Did the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

[BobRyan]

We know for certain that the first name for the Church of the Bible was the Catholic church, per Ignatius 108 AD.

Not the name given to the present denomination by that name and not at all certain that Ignatius would even recognize that letter.

 

[Meowzltov]

1. In all of that - you came up with no example of apostolic succession from the Bible.

Do you deny that presbyters etc were ordained by the apostles?

 

[BobRyan]

No, the point is that the SPECIFIC letter I reference is not a fraud.

Like saying "this food is 60% bad - but I just know the bite I just ate surely is not contaminated... is it???" you offer no proof.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you deny that presbyters etc were ordained by the apostles?

Not by dead ones.

Not to take their place upon their death. (Except for that one example in Acts 1)

 

[Meowzltov]

Like saying "this food is 60% bad - but I just know the bite I just ate surely is not contaminated... is it???" you offer no proof.

No, it's like saying this PARTICULAR food is 100% good. And I gave you a source that you could reference.

 

[Meowzltov]

Not by dead ones.

I didn't ask you that. What an absurd remark. You set up your replacements in advance.

 

[stray bullet]

Your summary is quite true - but then I don't think some of the things the RCC teaches are true either.

I can trace the Christian church back to Pentecost - and I am a New Covenant Christian.

I can trace the RCC back to about 1000 A.D. and the Catholic church back to around the 4th century A.D.

That would involve a lot of history revisionism. What is the significant difference between Catholicism in 999AD versus 1000AD? None. What is the significant difference between Catholicism in the 3rd Century versus the 2nd? None. What points of history can you make to assert your claim? None.

Various groups make up some pretty silly claims. None of this claims are backed up by history and none are taken seriously by any scholars, secular or religious. We have writings from all over history and all over the world.

 

[stray bullet]

The point is that more than 50% of the supposed "letters" of Ignatius are frauds and the rest are highly suspect. We have "proof' that the RCC was creating fraud in the name of Ignatius and your entire case is based on "trusting them to stop at some point". I have no way of knowing where they stopped doing it.

And your proof of this is what?

Another great reason for trusting Christ in Mark 7 as He proves that all claims, all doctrine, all tradition must be tested "sola scriptura"[/QUOTE]

That teaching isn't in the bible

 

[stray bullet]

BobRyan said: ↑
There were a great many elders and presbyters - but only one apostolic successor in all of the NT - and he is found in Acts 1.



1. In all of that - you came up with no example of apostolic succession from the Bible.
2. I point to Acts 1 - and it is not that long a chapter. But it does show Apostolic succession for one Apostle.

Judas.

The apostles ordained men. Every example in the bible shows that leaders were picked from the leaders. Unlike in other modern Christian groups where you can make yourself a pastor because you believe you are called, not because you were called and approved by the leadership. The only leader of the early Church not appointed was Paul, who was called by God and then recognized by the local leadership. Paul then went on to battle the Gnostics who appointed themselves.

The idea of individuals calling themselves and forming their own groups is clearly condemned in the bible by the examples of the early heretics.

The modern protestant model makes absolutely not sense and is clearly influenced by Gnosticism. Why would Christ CALL men to be leaders and then the leaders CALL men? The apostles did not come to Jesus, Jesus came to them and called them.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
There were a great many elders and presbyters - but only one apostolic successor in all of the NT - and he is found in Acts 1.

1. In all of that - you came up with no example of apostolic succession from the Bible.
2. I point to Acts 1 - and it is not that long a chapter. But it does show Apostolic succession for one Apostle.

Judas.

The apostles ordained men. Every example in the bible shows that leaders were picked from the leaders. Unlike in other modern Christian groups where you can make yourself a pastor because you believe you are called,

1. The original question was about apostolic succession - and there not one example of it outside of Jude 1. Simply appointing leaders at each local church - was not the same as appointing an Apostle to succeed Judas as we see in Acts 1. I think that point is pretty clear to all of us.

2. The "appoint myself your pastor" scenario you include in your post is unknown to me and almost everyone else here.

not because you were called and approved by the leadership. The only leader of the early Church not appointed was Paul, who was called by God and then recognized by the local leadership.

