Why the Catholic Church changes the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday

[BobRyan]

Instructing us to worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath is not a "commandment of Men"

Well that is true - in Isaiah 58:13 we are to worship on the Lord's Day - the "Holy Day of the Lord" which in Isaiiah 58 is identified as Sabbath. Even your own "Faith Explained" documents admits to it.

It just does not get any easier than that

But in Mark 7 Christ is condemning a commandment of the Church in his day -- the one TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai with system in place for choosing successors and selecting members of the holy priesthood. It is THEY who are being condemned --- yes even THEY.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well that is true - in Isaiah 58:13 we are to worship on the Lord's Day - the "Holy Day of the Lord" which in Isaiiah 58 is identified as Sabbath.

Ah your old argument that has been repeatedly debunked. The "Holy Day of the Lord" is not the same thing as "The Lord's Day." You need to retire these tired crumbs.

 

[BobRyan]

Instructing us to worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath is not a "commandment of Men"

Well that is true - in Isaiah 58:13 we are to worship on the Lord's Day - the "Holy Day of the Lord" which in Isaiiah 58 is identified as Sabbath. Even your own "Faith Explained" documents admits to it.

It just does not get any easier than that

But in Mark 7 Christ is condemning a commandment of the Church in his day -- the one TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai with system in place for choosing successors and selecting members of the holy priesthood. It is THEY who are being condemned --- yes even THEY.

Ah your old argument

True - Bible details - are pretty old.

that has been repeatedly debunked.

Nope. The Bible has not been debunked by simply ignoring it and appealing to tradition instead.

The "Holy Day of the Lord" is not the same thing as "The Lord's Day."

Correction "the Sabbath is the Holy Day of the LORD" is in fact a much stronger Bible-case for the Lord's Day than

1. NO Text saying week-day-1 is "the Holy Day of the LORD"
2. NO Text saying week-day-1 is "the LORD's Day"

What is interesting is that even your own RCC (for example Pope - John Paul II) admits that in the Bible the Lord's Day is the Sabbath as originally given by God - and so also does your own RCC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism "The Faith Explained" admit the same thing!

Why not give consideration to being in agreement with your own RCC statements?

That is what we call a "slam dunk" debunk of the week-day-1 over Bible Sabbath argument. Each time you ask that these details be brought back up - I am more than happy to comply with your invitation.

It just does not get any easier than this!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Finding a way to avoid "the easy part" as noted above - is not the path of truth.

And the truth is - all sides agree that the Bible Sabbath is the Lord's Day of the Bible as given by God - as we find it in Isaiah 58:13

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jesus spoke these things,
Luke 6: King James Version (KJV)
5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.
(he had not died when he said this so he was speaking of the Seventh day Sabbath not First day of the week)

Good! very good!
Thanks

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

extremely off topic -- and has nothing at all to do with this thread.

"We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe."

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

Not so extremely off topic. Watch the latest with regard to the referred to 'science' FICTION.
Like your theology, the above 'information' needs to be refurbished.

 

[BobRyan]

Not so extremely off topic. Watch the latest with regard to the referred to 'science' FICTION.
Like your theology, the above needs to be refurbished.

wild accusations do not a post-of-substance make

 

[BobRyan]

Here is an example of - on topic posting.

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

Instructing us to worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath is not a "commandment of Men"

Well that is true - in Isaiah 58:13 we are to worship on the Lord's Day - the "Holy Day of the Lord" which in Isaiiah 58 is identified as Sabbath. Even your own "Faith Explained" documents admits to it.

It just does not get any easier than that

But in Mark 7 Christ is condemning a commandment of the Church in his day -- the one TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai with system in place for choosing successors and selecting members of the holy priesthood. It is THEY who are being condemned --- yes even THEY.

Ah your old argument

True - Bible details - are pretty old.

that has been repeatedly debunked.

Nope. The Bible has not been debunked by simply ignoring it and appealing to tradition instead.

The "Holy Day of the Lord" is not the same thing as "The Lord's Day."

Correction "the Sabbath is the Holy Day of the LORD" is in fact a much stronger Bible-case for the Lord's Day than

1. NO Text saying week-day-1 is "the Holy Day of the LORD"
2. NO Text saying week-day-1 is "the LORD's Day"

What is interesting is that even your own RCC (for example Pope - John Paul II) admits that in the Bible the Lord's Day is the Sabbath as originally given by God - and so also does your own RCC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism "The Faith Explained" admit the same thing!

Why not give consideration to being in agreement with your own RCC statements?

