

So if the way that Jesus used the term is different from how you understand it, then you need to adjust your understanding rather than insert your understanding into Jesus' words. Like the other rabbis, Jesus filled the law in Matthew 5 by interpreting and explaining how it should be followed. The law had been perverted into a heavy burden by all of the Pharisaic traditions for how to keep it, so Jesus said he came to explain the right way to understand and obey it.

Law contains instructions for how to live rightly, practice righteousness, or avoid sin, it condemns sin, it provides a temporary remedy for sin, and it points to our need for one who can provide a permanent remedy. Jesus provided that and he paid for our penalty for sinning, but the instructions for how to live rightly in obedience to God are still valuable to know. It is incredible that through the Holy Spirit we can obey that and we don't have to sin any more!

Gal 2:19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” [fn]
Living by Faith means I'm dead to the law...(not to sin/forgiveness)
Righteousness is not gained by keeping the law.

The law is no longer the standard because the new covenant spells out righteousness apart from the law.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Indeed, we are declared righteous by grace through faith apart from the law, but then right after that he says we are created in Messiah for the purpose of doing righteous acts. If God could change His standard of righteous behavior, then he wouldn't have needed to send his Son to die for our sins when he could have just done that instead. So in the new covenant, those who are declared righteous are called to then live by faith by living a life marked by righteous acts. The whole point of sanctification is for God's Spirit to transform us to be like Christ in thought and in action.

What Paul is dying to is not the instructions for how to love your neighbor, but rather he is dying to that aspect of the law that would penalize or condemn him.

 

[BobRyan]

Are Catholics "SDA" the way some seem to have it??? Do these Catholic documents "not exist" or "exist only to be noticed by Seventh-day Adventists"???

For example Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II - is he secretly "SDA"??



[FONT=&quot]The Faith Explained[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
====================begin short summary
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name". [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]====================================== begin expanded quote
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243[/FONT][FONT=&quot].))

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]we know that in the O.T it was the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the week - the Sabbath day [/FONT][FONT=&quot]- which was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]observed as the Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. that was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the law as God gave it[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day[/FONT][FONT=&quot].. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]church had the right to make such a law[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is evident[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The reason for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday.[/FONT][FONT=&quot].that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church[/FONT]

That is interesting. Who is the foremost SDA expert?

Ellen White had views about Catholic teaching that are inaccurate. And I think her stated views on history are erroneous. She is highly revered by some SDA people.

I find your "Ellen White" answer to the statements by Leo Trese and the other RC documents to be interesting.

As if Ellen White could be used to account for all RC sources and statements that one may wish to wish away.

Where are you going with that?

I am curious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Cribstyl]

Silly me, I had assumed that if you had expected people to watch a 10-minute video, then you would expect them to respond to more than one point.

I find it annoying for me to address multiple points in the same post. But thanks for responding to the video.

Instead of interacting with my points, you pretty much just ignored them and reasserted your views. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so you should interpret "fulfilling the Law" in the same way that you interpret "fulfilling the Prophets". That of course leads to problems if prophecies in regard to his second coming would be done away with. As I also pointed out, the phrase "to fulfill the law" was a rabbinic term that means to explain or interpret law. In a synagogue, a rabbi take his place on the Moses Seat where he would read from one of the scrolls and then interpret it or clarify its meaning, thereby fulfilling the law.

From: What Does It Mean to "Fulfill the Law"?

The translation of "to fulfill" is lekayem in Hebrew (le-KAI-yem), which means to uphold or establish, as well as to fulfill, complete or accomplish.2 David Bivin has pointed out that the phrase "fulfill the Law" is often used as an idiom to mean to properly interpret the Torah so that people can obey it as God really intends. The word "abolish" was likely either levatel, to nullify, or la'akor, to uproot, which meant to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. For example, the law against adultery could be interpreted as specifically against cheating on one's spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so in rabbinic parlance he was "fulfilling the Law." In contrast, if a pastor told his congregation that watching x-rated videos was fine, he would be "abolishing the Law" - causing them to not live as God wants them to live. Here are a couple examples of this usage from around Jesus' time:

