Did the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

[Meowzltov]

anyone who tries to argue that observing the commandments is linked to Salvation does not know what they are saying. Observance is a matter of being like the obedient son or like the prodigal son... you either are an obedient child or you are not. If you are disobedient you are still a son.

Scripture says that the prodigal son was DEAD to the father. DEAD DEAD DEAD.

To say that observing the commandments has NOTHING to do with salvation is to ignore Jesus, who said to the rich man that he had to keep the commandments to gain eternal life (as well as sell all his riches and give to the poor). Matthew 19:16-17
And behold, one came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, ...if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

 

[Meowzltov]

It would help if you quoted the post you are replying to. 1. It helps me find replies to my posts so that I don't miss them. 2. It helps me understand the context of your posts.

But the Catholic Church the more I learn about its history, the more I dislike it.
Torturing people, burning people alive doesn't sound very christian to me.

The Eastern Orthodox and Protestants have done similarly. You might as well say that Christians in general have been guilty of this. Violence in the name of God was a product of the culture of the age. However, the Holy Spirit has worked on his Church over time, and we now understand the wrong of this. Thank God.

And that includes Catholics. If you are going to reject Catholicism, you need to look at the CC as it is TODAY, and for beliefs that it actually holds. You may very well still end up rejecting it, but at least it would be a fair, non-hypocritical judgment.

 

[Meowzltov]

ooops

 

[Bob S]

Scripture says that the prodigal son was DEAD to the father. DEAD DEAD DEAD.

To say that observing the commandments has NOTHING to do with salvation is to ignore Jesus, who said to the rich man that he had to keep the commandments to gain eternal life (as well as sell all his riches and give to the poor). Matthew 19:16-17
And behold, one came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, ...if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Hi Open Heart, might I remind you that Jesus was under the law until is death on the Cross. So of course He would tell those also under the law what the law imposed. It was not until all was fulfilled on the cross that the apostles began teaching the New Covenant in toto.

 

[Meowzltov]

I have some friends who are 7th day adventists, they are very strict about keeping the sabbath and the law.

I have some really good debates with them, it's a bit like I am taking to a wall really.

But let me tell you they are the best christians I have come across. They live like christians,

Jesus said you will know them by there fruit; let me tell you these people have fruit in abundance.

False doctrines, but forget about that, they are the most beautiful pure people I have come across.

I also find that devout SDA's are good people. I also find that those into Marianism are good people. I also find that devout Mormons are good people.

 

[ihavefoundgod951]

It would help if you quoted the post you are replying to. 1. It helps me find replies to my posts so that I don't miss them. 2. It helps me understand the context of your posts.


The Eastern Orthodox and Protestants have done similarly. You might as well say that Christians in general have been guilty of this. Violence in the name of God was a product of the culture of the age. However, the Holy Spirit has worked on his Church over time, and we now understand the wrong of this. Thank God.

And that includes Catholics. If you are going to reject Catholicism, you need to look at the CC as it is TODAY, and for beliefs that it actually holds. You may very well still end up rejecting it, but at least it would be a fair, non-hypocritical judgment.

Thank you for you great replies, I'm studying the history of the church from the beginning to present, so in due course I should learn the ways of the modern day Rome Catholic church.

Thanks again and God bless

 

[Meowzltov]

Hi Open Heart, might I remind you that Jesus was under the law until is death on the Cross. So of course He would tell those also under the law what the law imposed. It was not until all was fulfilled on the cross that the apostles began teaching the New Covenant in toto.

I find it REALLY difficult to imagine that something only true for a few years would be important enough to be mentioned in the gospels. It is mentioned in THREE of the gospels. It is the ONLY time Jesus answers the DIRECT question about how to obtain eternal life.

 

[Meowzltov]

Thank you for you great replies, I'm studying the history of the church from the beginning to present, so in due course I should learn the ways of the modern day Rome Catholic church.

Thanks again and God bless

Church history is a mix of bad and good. One of the things I always had in the back of my mind was that you can't expect men to be anything more than sinners. The Church is a HOSPITAL FOR SINNERS, not a museum for perfect people.

The thing that impressed me about the Early Church was just how Catholic it was. As early as 108 AD, we have it called the Catholic Church in writing. It had the sacraments and the heirarchy. It believed in Real Presence and salvific baptism. It baptized infants. We see from Clement's letter that the bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over the whole Church. Sure these things were in proto form. A sapling doesn't look like a grown tree, but one can see it's the same tree.

One is faced with two possibilities.
1. The Church Christ established fell, that the gates of hell DID prevail, and prevailed quite early, so Christ lied.
2. The Catholic Church IS the Church that Christ established.

 

[BobRyan]

The church does not fall unless all of its members choose error - and all of them never did that. Not even in Christ's day.

But the argument is sometimes made that the church falls if the leadership steers it in a bad direction no matter that faithful members still serve God and reject error.

That is a speculative argument - not based on Bible affirmations of the point. In fact the Apostle John explicitly speaks of cases where those running the church were in gross error.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Open Heart, might I remind you that Jesus was under the law until is death on the Cross. So of course He would tell those also under the law what the law imposed. It was not until all was fulfilled on the cross that the apostles began teaching the New Covenant in toto.

I find it REALLY difficult to imagine that something only true for a few years would be important enough to be mentioned in the gospels. It is mentioned in THREE of the gospels. It is the ONLY time Jesus answers the DIRECT question about how to obtain eternal life.

agreed.

The solution that "Christians should pay no attention to what Christ said because he lived during a time when we discount what was said" -- misses the point of MAtt 28 where Jesus commands them to go tell everyone what HE taught them. Then in ANSWER to that command they write "the Gospel accounts"!

A not-so-subtle detail that many scholars choose not to "Miss".

