Why the Catholic Church changes the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday

[Meowzltov]

Are you also opposed to the gay priests that Pope Benedict was having to deal with - the various factions in the Vatican?

Of course! It was a half dozen priests, according to Benedict. How can you ask me this question? You know that I'm a devout Catholic who goes by the teachings of the magisterium.

 

[BobRyan]

it bothers me that SOME Methodists have left basic Biblical morality and crossed the line between loving gays and condoning gay sex. I say SOME because Methodists are actually quite a few different denominations, all of which have their own different positions. My understanding is that the United Methodist Church still has a Biblical stand.

Are you also opposed to the gay priests that Pope Benedict was having to deal with - the various factions in the Vatican?

Of course! It was a half dozen priests, according to Benedict. How can you ask me this question? You know that I'm a devout Catholic who goes by the teachings of the magisterium.

Certainly one would expect that any condemnation by the RCC "or re-assignment to other churches" of gay priests caught in some legal violation would be also condemned by all Catholic faithful.

My question was about this

(CNN) - Pope Francis said a “gay lobby” exists inside the Vatican, a surprising disclosure from a pope who has already delivered his share of stunners, and a resurrection of church conflicts that had bedeviled his predecessor's papacy.

“In the Curia,” Francis said, referring to Catholicism’s central bureaucracy, “there are holy people. But there is also a stream of corruption.”

“The 'gay lobby' is mentioned, and it is true, it is there,” Francis continued. “We need to see what we can do.”
from: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/11/pope-francis-gay-lobby-exists-inside-vatican/

 

[BobRyan]

In any case - this is the subject of this thread -- (We can discuss the gay priests in the RCC and the LGBT issue in the Methodist church on some other thread)

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

1. There is not one NT or OT text saying "week day 1 is the Holy Day of the LORD" but we DO have that for Sabbath in Is 58:13. (AND we do not have ONE text in the NT or OT that says "week day 1 is the LORD's Day)

2. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT that says that "they met EVERY week-day-1 for gospel teaching" for both Jews AND gentiles but we DO have that for Sabbath in Acts 18:4-6.

3. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT that says "they met week-day-1 after week-day-1 " for anything - but we DO have that in Acts 13 and Acts 17 regarding Sabbath for both Jews AND Gentiles.

4. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT saying "from week day 1 to week day 1 shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" - but we DO have that in Is 66:23 for the Sabbath.

5. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT saying "the Son of man is LORD of week day 1" but we DO have that in the NT for the Sabbath in Mark 2:28.

6. There is not ONE text in the NT saying "there REMAINS therefore a week-day 1 rest for the people of God" but we DO have that for Sabbath in Heb 4.

7. There is not ONE text in NT or OT saying "remember week-day-1 to keep it holy" but we DO have that in Ex 20:8 for the Sabbath.

8. There is NOT ONE text in NT or OT saying it is ok by God if we bend/edit/break/ignore one of the TEN Commandments - but we DO have condemnation for doing such a thing in the NT -- by the Words of Christ Himself! Mark 7:6-13


=========================And this --


The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

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

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

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..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

========================================
=======================================
Your -- appeal to the fraudulent sources such as the pile of "Ignatius letters" -- noted.

Even though 8 of the 15 are confirmed frauds and the remainder are neither scripture nor free from interpolation.

hence our focus here - on the actual Bible.

 

[Meowzltov]

Of all the ignatius forgeries this one is perhaps less well-known as a forgery

NO. Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians is NOT a forgery. It is well accepted by scholars. Nice try. Deal with it.

 

[Meowzltov]

Are you also opposed to the gay priests that Pope Benedict was having to deal with - the various factions in the Vatican?

Of course. There were only a half dozen btw.

 

[BobRyan]

Even though 8 of the 15 are confirmed frauds and the remainder are neither scripture nor free from interpolation.
hence our focus here - on the actual Bible.

NO. Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians is NOT a forgery. . .

So then not scripture and rife with interpolation - but you are not going for fraud even though 8 of the 15 Ignatius letters are confirmed fraud.

Well ok -- I guess we can settled for merely "not scripture and rife with interpolation"

No wonder scholars like Calvin rejected all of it.
Philip Schaff - rejected all of it

from : http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm
From: Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians.

The epistles ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy than any other documents connected with the primitive Church
...

Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note to the Syriac Version of the Ignatian Epistles:


Some account of the discovery of the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles has been already given. We have simply to add here a brief description of the mss. from which the Syriac text has been printed. That which is named a by Cureton, contains only the Epistle to Polycarp, and exhibits the text of that Epistle which, after him, we have followed. He fixes its age somewhere in the first half of the sixth century, or before the year 550. The second ms., which Cureton refers to as b, is assigned by him to the seventh or eighth century. It contains the three Epistles of Ignatius, and furnishes the text here followed in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans. The third ms., which Cureton quotes as g, has no date, but, as he tells us, "belonged to the collection acquired by Moses of Nisibis in a.d. 931, and was written apparently about three or four centuries earlier." It contains the three Epistles to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. The text of all these mss. is in several passages manifestly corrupt, and the translators appear at times to have mistaken the meaning of the Greek original.

 

[BobRyan]

Certainly one would expect that any condemnation by the RCC "or re-assignment to other churches" of gay priests caught in some legal violation would be also condemned by all Catholic faithful.

My question was about this

(CNN) - Pope Francis said a “gay lobby” exists inside the Vatican, a surprising disclosure from a pope who has already delivered his share of stunners, and a resurrection of church conflicts that had bedeviled his predecessor's papacy.

“In the Curia,” Francis said, referring to Catholicism’s central bureaucracy, “there are holy people. But there is also a stream of corruption.”

“The 'gay lobby' is mentioned, and it is true, it is there,” Francis continued. “We need to see what we can do.”
from: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/11/pope-francis-gay-lobby-exists-inside-vatican/

Of course. There were only a half dozen btw.

“The 'gay lobby' is mentioned, and it is true, it is there,” Francis continued. “We need to see what we can do.”

 

[W2L]

I don't need any bible scholars to teach me sound doctrine. Its plain to see after a personal study of scripture, that we need not observe any days whatsoever. THe apostles clearly teach us the commands of Christ and not one day is ever mentioned. Not only that but what they do teach us would lead a person away from promoting such things. Romans 14, that's all folks.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't need any bible scholars to teach me sound doctrine. Its plain to see after a personal study of scripture, .

Then maybe you will listen to the actual Bible --

========================
1. There is not one NT or OT text saying "week day 1 is the Holy Day of the LORD" but we DO have that for Sabbath in Is 58:13. (AND we do not have ONE text in the NT or OT that says "week day 1 is the LORD's Day)

2. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT that says that "they met EVERY week-day-1 for gospel teaching" for both Jews AND gentiles but we DO have that for Sabbath in Acts 18:4-6.

3. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT that says "they met week-day-1 after week-day-1 " for anything - but we DO have that in Acts 13 and Acts 17 regarding Sabbath for both Jews AND Gentiles.

4. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT saying "from week day 1 to week day 1 shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" - but we DO have that in Is 66:23 for the Sabbath.

5. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT saying "the Son of man is LORD of week day 1" but we DO have that in the NT for the Sabbath in Mark 2:28.

6. There is not ONE text in the NT saying "there REMAINS therefore a week-day 1 rest for the people of God" but we DO have that for Sabbath in Heb 4.

7. There is not ONE text in NT or OT saying "remember week-day-1 to keep it holy" but we DO have that in Ex 20:8 for the Sabbath.

8. There is NOT ONE text in NT or OT saying it is ok by God if we bend/edit/break/ignore one of the TEN Commandments - but we DO have condemnation for doing such a thing in the NT -- by the Words of Christ Himself! Mark 7:6-13


=========================Notice that even these guys know what the Bible says.


The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

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

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

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..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

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

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible affirms the Commandments of God - as they are stated in the Bible.

Can New Covenant saints afford to ignore this??

Rev 14:12 - "the saints KEEP The Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"


1 John 5
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His Commandments are not grievous.


1 Cor 7:19 .. "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"

Rom 13
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this,
Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Thou shalt not covet;

and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Lev 19:18)
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

or this --??

James 2
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, ou shall love your neighbor as yourself, (Lev 19:18) you are doing well.
9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
11 For He who said, [/FONT]
Do not commit adultery
also said,
Do not commit murder.
Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty


or this?

Matt 5
17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.





----or this?