If the Sanhedrin gives a decision to abolish (uproot, la'akor) a law, by saying for instance, that the Torah does not include the laws of Sabbath or idolatry, the members of the court are free from a sin offering if they obey them; but if the Sanhedrin abolishes (la'akor) only one part of a law but fulfills (lekayem) the other part, they are liable. 3

Go away to a place of study of the Torah, and do not suppose that it will come to you. For your fellow disciples will fulfill it (lekayem) in your hand. And on your own understanding do not rely. 4 (Here "fulfill" means to explain and interpret the Scripture.)

From: Didn't Christ Fulfill the Law? | Biblically Kosher | Biblical Eating

Ancient rabbis frequently used the terms "abolish" and "fulfill" to describe a person's application of the law and its commandments. One who "abolishes" the law is one who neglects or disregards it. One who "fulfills" it is one who practices and upholds, and affirms it. For example, a famous collection of ancient rabbinic proverbs teaches:

Whoever fulfills the law in poverty will ultimately fulfill it in wealth, and whoever abolishes the law in wealth will ultimately abolish it in poverty. (Pirkei Avot 4:9)

From: What do You Mean... Yeshua "Fulfilled the Law"? (Mt. 5:17) - Nazarene Space

To begin with it should be known that this reference to "fulfilling" the Torah vs. "destroying" the Torah is actually a common use of a Hebrew idiom still used by Rabbis today in the Yeshivas. To "fulfill" the Torah is an idiom meaning "to teach the meaning of the Torah and observe it correctly," that is to fulfill its true meaning. While to "destroy" the Torah is an idiom meaning "to incorrectly teach the meaning of the Torah and/or to violate the Toarh," That is to destroy the true meaning of the Torah. Even today in the Yeshivas and the Beit Midrashes Rabbis will get in heated debates with one another, poinding a fist on a table and declaring "you have destroyed the Torah", or give another Rabbi a compliment saying "you have fulfilled the Torah." It bears noting that in the next several verses Yeshua weighs in on controversies over the interpretation of various commandments in the Torah and gives us their true and correct meaning, so Yeshua's use of the term "fulfill the law" vs. "destroy" the Law is totally in keeping with the normal idim of the Hebrew language for these terms.

From: Rabbi and Talmidim | Follow The Rabbi

Fulfilling the Torah was the task of a first century rabbi. The technical term for interpreting the Scripture so it would be obeyed correctly was "fulfill." To interpret Scripture incorrectly so it would not be obeyed as God intended was to "destroy" the Torah. Jesus uses these terms to describe his task as well (Matt. 5:17-19). Contrary to what some think Jesus did not come to do away with God's Torah or Old Testament. He came to complete it and to show how to correctly keep it. One of the ways Jesus interpreted the Torah was to stress the importance of the right attitude of heart as well as the right action (Matt. 5:27-28).

----------

So if the way that Jesus used the term is different from how you understand it, then you need to adjust your understanding rather than insert your understanding into Jesus' words. Like the other rabbis, Jesus filled the law in Matthew 5 by interpreting and explaining how it should be followed. The law had been perverted into a heavy burden by all of the Pharisaic traditions for how to keep it, so Jesus said he came to explain the right way to understand and obey it.

Law contains instructions for how to live rightly, practice righteousness, or avoid sin, it condemns sin, it provides a temporary remedy for sin, and it points to our need for one who can provide a permanent remedy. Jesus provided that and he paid for our penalty for sinning, but the instructions for how to live rightly in obedience to God are still valuable to know. It is incredible that through the Holy Spirit we can obey that and we don't have to sin any more!



Ephesians 2:8-10 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Indeed, we are declared righteous by grace through faith apart from the law, but then right after that he says we are created in Messiah for the purpose of doing righteous acts. If God could change His standard of righteous behavior, then he wouldn't have needed to send his Son to die for our sins when he could have just done that instead. So in the new covenant, those who are declared righteous are called to then live by faith by living a life marked by righteous acts. The whole point of sanctification is for God's Spirit to transform us to be like Christ in thought and in action.