Paul received the laying on of hands in Damascus by Ananias
in Acts 9.

Then Paul has appointed by the church in Acts 13 via fasting and prayer and laying on of hands.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Paul then went on to battle the Gnostics who appointed themselves.

The idea of individuals calling themselves is unknown to all of us.

The idea that someone evangelizes his friends and neighbors - is known to all of us because God has called all of us to do that. See Matt 28. See 1 Thess 1.

6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.
7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.
8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.

Sola Scriptura

Bible details matter.
And it is not at all condemned in the bible

 

[BobRyan]

And your proof of this is what?

Another great reason for trusting Christ in Mark 7 as He proves that all claims, all doctrine, all tradition must be tested "sola scriptura"
=========================================
That teaching isn't in the bible

Turns out - Mark 7 is indeed in the Bible

It is the Bible that debunks those false teachings.

 

[BobRyan]

That would involve a lot of history revisionism. What is the significant difference between Catholicism in 999AD versus 1000AD? None. What is the significant difference between Catholicism in the 3rd Century versus the 2nd? None. What points of history can you make to assert your claim? None.

Various groups make up some pretty silly claims. None of this claims are backed up by history and none are taken seriously by any scholars, secular or religious. We have writings from all over history and all over the world.

All "details matter" - even the RCC's own Catholic Digest documents how "infant baptism evolved" over time within the RCC.

Even the RCC's own Thomas Bokenkotter's "Concise History of the Catholic Church" documents how RC priest's 'evolved over time' from the more biblical church "elders" and pastors.

There is NO first century - NT teaching about purgatory, indulgences, praying to the dead, confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ, extermination of the saints by church leaders, inquisition style torture... you name it. I think we can all see that point.

How many of the Protestant saints were burned alive by the RCC vs how many people did the NT first century church burn alive?

This is another pretty easy fact of history that all can see clearly.

When was it that the Pagan Roman Empire vacated the city of Rome? was it in the first century?? I don't think so. Constantinople would not be established for 3 centuries after the time of Paul.

 

[BobRyan]

No, it's like saying this PARTICULAR food is 100% good. And I gave you a source that you could reference.

You provided no source at all proving that all 15 letters supposedly from Ignatius were valid. I think we both know that.

In fact you agreed that the RCC was producing fake Ignatius letters - admitting that even the majority of them were "forged" to look like Ignatius.

 

[tulipbee]

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.

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.

Oops, the calenders has been shifted around. New calenders created, old ones deleted. Make up day here and there. One month had a day less and another month had a day more. Skip days and more didn't skip days and now unregenerateds bicker about which is the real seven day. While the lost bickers, whine and argue, the real Christians celebrate Jesus resurrection and praise Him weekly with the laws written in thier hearts. Forget the RCC, they're just another denomination.

 

[Meowzltov]

You provided no source at all proving that all 15 letters supposedly from Ignatius were valid. I think we both know that.

Yes i did. Here it is again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch#Letters
The following seven letters preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic:

• The Letter to the Ephesians,
• The Letter to the Magnesians,
• The Letter to the Trallians,
• The Letter to the Romans,
• The Letter to the Philadelphians,
• The Letter to the Smyrnaeans,
• The Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.

Here's a new source which repeats the same thing:
http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html
The Ignatius' epistles are actually existing in several collections, but the seven ones of the middle recension are the only one widely accepted as authentic.
The seven epistles of the middle recension are:
1) 'to the Ephesians' (Ephes.)
2) 'to the Magnesians' (Magn.)
3) 'to the Trallians' (Trall.)
4) 'to the Romans' (Rom.)
5) 'to the Philadelphians' (Philad.)
6) 'to the Smyrnaeans' (Smyrn.)
7) 'to Polycarp' (Polyc.)

 

[BobRyan]

A. Even that post does not say all 15 are valid.
B. Nothing in your list even attempts to prove that the letter to Smyrna is legit.
C. Your own post admits that fully 50% are faked to make it look like Ignatius wrote it.
D. with 50% of the food on the table confirmed to be contaminated - I will be eating at another table because for all we know there is "more news to come" about the remaining 50% of those "supposedly Ignatius" letters.