Jer 31:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”


Heb 8
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete

or this ---


"do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31

What law? The Law that condemns all mankind as sinners -

Rom 3
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

That same law - same chapter

"do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31



1John 2:
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.


John says -
Rev 22:
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.(KJV)

Christ said

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.

John 14:15 "IF you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments"

or this - ??
Exodus 20
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

John 14
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.



or this??

10 Commandments are –
“Commandments of God” Neh 10:29
“Law of God” Neh 10:29
“Word of God” Mark 7:13
“Commandment of God” Mark 7:6-13
NT “Scripture” James 2:8
NT “Law” – James 2:9-11
NT Commandments Eph 6:2, Rom 13:9, Romans 7:7-10



====================================== if so then consider this -

Eph 6:2
2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise:

"First commandment" in WHAT unit of LAW ?? The unit that includes the Sabbath.

Ten Commandments spoken by Christ at Sinai - Ex 20. Heb 8:6-10

Rom 8
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. [/QUOTE]




Rev 14:12 - "the saints KEEP The Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"


1 John 5
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His Commandments are not grievous.


1 Cor 7:19 .. "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

Is 66:23 "From new moon to new moon AND FROM Sabbath to Sabbath shall all MANKIND come before Me to worship"

so then weekly cycle and not "every minute"

Is 66:23 "From new moon to new moon AND FROM Sabbath to Sabbath shall all MANKIND come before Me to worship"

so then weekly cycle and not "every minute"


Which would be total nonsense as "from 1:00pm to 4:00pm AND FROM 2:00pm to 3:00pm" -- by carefully glossing over the detail "from new moon to new moon AND FROM Sabbath to Sabbath" as clearly identifying TWO cycles - not one constant ... you get to the never-seen-in-the-Bible idea that "REMAIN" is to be wrenched into "from new moon to new moon AND FROM Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind COME BEFORE Me to worship". -- ( as if the Bible ever used such a back flip.)

Even pro-sunday scholars admit to this being "two cycles" and not "one idea of -- REMAIN"

Of course they have to admit that this is "two cycles" and not "one idea of REMAIN all the time before the LORD" -- because the Bible already uses that form.

...

1. It shows that OT authors and readers had the concept of 7th day Sabbath applicable to "all mankind" in Is 66:23.
2. Reading the text we have admit that this Sabbath observance will be binding for all mankind for all of eternity even after the cross.
3. Is 56 - (same book, same author) is affirming gentiles who keep the Sabbath - as honoring God.
4. It is only when the second coming happens and the New Earth and New Heavens are established in Rev 21 that all the wicked have perished and so "All mankind" will be worshiping God, all will be Christians, all will be keeping the Sabbath not just the "Remnant" or "Israel" -- the "FEW" of Matt 7 keeping it on earth as Christians are by far the minority in this world. And of course at the second coming the man-denominations of Christianity become one united group.
5. And of course while the "new moon" is a physical "event" that takes place on a cycle - God's Holy "Sabbath" is a "practice" a "convention" and "observance" not a physical cycle in the heavens - so to worship "from Sabbath to Sabbath" would require that "convention" to still exist.

This is true no matter if one is pro-Sunday or not.

I think all sides can see this point.

 

[Meowzltov]

So then not scripture and rife with interpolation - but you are not going for fraud even though 8 of the 15 Ignatius letters are confirmed fraud.

Well ok -- I guess we can settled for merely "not scripture and rife with interpolation"

No wonder scholars like Calvin rejected all of it.
Philip Schaff - rejected all of it

And SEVEN of the 15 are NOT fraud, including his letter to the Magnesians.

 

[BobRyan]

Even though 8 of the 15 are confirmed frauds and the remainder are neither scripture nor free from interpolation.
hence our focus here - on the actual Bible.

NO. Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians is NOT a forgery. . .

So then not scripture and rife with interpolation - but you are not going for fraud even though 8 of the 15 Ignatius letters are confirmed fraud.

Well ok -- I guess we can settled for merely "not scripture and rife with interpolation"

No wonder scholars like Calvin rejected all of it.
Philip Schaff - rejected all of it

===========================================
from : http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm
From: Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians.

The epistles ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy than any other documents connected with the primitive Church
...

Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note to the Syriac Version of the Ignatian Epistles:


Some account of the discovery of the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles has been already given. We have simply to add here a brief description of the mss. from which the Syriac text has been printed. That which is named a by Cureton, contains only the Epistle to Polycarp, and exhibits the text of that Epistle which, after him, we have followed. He fixes its age somewhere in the first half of the sixth century, or before the year 550. The second ms., which Cureton refers to as b, is assigned by him to the seventh or eighth century. It contains the three Epistles of Ignatius, and furnishes the text here followed in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans. The third ms., which Cureton quotes as g, has no date, but, as he tells us, "belonged to the collection acquired by Moses of Nisibis in a.d. 931, and was written apparently about three or four centuries earlier." It contains the three Epistles to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. The text of all these mss. is in several passages manifestly corrupt, and the translators appear at times to have mistaken the meaning of the Greek original.

And SEVEN of the 15 are NOT fraud, including his letter to the Magnesians.

So you hope ... better to just stick with the actual bible - and leave the proven-fraud sources alone because even if you find one that is not fraud - but merely "rife with interpolation" you still would be better off with the Bible.

 

[Meowzltov]

So you hope

So we know. You have ZERO reason to claim Ignatius letter to the Magnesians is a forgery. It is groundless and baseless and therefore wrong for you to suggest it. You simply don't like what he says, so you are looking for any excuse to trash him, and you are making yourself look silly in the process.

Can you please not copy everything from the last gazillion posts when you reply? I know how to follow the arrows back if I need context. Just highlight the portion you are directly replying to.

 

[BobRyan]

So we know. You have ZERO reason to claim Ignatius letter to the Magnesians is a forgery. It is groundless and baseless .

Because the 15 Ignatius letters have been found to be riddles with fraud and interpolation such that more than half of them are admitted confirmed fraud and the remaining are known to contain fraudulent interpolation?? Is that what makes that "source" more to be trusted than the Bible???

You may go down that path -- but you have to admit a lot of folks here will choose to stick with the Bible.

 

[Meowzltov]

Because the 15 Ignatius letters have been found to be riddles with fraud and interpolation such that more than half of them are admitted confirmed fraud and the remaining are known to contain fraudulent interpolation?? Is that what makes that "source" more to be trusted than the Bible???

You may go down that path -- but you have to admit a lot of folks here will choose to stick with the Bible.

 

[Meowzltov]

Because the 15 Ignatius letters have been found to be riddles with fraud and interpolation

Not true. Just because some were fraud, doesn't mean the rest are corrupted. Nice try, but no cigar. Do you believe these same idiots when they say the bible is corrupted?

 

[BobRyan]

Because the 15 Ignatius letters have been found to be riddles with fraud and interpolation such that more than half of them are admitted confirmed fraud and the remaining are known to contain fraudulent interpolation?? Is that what makes that "source" more to be trusted than the Bible???

You may go down that path -- but you have to admit a lot of folks here will choose to stick with the Bible.

Not true. Just because some were fraud, doesn't mean the rest are corrupted.

If you go to a food court and the majority of the glasses of water they put out on the table are poisoned - and the remainder are "suspect" of at least some contamination along with the rest... do you "go back for more"? Do you "invite your family"?
Do you trade in your Bible for such contaminated sources?

Nice try, but no cigar. Do you believe these same idiots when they say the bible is corrupted?

The fallacy of equivocation again? arguing that the Bible is just as corrupt a source of truth as the pile of Ignatius letters?

How sad.

Give me the Bible "instead".

Getting back to the topic -- are you saying that the RCC's corrupt documents like the "Donation of Constantine" and the pile of Ignatius letters where the majority are proven fraud - and the rest are suspect... are the real reason that they tried to bend the Sabbath Commandment so that it still applies but is bent to have all of its solemn authority and binding obligation transferred to week-day-1???

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

Christ said

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.

John 14:15 "IF you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments"

 

[Meowzltov]

If you go to a food court and the majority of the glasses of water they put out on the table are poisoned

Your analogy isn't even remotely similar. It's more like if you go to ebay, and they sell knock off rolex watches, does it mean you can't buy the real deal?

 

[Meowzltov]

The fallacy of equivocation again? arguing that the Bible is just as corrupt a source of truth as the pile of Ignatius letters?

I don't think either the Bible nor Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians are corrupt. I simply called those who argue that they are corrupt idiots. If you don't listen to them when they say the Bible corrupt, then I see no reason why you should believe them when they say Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians is corrupt.