What Paul is dying to is not the instructions for how to love your neighbor, but rather he is dying to that aspect of the law that would penalize or condemn him.

Facts are being scrambled beyond recognition. What evidence do to have to show that the NT was written in Hebrew?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I reckon any thread about the seventh day as the sabbath will go on and on and on forever unless folk unsubscribe and stop posting. Folk have such entrenched views that there is unlikely to be any "meeting of minds" - except perhaps for a few who are on the edges or straddling the fence due to confusion ...

 

[BobRyan]

If the law says...... Keep these commandment or die. There are two options to fulfill the law. The options are #1. keep all the commandments. #2. die.

So if Christ's death fulfills the law. The law has no longer power, if you're dead to it by the body of Christ.
​

Instead of interacting with my points, you pretty much just ignored them and reasserted your views. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so you should interpret "fulfilling the Law" in the same way that you interpret "fulfilling the Prophets". That of course leads to problems if prophecies in regard to his second coming would be done away with. As I also pointed out, the phrase "to fulfill the law" was a rabbinic term that means to explain or interpret law. In a synagogue, a rabbi take his place on the Moses Seat where he would read from one of the scrolls and then interpret it or clarify its meaning, thereby fulfilling the law.

From: What Does It Mean to "Fulfill the Law"?

The translation of "to fulfill" is lekayem in Hebrew (le-KAI-yem), which means to uphold or establish, as well as to fulfill, complete or accomplish.2 David Bivin has pointed out that the phrase "fulfill the Law" is often used as an idiom to mean to properly interpret the Torah so that people can obey it as God really intends. The word "abolish" was likely either levatel, to nullify, or la'akor, to uproot, which meant to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. For example, the law against adultery could be interpreted as specifically against cheating on one's spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so in rabbinic parlance he was "fulfilling the Law." In contrast, if a pastor told his congregation that watching x-rated videos was fine, he would be "abolishing the Law" - causing them to not live as God wants them to live. Here are a couple examples of this usage from around Jesus' time:

If the Sanhedrin gives a decision to abolish (uproot, la'akor) a law, by saying for instance, that the Torah does not include the laws of Sabbath or idolatry, the members of the court are free from a sin offering if they obey them; but if the Sanhedrin abolishes (la'akor) only one part of a law but fulfills (lekayem) the other part, they are liable. 3

Go away to a place of study of the Torah, and do not suppose that it will come to you. For your fellow disciples will fulfill it (lekayem) in your hand. And on your own understanding do not rely. 4 (Here "fulfill" means to explain and interpret the Scripture.)

From: Didn't Christ Fulfill the Law? | Biblically Kosher | Biblical Eating

Ancient rabbis frequently used the terms "abolish" and "fulfill" to describe a person's application of the law and its commandments. One who "abolishes" the law is one who neglects or disregards it. One who "fulfills" it is one who practices and upholds, and affirms it. For example, a famous collection of ancient rabbinic proverbs teaches:

Whoever fulfills the law in poverty will ultimately fulfill it in wealth, and whoever abolishes the law in wealth will ultimately abolish it in poverty. (Pirkei Avot 4:9)

From: What do You Mean... Yeshua "Fulfilled the Law"? (Mt. 5:17) - Nazarene Space

To begin with it should be known that this reference to "fulfilling" the Torah vs. "destroying" the Torah is actually a common use of a Hebrew idiom still used by Rabbis today in the Yeshivas. To "fulfill" the Torah is an idiom meaning "to teach the meaning of the Torah and observe it correctly," that is to fulfill its true meaning. While to "destroy" the Torah is an idiom meaning "to incorrectly teach the meaning of the Torah and/or to violate the Toarh," That is to destroy the true meaning of the Torah. Even today in the Yeshivas and the Beit Midrashes Rabbis will get in heated debates with one another, poinding a fist on a table and declaring "you have destroyed the Torah", or give another Rabbi a compliment saying "you have fulfilled the Torah." It bears noting that in the next several verses Yeshua weighs in on controversies over the interpretation of various commandments in the Torah and gives us their true and correct meaning, so Yeshua's use of the term "fulfill the law" vs. "destroy" the Law is totally in keeping with the normal idim of the Hebrew language for these terms.

