Did the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

[Cribstyl]

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.

Most of those who were given the law still keep the Sabbath every 7 days. For them, the day begins at evening. How do you explain that?

 

[BobRyan]

Okay, go for it. You are welcome to defend his claim if you want.

The idea is that the Roman Catholic distinction comes about when the church fractured to distinguish the remaining fractured pieces. I think we all get that part.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob I know you truly believe that the Early Church kept the Sabbath, but I believe I have proven otherwise.

On the contrary - you did not show a single example of week-day-1 after week-day-1 worship services - whereas I show it repeatedly in the early Church - NT - for both Jews and Gentiles - and gospel preaching in Acts 13, Acts 17 and Acts 18.

As I have said - "details matter".

I am not going to bother looking up all the sources I gave you again, but here are the pertinent points:

• The earliest church began as Jew only and of course kept the Sabbath as it was a Jewish sect.

It is "Jews and Gentiles" in Acts 13, 17, 18.

But yeah - that is the Bible view of the NT church and "Sabbath after Sabbath" services.

• As the Church became its own religion, the Christians being kicked out of the Synagogues, etc, and became predominantly Gentile in number and nature, only the Jewish believers in Jerusalem continued to keep the Sabbath. The rest of the Gentile Church switched to Sunday.

A statement found nowhere in the Bible.

This thread is about the change of the Bible Sabbath.

• By the middle of the second century, the Gentile Church was defining itself in CONTRAST to Judaism.

You have just admitted that there is no Bible basis for your claim.

I by contrast have argued that the Bible Sabbath - the Bible Law of God is not changed/edited/tinkered-with - until after the first century and only by man-made-tradition not by Bible mandate. See page one of this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

It's hard to take you seriously right now. Before pointing out where you are wrong, let's point out how you completely started off wrong: When you say the "RCC's own Thomas Bokenkotters" - Thomas Bokenkotters is not the Catholic Church

You are wrong to claim that I said one person is the entire Catholic Church. I never said that -- as we all know.

But Bokenkotter is a Catholic historian - not a Protestant or atheist describing Catholic history.

the point remains.

Facts matter.

Next, you are wrong for not saying anything. You didn't quote anything or make an argument. You mentioned two random things, didn't quote what they said, or even how it supports your argument.

Is this your way of asking for a quote? After arguing that a quote from this Catholic historian would not matter to you??

If it does matter - I will give it. But if you are dismissing historians (even Catholic ones) before even having the quote.... then what is the point?

You made a claim that the Roman Catholic Church began is 1000. What is your proof? Making references to protestants being killed has nothing to do with that. You said the "Catholic Church" began in the 4th Century. What is your evidence of that?

As for the huge fracture around 1000 ad where Roman Catholicism is one of the left over pieces and the Eastern church is another piece -- it is history -- not something we can imagine.

As for the fact that the doctrines I listed do not exist for the RCC prior to the 4th century and the fact that the seat of Rome was turned over to the church in the 4th century - well which of those statements do you want to discuss??

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

BobRyan said: ↑
Even that post does not say all 15 are valid.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. All it has to do is say that the document I used as a source is authentic.

Or do we have a moving target point in the discussion?

No quote given so far demonstrates the authenticity of any of it.

And with 50% or more known to be fraudulent (by the standards of all sides of the discussion ) it is not the best source.

It is extremely probable that the interpolation of the genuine, the addition of the spurious letters, and the union of both in the long recension was the work of an Apollinarist of Syria or Egypt, who wrote towards the beginning of the fifth century. Funk identifies him with the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, which came out of Syria in the early part of the same century. Subsequently there was added to this collection a panegyric on St. Ignatius entitled, "Laus Heronis". Though in the original it was probably written in Greek, it is now extant only in Latin and Coptic texts. There is also a third recension, designated by Funk as the "mixed collection". The time of its origin can be only vaguely determined as being between that of the collection known to Eusebius and the long recension. Besides the seven genuine letters of Ignatius in their original form, it also contains the six spurious ones, with the exception of that to the Philippians.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm (An RCC encyclopedia site)

The spurious nature of documents so rife with fraud and forgery - and the shakey foundation is found in "it is extremely probable that".


Interpolation: extraneous material being inserted into documents

 

[BobRyan]

From: http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm

The 15 forged letters of Ignatius:

They claim to be written by Ignatius in 110 AD, but were forged by another in about 250 AD that deceptively claimed to be Ignatius.

1. All scholars reject 8 of Ignatius' alleged writings as forgeries and say the 7 remaining letters are genuine and were written in 110AD.
2. Some scholars reject them all as forgeries that were written about 250AD
3. We take the firm view that all 15 Ignatian letters are forgeries. All of the letters that claim to be written by Ignatius are fakes.

Almost nothing is known about the real Ignatius.

 

[tulipbee]

Most of those who were given the law still keep the Sabbath every 7 days. For them, the day begins at evening. How do you explain that?

jesus changed everything.

 

[Swan7]

Why would Jesus change what God had established? Jesus only fulfilled the law and said:
John 14:21-24

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." ~KJV

 

[tulipbee]

Why would Jesus change what God had established? Jesus only fulfilled the law and said:
John 14:21-24

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." ~KJV

cause Jesus IS God.

 

[Swan7]

How? Jesus sits on the right hand of God. Mark 16:19
John 14:6

 

[Shimshon]

How? Jesus sits on the right hand of God. Mark 16:19
John 14:6

God has a body? Jesus IS the right hand of God. Jesus is the mighty arm of the Lord who saves his people. Jesus is Lord.

 

[Swan7]

God has a body? Jesus IS the right hand of God. Jesus is the mighty arm of the Lord who saves his people. Jesus is Lord.

