Did the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

[Meowzltov]

The Catholic Church gave you the Eucharist.

If one compares a Eucharist Host to the icon of Sol Invictius, it is disturbingly similar. Trust me and Google it to see for yourself.

What Jesus gave us was correctly defining the ultimate meaning of Passover.

The Passover has been perverted by the Catholic Church by changing it to a daily sacrament and then changing the date of Passover and renaming it after the pagan god estar/Easter,

Eucharist was given us at Passover by Christ, but Eucharist is not Passover. When Paul speaks of it, he recites its liturgy -- it is not the liturgy of Passover.

 

[BukiRob]

When we obey the traditions BUT NOT THE TORAH, this is wrong. OF COURSE. But that doesn't mean we are not to obey the traditions. Jesus taught that we are to obey BOTH. Matthew 23:23.

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.

So, when a tradition violates Torah it is in gross error.
"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. "For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

This goes to the heart of what I was saying.... When it comes to matters of Torah, yes, we are absolutely to listen to those who sit in the seat of Moche.... but when it comes to traditions that clearly violate scripture we are to ignore them

 

[BukiRob]

I agree that we are both searching our consciences to do what is right. I greatly respect that about you. It's just interesting to banter back and forth about this -- it makes me think. As far as I'm concerned, because you are a Gentile, you have no real obligation to keep the Sabbath in the first place (although you may think differently), and I think you are doing so out of sheer love -- that says something incredibly good about you.

Getting back to Halakha... I think if you have an electric stove, you aren't violating the prohibition about kindling a flame, just as my microwave doesn't. However, there still remains that old prohibition against cooking. Ha!

Yes, I realize that I'm interpreting the Torah by Jewish Halakha, which Christians like to denigrate as "tradition." But you equally have your own traditions of interpretation. They are just different ones. Jewish Halakha says that work is those things which were used to build the tabernacle (because such labors ceased on the Sabbath, including those that weren't strenuous effort). Your own "Halakha" says that work is strenuous effort. Both require interpretation outside of scripture.

I don't denigrate it at all... I just think some tending toward a lot goes well beyond what scripture actually decree's.

It really centers on one of the things Yeshua blasted them for.... "straining at a gnat and setting aside the spirit of the law."

this is where I am today.... G-d may well move me a different direction in terms of Halakha. As rabbi has often said, observance is like an onion... different levels and layers of observance. It is good to start... G-d will lead you if you will follow.

 

[BukiRob]

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.

I might suggest one ponder the words of messiah.... Straight is the way and narrow that leads to life and few are they who find it... for WIDE is the way that leads to destruction.

I would submit to you that the church never fell and that there has always been a remnant....

 

[Meowzltov]

This goes to the heart of what I was saying.... When it comes to matters of Torah, yes, we are absolutely to listen to those who sit in the seat of Moche.... but when it comes to traditions that clearly violate scripture we are to ignore them

You'd have to prove on a case by case basis that each tradition violates the Torah. The traditions that I know of are designed to protect the Torah, to "build a fence around the Torah" as the Talmud says, NOT contradict it. For example, show me how lighting Shabbat candles violates any law of the Torah. Show me how starting Shabbat 18 minutes early (to give you wiggle room in case something happens) violates any law of Torah. Get the idea?

 

[Meowzltov]

I would submit to you that the church never fell and that there has always been a remnant....

It depends on what you mean. My parents believed that the Catholic church was corrupted but that there was always a "remnant" or true believing groups down through time. The problem is that history just doesn't back her up. There were dissident groups here and there, now and again, but they were like spots on the timeline. There was nothing to connect the dots, no cohesion. There simply were long long periods of time where all you had was the Catholic Church--if you were a Christian, you were a Catholic.

I agree that the Church has never fallen. The remnant refers to the Jewish believers in the Church, such as myself.