From: Rabbi and Talmidim | Follow The Rabbi

Fulfilling the Torah was the task of a first century rabbi. The technical term for interpreting the Scripture so it would be obeyed correctly was "fulfill." To interpret Scripture incorrectly so it would not be obeyed as God intended was to "destroy" the Torah. Jesus uses these terms to describe his task as well (Matt. 5:17-19). Contrary to what some think Jesus did not come to do away with God's Torah or Old Testament. He came to complete it and to show how to correctly keep it. One of the ways Jesus interpreted the Torah was to stress the importance of the right attitude of heart as well as the right action (Matt. 5:27-28).

----------

So if the way that Jesus used the term is different from how you understand it, then you need to adjust your understanding rather than insert your understanding into Jesus' words. Like the other rabbis, Jesus filled the law in Matthew 5 by interpreting and explaining how it should be followed. The law had been perverted into a heavy burden by all of the Pharisaic traditions for how to keep it, so Jesus said he came to explain the right way to understand and obey it.

Law contains instructions for how to live rightly, practice righteousness, or avoid sin, it condemns sin, it provides a temporary remedy for sin, and it points to our need for one who can provide a permanent remedy. Jesus provided that and he paid for our penalty for sinning, but the instructions for how to live rightly in obedience to God are still valuable to know. It is incredible that through the Holy Spirit we can obey that and we don't have to sin any more!

Gal 2:19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” [fn]
Living by Faith means I'm dead to the law...(not to sin/forgiveness)
Righteousness is not gained by keeping the law.

The law is no longer the standard because the new covenant spells out righteousness apart from the law.
​

Ephesians 2:8-10 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Indeed, we are declared righteous by grace through faith apart from the law, but then right after that he says we are created in Messiah for the purpose of doing righteous acts. If God could change His standard of righteous behavior, then he wouldn't have needed to send his Son to die for our sins when he could have just done that instead. So in the new covenant, those who are declared righteous are called to then live by faith by living a life marked by righteous acts. The whole point of sanctification is for God's Spirit to transform us to be like Christ in thought and in action.

What Paul is dying to is not the instructions for how to love your neighbor, but rather he is dying to that aspect of the law that would penalize or condemn him.

Good points.

Thanks for sharing them!


As Christ said to John the baptizer when questioned about Christ's request to be baptized by John Matt 3:15

"Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented."

Did Jesus abolish all "righteousness"??

Was he commanding that no more saints be baptized??

That is how some esteem "fulfill" equating it to "abolish".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

It is good to expose errors in history and in claims about alleged Catholic teaching. The idea that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is a myth. It is, however, true that worshipping God on Sunday and observing Sunday as a day of rest for free and slaves alike was promoted by the Catholic Church and the Church also promoted the freeing of slaves who were Christians. But these ideas originate in the gospels and the old testament so even though the Catholic Church promoted them they did not invent them.

Some claim that Sunday was first set aside for special treatment by emperor Constantine in the fourth century AD but this is clearly not true because first and second century Christians observed Sunday as special for the reasons given in my previous post. Saint Justin who was martyred by pagan Romans wrote these words about Christian worship in 150 AD, the middle of the second century, which is more than 150 years before Constantine's time as emperor:

Chapter LXVII.—Weekly worship of the Christians.

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.​

(click this link for the source at CCEL)
​

​

150 A.D. what a perfect time to 'finally' find someone calling week-day-1 "The Lord's Day" and "The Christians Sabbath" -- but instead it is called by the greek pagan term "Sunday" alone.

