Why the Catholic Church changes the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday

[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".

Your analogy isn't even remotely similar.

You appear to be mistaken just then.

It's more like if you go to ebay, and they sell knock off rolex watches,

And then you double-down buying more rolex watches from ebay hoping that at least one of them will be legit.


But when it comes to the Bible - and salvation - and the source of truth - I leave all the frauds, and ebay-knock-offs in their own little pile -- and stick with the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think either the Bible nor Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians are corrupt.

Yet all the world freely admits that the majority of the Ignatius letters are totally fraudulent and the remaining minority highly suspect being rife with interpolation.

By contrast - the Bible is legit...

So a lot of people on this board - even among those who differ with me - tend to wish they could stick with the Bible.

 

[Meowzltov]

And then you double-down buying more rolex watches from ebay hoping that at least one of them will be legit.

Foolish you. I simply go to a more reliable vendor. Real Rolexes do in fact exist. A watch expert (read scholar) can tell the difference.

But when it comes to the Bible - and salvation - and the source of truth - I leave all the frauds, and ebay-knock-offs in their own little pile -- and stick with the Bible.

The Bible doesn't tell you everything. I.e. the Bible doesn't tell you which day of the week is the Lord's Day, and it is irresponsible to just assume it is Saturday when ECF's such as Ignatius tell you it is Sunday.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yet all the world freely admits that the majority of the Ignatius letters are totally fraudulent and the remaining minority highly suspect being rife with interpolation.

The consensus of scholars is that Ignatius' letter to the Magesians is authentic and reliable.

Can't you find something new to be obsessed with? Is there anything else you ever discuss in CF besides the Sabbath?

 

[BobRyan]

The consensus of scholars is that Ignatius' letter to the Magesians is authentic and reliable.

1. And they trust it more than the Bible.
2. And they all agree to ignore the fact that of the pile of 15 letters more than half are confirmed fraud and the others are suspect of being rife with interpolation.

Except that in real life -

There are a number of scholars that consider all of the ignatius letters as "highly suspect" - since the source has been confirmed to be so corrupt.



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.

D. Philip Schaff rejects all of Ignatius' letters as spurious:


Philip Schaff acknowledges that there has been a broad and long standing view that all the Ignatian letters are forgeries, and leaves the matter for the reader to decide for himself. Schaff does clearly reject all the letters

------==========================

Which of course you may choose.

But a lot of folks here are going to go with the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Can't you find something new to be obsessed with? Is there anything else

Your attempt at revisionist history - noted.

My focus on this thread has been on the actual topic - and the fact that most people here are going to prefer the actual Bible as the source of truth - but that you are welcome to settle for sources such as the 15 letters of Ignatius if that is your wish.

Is there anything else you ever discuss in CF besides the Sabbath?

That is pretty funny coming from you -

You started a thread about "is God a Liar" where you basically condemn the Bible account of the Creation of Life on Planet Earth - and I demonstrated that blind faith evolutionism such as that is a form of religion not compatible with the actual Bible.

All the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth. Furthermore, the fossil records support the slow change of species over time, such as dinosaurs to birds. *IF* these things are not true, it would follow that God deliberately created a world with false scientific data. Right? So then this begs the questions...

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?

What do you believe?

There then is one of many topics I post on - other than the Sunday vs Sabbath topic.

 

[BobRyan]

Since you brought it up - here is a more recent post on that "other topic" you are so anxious to discuss (in this case it is your own thread that you titled "is God a Liar" )

Genesis 1 is myth. It's not SUPPOSED to be scientifically or historically accurate. .

God takes it literally as we see in His own summary of the Genesis 1:2-2:4 "Account" -- historic "account"

As already noted -- "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth - and rested the 7th day"

This is irrefutable - and the failed attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism do not survive this "Bible detail"

Gen 2 -
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20 - legal code (not poetry - not symbolism)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

this is a bible detail that cannot be ignored when admitting that the Bible describes a real - literal "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" 7 day week for creation that maps exactly to the week of Exodus 20.

Irrefutable.

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

So much so that atheists have no problem admitting to what the text says -- even though they do not agree with its teaching.

Genesis 1 is myth. It's not SUPPOSED to be scientifically or historically accurate. .

Atheists (who take the Bible as "myth" without question) often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

In this case the genre the "kind of writing that it is" -- is the kind of writing known as historic account - as even atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities - the will admit.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

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

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not


Bible believing Christians are not in a conflict-of-interest on this Bible detail because they freely reject blind faith evolutionism - so no Bible bending the text of Genesis for them.

Atheists are not in a conflict of interest position on this Bible detail because they freely reject the Bible - so they too do not engage in Bible bending in Genesis as Dr Barr points out.

 

[SkyWriting]

As already noted -- "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth - and rested the 7th day"
This is irrefutable - and the failed attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism do not survive this "Bible detail"
this is a bible detail that cannot be ignored when admitting that the Bible describes a real - literal "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" 7 day week for creation that maps exactly to the week of Exodus 20.
Irrefutable.

The question is: what litterally happened on day 4?

Wouldn't it be difficult to measure off three 24 hour days until after day 4?

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

BobRyan said: ↑
Yet all the world freely admits that the majority of the Ignatius letters are totally fraudulent and the remaining minority highly suspect being rife with interpolation.

The consensus of scholars is that Ignatius' letter to the Magesians is authentic and reliable.

Can't you find something new to be obsessed with? Is there anything else you ever discuss in CF besides the Sabbath?