Your first link in your post says this

"Writing in 1886, Dr. William P. Killen regarded all the Ignatian epistles, beginning with that to the Romans, as having been pseudopigraphically composed in the early 3rd century. His reasons included their episcopal emphasis, which is otherwise unknown before the reign of Callistus, the Bishop of Rome around 220. Most scholars, however, accept at least the two Ignatian epistles which were referenced by Origen"

In that model - all the food on the table is contaminated

At best two of the letters pulled out of the fire as if they might be trusted.

But one thing is beyond doubt - all agree that there are faked letters deliberately put out there to get people to believe that Ingatius wrote them.

Buyer beware... word to the wise.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

That would involve a lot of history revisionism. What is the significant difference between Catholicism in 999AD versus 1000AD? None. What is the significant difference between Catholicism in the 3rd Century versus the 2nd? None. What points of history can you make to assert your claim? None.

Various groups make up some pretty silly claims. None of this claims are backed up by history and none are taken seriously by any scholars, secular or religious. We have writings from all over history and all over the world.

Well, we could begin with 1054 AD, as a starting point, and work backwards.

 

[Meowzltov]

A. Even that post does not say all 15 are valid.
B. Your own post admits that fully 50% are faked to make it look like Ignatius wrote it.
C. with 50% of the food on the table confirmed to be contaminated - I will be eating at another table because for all we know there is "more news to come" about the remaining 50% of those "supposedly Ignatius" letters.

Completely irrelevant. You are picking out individual divergent opinions. I'm pointing out the consensus of scholars. THE LETTER TO SMYRNA IS AUTHENTIC. That is the ONLY thing that matters for this conversation.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

Completely irrelevant. You are picking out individual divergent opinions. I'm pointing out the consensus of scholars. THE LETTER TO SMYRNA IS AUTHENTIC. That is the ONLY thing that matters for this conversation.

Let us consider it briefly:

"... What, however, is most striking about this appearance of the monepiscopate in Ignatius is the lack of an explicit doctrine of apostolical succession. ... The bishop, for instance, represents God; the presbyters, the apostles; and the deacons, Christ (Mag. 6:1). Such teaching stands in marked contrast with those views of authority that emphasize the historical connection between the episcopate and the apostles. ..." - http://silouanthompson.net/library/early-church/ignatius/ and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.vi.ii.i.html​

Seems this false bishop [Acts 20:29-31; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:21; Revelation 2:2;9; Revelation 3:9], came across the True Christians, who kept the 7th Day the Sabbath [John 14:15; Exodus 20:6;8-11]:

"... In Philadelphia he came into personal contact with a Judaizing movement similar to the one attacked by Paul in his Letter to the Galatians and mentioned later in the Apocalypse (ch. 3:9). It was, to be sure, not so thoroughgoing as that faced by Paul, circumcision not being demanded of its Gentile devotees (Philad. 6:1). But a requirement to observe the Sabbath was involved, along with belief in certain Jewish traditions and allegories (Mag., chs. 8; 9). ..."http://silouanthompson.net/library/early-church/ignatius/ and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.vi.ii.i.html​

 

[BobRyan]

A. Even that post does not say all 15 are valid.
B. Nothing in your list even attempts to prove that the letter to Smyrna is legit.
C. Your own post admits that fully 50% are faked to make it look like Ignatius wrote it.
D. with 50% of the food on the table confirmed to be contaminated - I will be eating at another table because for all we know there is "more news to come" about the remaining 50% of those "supposedly Ignatius" letters.

Completely irrelevant.

On the contrary -- this is one of those cases that points to the fact that "details matter".

You are picking out individual divergent opinions.

When it comes to a pile of fakes and forgeries there are often "opinions" -- nothing new there.

In this case some say that all of it is to be avoided for the sake of accuracy.

While others say that they think they which bites of food are contaminated on a table where half of the food is already known to be contaminated.

Classic scenario where "opinions" may vary.

I'm pointing out the consensus of scholars.

concensus with varied opinions.

interesting.

In any case i am sticking with Christ's model in Mark 7 - test all of it against the Bible.

THE LETTER TO SMYRNA IS AUTHENTIC. That is the ONLY thing that matters for this conversation.

If only it were true.