Well at least we can be thankful that he admits that Friday is the Crucifixion, Saturday the Sabbath, and week-day-1 is Sunday.

 

[BobRyan]

It is good to expose errors in history and in claims about alleged Catholic teaching. The idea that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is a myth. It is, however, true that worshipping God on Sunday and observing Sunday as a day of rest for free and slaves alike was promoted by the Catholic Church and the Church also promoted the freeing of slaves who were Christians. But these ideas originate in the gospels and the old testament so even though the Catholic Church promoted them they did not invent them.

Some claim that Sunday was first set aside for special treatment by emperor Constantine in the fourth century AD but this is clearly not true because first and second century Christians observed Sunday as special for the reasons given in my previous post. Saint Justin who was martyred by pagan Romans wrote these words about Christian worship in 150 AD, the middle of the second century, which is more than 150 years before Constantine's time as emperor:

Wouldn't it have been great if that post had actually included some first century claims about week-day-1 after week-day-1 "observances" keeping week-day-1 as the new "Sabbath" or a single reference to "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" from the actual Bible? or even from a first century source?

What we have there is Justin making the claim that week-day-1 in the Bible is "Sunday" not the "Lord's Day" and not "the Christian Sabbath".

=================================

The following material is from-

A CRITICAL HISTORY
OFTHE SABBATH AND THE SUNDAY
IN THECHRISTIAN CHURCH

(SECOND EDITION, REVISED)
BY A. H. LEWIS D. D., LL.D.,
Author of "Biblical Teachings concerning the Sabbath and the Sunday," "History of Sunday Legislation", "Paganism Surviving In Christianity," etc., etc.

CHAPTER III. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

MATERIAL for the history of Christianity during the century immediately succeeding the apostolic period is meager and imperfect. The earlier post-apostolic writings are fragmentary. In many instances neither the date of the treatise nor the name of the author are known. Forgeries abound. Apocryphal Gospels and Epistles meet the investigator at every step, leading the unwary and over-credulous astray. The stream of written Christian history which runs through the Gospels and the Book of Acts drops out of sight like a "lost river" for a time, and when it reappears is not a little polluted by what has been gathered in its underground wanderings. The best products of the sub-apostolic age are known as the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. A comparison of these with the New Testament shows that they fall infinitely below the apostolic standard. There is a great gulf between them. Since Sunday has no history in the New Testament, its advocates in modern times have labored strenuously to find some support for it in the earlier post-apostolic productions. We will examine these in their order, and at length, in order to correct the wrong conclusions and the perversion of facts which come from such loose writing.


========================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

[/INDENT]
150 A.D. what a perfect time to 'finally' find someone calling week-day-1 "The Lord's Day" and "The Christians Sabbath" -- but instead it is called by the greek pagan term "Sunday" alone.

Well at least we can be thankful that he admits that Friday is the Crucifixion, Saturday the Sabbath, and week-day-1 is Sunday.

Saint John the theologian who wrote the Apocalypse speaks of the Lord's day when referring to the day when he received his visions which make up the Apocalypse. He wrote that around 96 AD which is the end of the first century and more than two hundred years before Constantine was emperor.

 

[Cribstyl]

Are Catholics "SDA" the way some seem to have it??? Do these Catholic documents "not exist" or "exist only to be noticed by Seventh-day Adventists"???

For example Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II - is he secretly "SDA"??



[FONT=&quot]The Faith Explained[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
====================begin short summary
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name". [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]====================================== begin expanded quote
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243[/FONT][FONT=&quot].))

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]we know that in the O.T it was the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the week - the Sabbath day [/FONT][FONT=&quot]- which was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]observed as the Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. that was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the law as God gave it[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day[/FONT][FONT=&quot].. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]church had the right to make such a law[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is evident[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The reason for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday.[/FONT][FONT=&quot].that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church[/FONT]


Bob

Well Bob, your perspective is not in agreement with Leo or the Catholic Catechism which establishes their official teaching. They consider Peter the first pope and head of the church. Leo's argument is; the church changed and pass down the tradition of keeping Sunday from the apostolic times. Somehow you can spin it because you might get away with it.