 

[BukiRob]

You'd have to prove on a case by case basis that each tradition violates the Torah. The traditions that I know of are designed to protect the Torah, to "build a fence around the Torah" as the Talmud says, NOT contradict it. For example, show me how lighting Shabbat candles violates any law of the Torah. Show me how starting Shabbat 18 minutes early (to give you wiggle room in case something happens) violates any law of Torah. Get the idea?

I dont disagree that many of the traditions are wonderful. Where I DO disagree is when building the fence around the Torah becomes so important that others declare to cross said fence is sin... that is what I am getting at...

 

[BukiRob]

It depends on what you mean. My parents believed that the Catholic church was corrupted but that there was always a "remnant" or true believing groups down through time. The problem is that history just doesn't back her up. There were dissident groups here and there, now and again, but they were like spots on the timeline. There was nothing to connect the dots, no cohesion. There simply were long long periods of time where all you had was the Catholic Church--if you were a Christian, you were a Catholic.

I agree that the Church has never fallen. The remnant refers to the Jewish believers in the Church, such as myself.

I guess its pointless for us to get into this because we arent going to agree.... Merry Christmas

 

[HebrewVaquero]

When we obey the traditions BUT NOT THE TORAH, this is wrong. OF COURSE. But that doesn't mean we are not to obey the traditions. Jesus taught that we are to obey BOTH. Matthew 23:23.

Did you mean to post instead Matthew 23:2-3 ?
If you did....
There is a very important variant in the Shem Tov which allows the passage to be understood correctly as basically says; 'do as they say (when teaching Torah) but not as they do'.

 

[BobRyan]

You'd have to prove on a case by case basis that each tradition violates the Torah. The traditions that I know of are designed to protect the Torah, to "build a fence around the Torah" as the Talmud says, NOT contradict it. For example, show me how lighting Shabbat candles violates any law of the Torah. Show me how starting Shabbat 18 minutes early (to give you wiggle room in case something happens) violates any law of Torah. Get the idea?

Agreed not all tradition violates scripture. Christ does not say "you are in error because you have tradition" nor does he say that "your tradition is in error because it is not in the Bible" rather his argument is that this tradition tested "sola scriptura" is shown to be in error - it conflicts with the teaching of the Bible.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Agreed not all tradition violates scripture. Christ does not say "you are in error because you have tradition" nor does he say that "your tradition is in error because it is not in the Bible" rather his argument is that this tradition tested "sola scriptura" is shown to be in error - it conflicts with the teaching of the Bible.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

I liked your post, the next question would be; 'what constitutes sola scriptura?

Btw, noticed your tags; do all those confirm all 10 commandments or only 9, leaving out the Sabbath?

 

[BobRyan]

I think it is defined in the Mark 7:6-13 statement of Christ and in Acts 17:11. Where all doctrine and tradition are subject to the sola scriptura test. The Bible is the standard - the rule - and Mark 7 demonstrates clearly how the Word of God was being contradicted by a tradition.

In Isaiah 8:19 we find this "to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them".

There again we have sola scriptura - being taught.

And in Gal 1:6-9 "if WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should bring to you a different gospel - let him be accursed"

 

[HebrewVaquero]

I think it is defined in the Mark 7:6-13 statement of Christ and in Acts 17:11. Where all doctrine and tradition are subject to the sola scriptura test. The Bible is the standard - the rule - and Mark 7 demonstrates clearly how the Word of God was being contradicted by a tradition.

In Isaiah 8:19 we find this "to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word there is no light in them".

There again we have sola scriptura - being taught.

And in Gal 1:6-9 "if WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should bring to you a different gospel - let him be accursed"

At the time Mark was written, only the Old Testament was considered Holy Scripture.
Btw
Isaiah 8:19 kinda kicks Paul out of the Apostle club, don't you think?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes no NT text at the time of the statement of Christ in Mark 7.
And no statement of Christ in Mark 7 - at the time of Isaiah 8:19

Which is only a "sola scriptura" problem - if you define sola scriptura as "no more scripture is allowed - and everything scripture does say about the gift of prophecy and the work of the Holy Spirit in that regard - is now canceled".