Well to be fair, there also appears to be an obsession concerning the subject of the OC Mosaic food laws.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ary-laws-are-still-binding-in-the-nt.7457416/

Quote BrightCandle:
Joel Osteen, the Evangelical Pastor of the largest Mega Church in North America, has exploded the popular Evangelical view that the dietary laws were done away with at the cross. He basically, takes the position that SDAs have had for over 100 years. You have to admire his courage for preaching this sermon in Houston, Texas, one of the most carnivorous cities in the North America.

Video link to unclean foods sermon:

YouTube - Joel Osteen on God's Food Laws

............

But unfortunately for the swine, they didn't read the fine print ehehe

Let us not forget the ruling of the first Apostolic Council and the restrictions given to Gentile Christians.

Concerning Gentiles and the "Law" both dietary and ritual, James said:

"James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." -Acts 15:13-29 (KJV)

That sums it up for me................

.

.

 

[BobRyan]

The question is: what litterally happened on day 4?

Wouldn't it be difficult to measure off three 24 hour days until after day 4?

No because all you need is a rotating planet (day 1) and a single sided light source for earth - which even the galactic plane of the milky way galaxy might have provided. (Though I think it was something more).

That would still yield a 24 hour day with evening and morning.

But when people are determined "not to accept the Bible" very often no matter how obvious the solution - they reject it if it does not yield a "Bible is wrong - evolutionism is right" conclusion.

 

[BobRyan]

Well to be fair, there also appears to be an obsession concerning the subject of the OC Mosaic food laws.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ary-laws-are-still-binding-in-the-nt.7457416/



.

err.. umm.. because you keep bringing it up -- or is it because some folks here love to circle back to the subject of eating rats???

I think this is "yet another thread" where I did not bring it up.

And in the OP of the thread you bring up - it is Joel Osteen arguing for not eating rats. -- Am I supposed to be blamed for that as well in the "anything but the topic of this thread" agenda??

 

[SkyWriting]

No because all you need is a rotating planet (day 1) and a single sided light source for earth - which even the galactic plane of the milky way galaxy might have provided. (Though I think it was something more).

That would still yield a 24 hour day with evening and morning.

But when people are determined "not to accept the Bible" very often no matter how obvious the solution - they reject it if it does not yield a "Bible is wrong - evolutionism is right" conclusion.

By avoiding the question, you were able to contrive an answer just like your evolutionism example.

"The question is: What litterally happened on day 4?
Wouldn't it be difficult to measure off three 24 hour days until after day 4?"

Now, read again:

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

What litterally happened on day 4?
What litterally happened on day 4?

 

[BobRyan]

The question is: what litterally happened on day 4?

Wouldn't it be difficult to measure off three 24 hour days until after day 4?

No because all you need is a rotating planet (day 1) and a single sided light source for earth - which even the galactic plane of the milky way galaxy might have provided. (Though I think it was something more).

That would still yield a 24 hour day with evening and morning.

But when people are determined "not to accept the Bible" very often no matter how obvious the solution - they reject it if it does not yield a "Bible is wrong - evolutionism is right" conclusion.

By avoiding the question, you were able to contrive an answer

Actually - in real life - I provided the obvious answer for the simplest solution.
Proving beyond all doubt that it Wouldn't "be difficult to measure off three 24 hour days"

Now, read again:

 

[BobRyan]

just like your evolutionism example.

No wait! I have not yet given my "evolutionism example" -- but since you asked for it

Evolutionism --> blind faith evolutionism --> the claim that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a sufficiently talented amoeba and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science"

Ok -- NOW - I have given the "evolutionism example"

 

[Meowzltov]

1. And they trust it more than the Bible.
2. And they all agree to ignore the fact that of the pile of 15 letters more than half are confirmed fraud and the others are suspect of being rife with interpolation.

Except that in real life -

There are a number of scholars that consider all of the ignatius letters as "highly suspect" - since the source has been confirmed to be so corrupt.



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

They all agree to what? What a paranoid conspiracy theory. Bob, you are just being weird now.

Calvin was not a modern Scholar. He did not have the training. Philip Schaff is also not a modern scholar.

 

[SkyWriting]

Now, read again:

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night;
He made the stars also. (Last week ?)

 

[BobRyan]

in the fake world of man-made tradition we have a pile of 15 litters by Ignatius -- where the majority are confirmed frauds - and the remainder are suspect of being rife with interpolation.

Those who choose that pile as their source of truth - are welcome to do so.

What about 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


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

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

Some would argue that such catholic documents should be ignored as if they express protestant views not catholic ones.

But the flaw in logic in such desperate efforts - is more than a little transparent

 

[BobRyan]

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night;
He made the stars also. (Last week ?)

Not last week - rather - the first week for this world.

But on day 4 - He did make two great lights -- the Sun and the moon.

At some previous time He made "the stars also"

 

[Meowzltov]

Since you brought it up - here is a more recent post on that "other topic" you are so anxious to discuss (in this case it is your own thread that you titled "is God a Liar" )

LOL That's right!! You do enjoy Creationism as well.

 

[BobRyan]

They all agree to what? What a paranoid conspiracy theory. Bob, you are just being weird now.

Calvin was not a modern Scholar.

Neither is Ignatius.

The point remains ... all the papal names in your post - not withstanding

He did not have the training. Philip Schaff is also not a modern scholar.

All of which had more formal training than Ignatius and the fraudulent authors of the majority of letters supposedly from him.

As we all know.