 

[BobRyan]

Saint John the theologian who wrote the Apocalypse speaks of the Lord's day when referring to the day when he received his visions which make up the Apocalypse. He wrote that around 96 AD which is the end of the first century and more than two hundred years before Constantine was emperor.

Rev 1 does not say 'week day 1 is the Lord's Day"

but the Bible does say - "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD Thy God" Ex 20:8-11 and the Bible does say that Christ is "LORD of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28 and it does say that the "Sabbath is the Holy Day of the LORD" Is 57:13-14.

And I agree that Rev 1 is written long before Constantine.


Even the RCC agrees that the Lord's Day was Saturday as given in the actual bible. But they claim to have changed it in the NT era.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, since saint Justin the martyr knew that the Lord's day is Sunday and he wrote 54 years after saint John the theologian wrote about the Lord's day in the Apocalypse and since they both wrote in the same dialect of Greek the onus is on you to show that they did not mean the same thing.

 

[BobRyan]

Well Bob, your perspective is not in agreement with Leo or the Catholic

"My perspective" -- now I am a Catholic such as Leo Trese authoring the commentary on the Baltimore Catechism??

How did that happen?

[FONT=&quot]The Faith Explained[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
====================begin short summary
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name". [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]====================================== begin expanded quote
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243[/FONT][FONT=&quot].))

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]we know that in the O.T it was the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the week - the Sabbath day [/FONT][FONT=&quot]- which was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]observed as the Lord's day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. that was [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the law as God gave it[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day[/FONT][FONT=&quot].. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]church had the right to make such a law[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is evident[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The reason for [/FONT][FONT=&quot]changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday[/FONT][FONT=&quot] lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday.[/FONT][FONT=&quot].that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church


[/FONT]

Catholic
Catechism which establishes their official teaching. .

l

Do you suppose that Pope John Paul II an interesting non-Catholic by that argument??

from page 1.

Pope John Paul II

[FONT=&quot]Dies Domini pt 13 -[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!! In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship to God, announced and expounded by biblical revelations.[/FONT]

The Catholic Catechism on ALL TEN of the Commandments still applied to Christians today -- Also on page 1 of this thread.

Catholic Catechism claims that ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments - the [FONT=&quot]Decalogue - remains binding such that the Sabbath Commandment is simply "bent" to point to week-day 1 and all 10 remain binding.


[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus 14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2063.... the words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh.26[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christiansand that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Application in James 2)
2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. the two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. the Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.

[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic Encyclopedia -

[FONT=&quot]NewAdvent[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sunday[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] St. Cæsarius of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day. He especially insisted on the people hearing the whole of the Mass and not leaving the church after the Epistle and the Gospel had been read. He taught them that they should come to Vespers and spend the rest of the day in pious reading and prayer. As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday[/FONT].[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]…[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The obligation of rest from work on Sunday remained somewhat indefinite for several centuries. A Council of Laodicea, held toward the end of the fourth century, was content to prescribe that on the Lord's Day the faithful were to abstain from work as far as possible. At the beginning of the sixth century St. Caesarius, as we have seen, and others showed an inclination to apply the law of the Jewish Sabbath to the observance of the Christian Sunday. The Council held at Orléans in 538 reprobated this tendency as Jewish and non-Christian. From the eight century the law began to be formulated as it exists at the present day, and the local councils forbade servile work, public buying and selling, pleading in the law courts, and the public and solemn taking of oaths. There is a large body of civil legislation on the Sunday rest side by side with the ecclesiastical. It begins with an Edict of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, who forbade judges to sit and townspeople to work on Sunday. He made an exception in favour of agriculture. The breaking of the law of Sunday rest was punished by the Anglo-Saxon legislation in England like other crimes and misdemeanours. After the Reformation, under Puritan influence, many laws were passed in England whose effect is still visible in the stringency of the English Sabbath. Still more is this the case in Scotland.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]