I didn't imply that.

But to answer the OP: It was Constantine that changed it to Sunday.

 

[Shimshon]

I didn't imply that

Then I will. Jesus is God's body. God the father, God the SON, God the Spirit. All one.

 

[SAAN]

Then I will. Jesus is God's body. God the father, God the SON, God the Spirit. All one.

So you believe in the Trinity?

 

[Swan7]

And can you back that up with Scripture?

 

[Shimshon]

So you believe in the Trinity?

I can relate to the Christian understanding of Echad, even if I do not have their same viewpoint about expressing it. For you, focus on the part that states 'all one'. And how 'God' is the qualifier for each expression. For Christians, they see three (all) as one 'person'. Though I'm not a Christian that I would hold to the doctrine they way they do, I am a Jew who understands the oneness of God. To me the shema expresses this. Hear Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. We know and believe that Yeshua is Lord, and we know that Elohim is a compound unity. In a way you can understand the trinity by seeing the Lord as Yeshua and our God as the Father and the Spirit. So, when it says Adonai Eloheinu it states Yeshua our God, Yeshua is one. So when I read the shema I am confessing that Israel needs to hear the good news, Yeshua (is) our God, Yeshua is One (with the father and the spirit/Elohim). The Lord is our God. Yeshua is Lord, no? How can the Lord say to my Lord sit at my right hand?????

John 10:38
But if I am, then, even if you don’t trust me, trust the deeds; so that you may understand once and for all that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the Father.”

John 14:10-12 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
10 Don’t you believe that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me? What I am telling you, I am not saying on my own initiative; the Father living in me is doing his own works. 11 Trust me, that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me.

John 14:16-18 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

16 and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another comforting Counselor like me, the Spirit of Truth, to be with you forever. 17 The world cannot receive him, because it neither sees nor knows him. You know him, because he is staying with you and will be united with you. 18 I will not leave you orphans — I am coming to you.​

When Christians mention the trinity I'm usually reminded of what Paul said here;

2 Corinthians 3:16-18 New International Version (NIV)

16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can relate to the Christian understanding of Echad, even if I do not have their same viewpoint about expressing it. For you, focus on the part that states 'all one'. And how 'God' is the qualifier for each expression. For Christians, they see three (all) as one 'person'. Though I'm not a Christian that I would hold to the doctrine they way they do, I am a Jew who understands the oneness of God. To me the shema expresses this. Hear Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. We know and believe that Yeshua is Lord, and we know that Elohim is a compound unity. In a way you can understand the trinity by seeing the Lord as Yeshua and our God as the Father and the Spirit. So, when it says Adonai Eloheinu it states Yeshua our God, Yeshua is one. So when I read the shema I am confessing that Israel needs to hear the good news, Yeshua (is) our God, Yeshua is One (with the father and the spirit/Elohim). The Lord is our God. Yeshua is Lord, no? How can the Lord say to my Lord sit at my right hand?????

John 10:38
But if I am, then, even if you don’t trust me, trust the deeds; so that you may understand once and for all that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the Father.”

John 14:10-12 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
10 Don’t you believe that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me? What I am telling you, I am not saying on my own initiative; the Father living in me is doing his own works. 11 Trust me, that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me.

John 14:16-18 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

16 and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another comforting Counselor like me, the Spirit of Truth, to be with you forever. 17 The world cannot receive him, because it neither sees nor knows him. You know him, because he is staying with you and will be united with you. 18 I will not leave you orphans — I am coming to you.​

When Christians mention the trinity I'm usually reminded of what Paul said here;

2 Corinthians 3:16-18 New International Version (NIV)

16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Excellent reply. Thank you.

 

[Swan7]

I can relate to the Christian understanding of Echad, even if I do not have their same viewpoint about expressing it. For you, focus on the part that states 'all one'. And how 'God' is the qualifier for each expression. For Christians, they see three (all) as one 'person'. Though I'm not a Christian that I would hold to the doctrine they way they do, I am a Jew who understands the oneness of God. To me the shema expresses this. Hear Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. We know and believe that Yeshua is Lord, and we know that Elohim is a compound unity. In a way you can understand the trinity by seeing the Lord as Yeshua and our God as the Father and the Spirit. So, when it says Adonai Eloheinu it states Yeshua our God, Yeshua is one. So when I read the shema I am confessing that Israel needs to hear the good news, Yeshua (is) our God, Yeshua is One (with the father and the spirit/Elohim). The Lord is our God. Yeshua is Lord, no? How can the Lord say to my Lord sit at my right hand?????

John 10:38
But if I am, then, even if you don’t trust me, trust the deeds; so that you may understand once and for all that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the Father.”

John 14:10-12 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
10 Don’t you believe that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me? What I am telling you, I am not saying on my own initiative; the Father living in me is doing his own works. 11 Trust me, that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me.

John 14:16-18 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

16 and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another comforting Counselor like me, the Spirit of Truth, to be with you forever. 17 The world cannot receive him, because it neither sees nor knows him. You know him, because he is staying with you and will be united with you. 18 I will not leave you orphans — I am coming to you.​

When Christians mention the trinity I'm usually reminded of what Paul said here;

2 Corinthians 3:16-18 New International Version (NIV)

16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Thanks!

 

[BobRyan]

jesus changed everything.

Jesus ensured that all can be saved under the one gospel - the only one that there ever was - and it is called in OT and NT - the "New Covenant".

Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8:6-10 agree on that point.

What is more that New Covenant writes God's "Law on the mind and heart". - unchanged.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever"

 

[BobRyan]

Then I will. Jesus is God's body. God the father, God the SON, God the Spirit. All one.

Why do you say that is not Christian?