 

[Meowzltov]

But the argument is sometimes made that the church falls if the leadership steers it in a bad direction no matter that faithful members still serve God and reject error.

This would be a case where the gates of hell prevailed.

 

[BobRyan]

This would be a case where the gates of hell prevailed.

That is an assumption. To assume that God's church fails to endure if it contains faithful members - but has compromised leaders and members as well - is to ignore the entire case of the Jewish nation church.

Jesus said in John 4 "Salvation is of the Jews" - but as we know - the Jewish church leadership was in the middle of rejecting its own Messiah.

 

[Albion]

This would be a case where the gates of hell prevailed.

If there are still faithful members and leaders carrying on, it's hard to argue that the gates of hell have "prevailed."

 

[Meowzltov]

That is an assumption. To assume that God's church fails to endure if it contains faithful members - but has compromised leaders and members as well - is to ignore the entire case of the Jewish nation church.

Jesus said in John 4 "Salvation is of the Jews" - but as we know - the Jewish church leadership was in the middle of rejecting its own Messiah.

Good morning Bob! It's a beautiful day to love and serve the Lord!

As we know, most of the laity follow the leadership in most issues, except where it is personally inconvenient in terms of action, such as when the leadership describes certain acts as immoral and the laity decides to act that way anyhow. For example, I suspect you are thinking of the Protestant Reformation, but there never would have been a Reformation had there not been leaders like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin to lead the laity in a rebellion against Rome.

It goes without saying that I don't consider the Reformers to be licit leaders of the Church.

The People of Israel are not the Church that Christ established. The Church was born on Pentecost with the giving of the Holy Spirit.

So again I say, if the leadership goes, then the gates of hell have prevailed.

 

[Meowzltov]

If there are still faithful members and leaders carrying on, it's hard to argue that the gates of hell have "prevailed."

Of course. The Catholic Church has existed without fail from Pentecost to this day.

 

[ihavefoundgod951]

Good morning Bob! It's a beautiful day to love and serve the Lord!

As we know, most of the laity follow the leadership in most issues, except where it is personally inconvenient in terms of action, such as when the leadership describes certain acts as immoral and the laity decides to act that way anyhow. For example, I suspect you are thinking of the Protestant Reformation, but there never would have been a Reformation had there not been leaders like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin to lead the laity in a rebellion against Rome.

It goes without saying that I don't consider the Reformers to be licit leaders of the Church.

The People of Israel are not the Church that Christ established. The Church was born on Pentecost with the giving of the Holy Spirit.

So again I say, if the leadership goes, then the gates of hell have prevailed.

May I ask you a question?


Say a Catholic is devorced, he is not to take communion, is this correct?

If the person was saved after the devorce, would he be able to take communion?

Why would the church stop a sinner from taking communion, (he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that?)

Where do the Catholic Church get there authority to make these canons (rules) is it revolution from above or human?

Many thanks

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Did the Catholics change the Sabbath to Sunday?

Yes and no.
First, there is a difference between a worship day and a day of rest.
Second, the Jews already changed it to Saturday from the lunar quarter before the Catholics got hold of it.

 

[Bob S]

Did the Catholics change the Sabbath to Sunday?

Yes and no.
First, there is a difference between a worship day and a day of rest.
Second, the Jews already changed it to Saturday from the lunar quarter before the Catholics got hold of it.

I have read some about the Lunar cycle and that it was the Israelite calender for reckoning time. Of course the new moon does not follow the 7 day cycle which means every cycle of the moon would restart the 7 day cycle. Is there without a doubt evidence that they were on that system until 7 day cycle came into being?

SDAs and other Sabbath observing groups adamantly deny such. Of course if true those who thump Sunday as the day of resurrection would also be off base.

Also, if the Lunar calender was in fact how Judaism reckoned time, why have they not changed back to God's plan. Some sects seem so pious in how they live it would seem like they would want to serve God as set forth at Sinai.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

I have read some about the Lunar cycle and that it was the Israelite calender for reckoning time. Of course the new moon does not follow the 7 day cycle which means every cycle of the moon would restart the 7 day cycle. Is there without a doubt evidence that they were on that system until 7 day cycle came into being?

SDAs and other Sabbath observing groups adamantly deny such. Of course if true those who thump Sunday as the day of resurrection would also be off base.

Also, if the Lunar calender was in fact how Judaism reckoned time, why have they not changed back to God's plan. Some sects seem so pious in how they live it would seem like they would want to serve God as set forth at Sinai.

Hey Bob,
To address your questions; yes, the week resets every month with always a one or two moon day in between. This can be seen where David and Jonathan discuss a plan to prove to Jonathan Sauls animosity toward David. (Sorry, short on time otherwise I would supply the Scripture reference, but I'm sure you can find it) David doesn't show for the new moon feast, then doesn't show the following day for the new moon feast. Apparently that month was a two day new moon. This can also be seen were Jesus refers to the end times as related to the feast of Trumpets when He says 'no man knows the day or hour'. The feast of Trumpets is always on the 1st of the 7th month. Being on the 1st of the month with one or two new moon days between the end of the 6th month and the beginning of the 7th, no man would know when the 1st (Feast of Trumpets) is until the new moon is sighted.

As for the Jews switching back, lol....Rabbinic Judiaism is very much like the Catholics. If you read ancient respected rabbis like Maimonides they all admit to changing from a lunar calendar to the roman calendar due to persecution. Their attitude on this as well as other matters is 'When Messiah comes He will set all things right'. There is also a Old Testament passage where God says they will forget their Sabbaths. Sorry I don't have more time at the moment for a more in depth answer, but can discuss more detail perhaps this evening.

 

[Meowzltov]

If the person was saved after the devorce, would he be able to take communion?

A divorced person who has not remarried can take communion. It is the remarriage that is considered adultery.