I don't define it that way. And I don't see that as the definition in Is 8:19 or Mark 7:6-13 or Acts 17:11 or Gal 1:6-9

As for Paul being kicked out of the Isaiah 8:19 club --

What is encouraging is that the span from Acts 21-28 gives a great view of how Paul declared his own practice "under oath" and before both Jews and gentiles starting with clarification of his teaching for his fellow Messianic Jews.



Acts 21
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law

Acts 24
14But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets


Acts 25
8 while he answered for himself, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all."


Acts 26
Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come; 23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles;

Acts 28
17 And it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. So when they had come together, he said to them: Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans,... I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
...
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening

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

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Yes no NT text at the time of the statement of Christ in Mark 7.
And no statement of Christ in Mark 7 - at the time of Isaiah 8:19

Which is only a "sola scriptura" problem - if you define sola scriptura as "no more scripture is allowed - and everything scripture does say about the gift of prophecy and the work of the Holy Spirit in that regard - is now canceled".

I don't define it that way. And I don't see that as the definition in Is 8:19 or Mark 7:6-13 or Acts 17:11 or Gal 1:6-9

As for Paul being kicked out of the Isaiah 8:19 club --

What is encouraging is that the span from Acts 21-28 gives a great view of how Paul declared his own practice "under oath" and before both Jews and gentiles starting with clarification of his teaching for his fellow Messianic Jews.



Acts 21
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law

Acts 24
14But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets


Acts 25
8 while he answered for himself, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all."


Acts 26
Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come; 23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles;

Acts 28
17 And it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. So when they had come together, he said to them: Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans,... I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
...
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening

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

As for Paul and the above verses:
1 Corinthians 9:19-23
2 Corinthians 12:16

 

[BobRyan]

In the example in Acts - Paul is giving testimony in a court of law - under oath.



2 Corinthians 12:16 is a great example of some -- sarcasm -- where Paul condemns some of the foolish things they had been saying against Paul. He was in a position to condemn his own church members like that - but he could not do that in a Roman court of Law with his judges or his non-Christian antagonists.

I have become foolish;
I myself did not become a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!
If I love you more, am I to be loved less?
I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit. 17 Certainly I have not taken advantage
Titus did not take any advantage of you, did he? Did we not conduct ourselves in the same spirit

10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody. 12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. 13 For in what respect were you treated as inferior to the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not become a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!

14 Here for this third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be a burden to you; for I do not seek what is yours, but you; for children are not responsible to save up for their parents, but parents for their children. 15 I will most gladly spend and be expended for your souls. If I love you more, am I to be loved less? 16 But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit. 17 Certainly I have not taken advantage of you through any of those whom I have sent to you, have I? 18 I urged Titus to go, and I sent the brother with him. Titus did not take any advantage of you, did he? Did we not conduct ourselves in the same spirit and walk in the same steps?

19 All this time you have been thinking that we are defending ourselves to you. Actually, it is in the sight of God that we have been speaking in Christ; and all for your upbuilding, beloved. 20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances; 21 I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Fair enough.
However I'm with Peter on this;
Paul is difficult to understand.
My goal is to get though all the easy things to understand then tackle the more difficult things,
I'm not though the easy ones yet, lol.

 

[Meowzltov]

I dont disagree that many of the traditions are wonderful. Where I DO disagree is when building the fence around the Torah becomes so important that others declare to cross said fence is sin... that is what I am getting at...

Of course it becomes a sin. Deuteronomy 17:8-13 gives AUTHORITY to the judges (the seventy elders) to rule and develop such case law and stuff, and this authority has REAL TEETH. The person who questions it is to be PUT TO DEATH, so that all Israel will be afraid of challenging these decisions. Go "neither to the left nor to the right."

This is why it is foolishness to say that Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. The truth is that the Bible is opposed to Sola Scriptura and Deut 17 is a great example of it. The judges (later called rabbis) have authority equal to Torah in determining Law. It's a Living Torah.

 

[Meowzltov]

I guess its pointless for us to get into this because we arent going to agree.... Merry Christmas

You too.