That is what we call a "slam dunk" debunk of the week-day-1 over Bible Sabbath argument. Each time you ask that these details be brought back up - I am more than happy to comply with your invitation.

It just does not get any easier than this!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ah your old argument that has been repeatedly debunked. The "Holy Day of the Lord" is not the same thing as "The Lord's Day." You need to retire these tired crumbs.

I'll take you a bet Bob is right and you are wrong.
Unless you can place here, and quick, Scripture that supports your fallacy. If you want to run with the big dogs, don't yelp like a puppy trying to.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

wild accusations do not a post-of-substance make

No use smiling when addressing Bob, Colonel of Club Complacent Laodicea.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It is unthinkable that she [the Church*] would claim to replace Israel. She is not another Israel

[the Church*] Roman Catholic. Lucky Israel, woe the Church with as Head given to the Church, Christ.

 

[Meowzltov]

Correction "the Sabbath is the Holy Day of the LORD" is in fact a much stronger Bible-case for the Lord's Day than

1. NO Text saying week-day-1 is "the Holy Day of the LORD"
2. NO Text saying week-day-1 is "the LORD's Day"

Bob, you are being dishonest. You know very well that the Early Church considered Day 1 to be the Lords day. We have documents going back as early as the first century stating this. Other documents give the reasoning as being that Christ rose on the first day.

Your repetition of the same flawed arguments in the light of the truth is so wearying.

 

[Meowzltov]

I'll take you a bet Bob is right and you are wrong.
Unless you can place here, and quick, Scripture that supports your fallacy. If you want to run with the big dogs, don't yelp like a puppy trying to.

The Lord's Day" is a specific Greek Phrase used by the Greek Church to refer to the "eighth day" aka the "resurrection day." We know this from letters of the Early Church Fathers. Bob's only answer to this is a desperate ploy to say that all these letters are frauds, despite the fact that the consensus of scholars is that they are authentic. The earliest one is Ignatius Letter to the Magnesians, AD 110 or earlier, which states that they meet on the Lord's day instead of the Sabbath.

 

[Meowzltov]

[the Church*] Roman Catholic. Lucky Israel, woe the Church with as Head given to the Church, Christ.

I read this several times, trying to figure out what you were saying...

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you are being dishonest.

No I am not. Just because you take a different POV does not mean those who differ with you are "dishonest" -- and we all know it.

You know very well that the Early Church considered Day 1 to be the Lords day.

The early church of the first century did no such thing - one would have to "imagine that into the text" -- having found none. And so -- you quote none.

And your own RCC sources admit that in the Bible the Lord's day is the Bible Sabbath as given by God and referenced in placed like Isaiah 58:13. This is a case where you are opposing not only the Bible, not only the Bible Sabbath accepting Christians - but also your own RCC sources!

It just does not get any easier and more obvious than this.

We have documents going back as early as the first century stating this.

I do -- it called the Bible.

you don't.




Your repetition of the same flawed arguments in the light of the truth is so wearying.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is an example of - on topic posting.

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

Instructing us to worship on the Lord's Day rather than the Sabbath is not a "commandment of Men"

Well that is true - in Isaiah 58:13 we are to worship on the Lord's Day - the "Holy Day of the Lord" which in Isaiiah 58 is identified as Sabbath. Even your own "Faith Explained" documents admits to it.

It just does not get any easier than that

But in Mark 7 Christ is condemning a commandment of the Church in his day -- the one TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai with system in place for choosing successors and selecting members of the holy priesthood. It is THEY who are being condemned --- yes even THEY.

Ah your old argument

True - Bible details - are pretty old.

that has been repeatedly debunked.

Nope. The Bible has not been debunked by simply ignoring it and appealing to tradition instead.

The "Holy Day of the Lord" is not the same thing as "The Lord's Day."

Correction "the Sabbath is the Holy Day of the LORD" is in fact a much stronger Bible-case for the Lord's Day than

1. NO Text saying week-day-1 is "the Holy Day of the LORD"
2. NO Text saying week-day-1 is "the LORD's Day"

What is interesting is that even your own RCC (for example Pope - John Paul II) admits that in the Bible the Lord's Day is the Sabbath as originally given by God - and so also does your own RCC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism "The Faith Explained" admit the same thing!

Why not give consideration to being in agreement with your own RCC statements?

That is what we call a "slam dunk" debunk of the week-day-1 over Bible Sabbath argument. Each time you ask that these details be brought back up - I am more than happy to comply with your invitation.

It just does not get any easier than this!

The Lord's Day" is a specific Greek Phrase used by the Greek Church to refer to the "eighth day" aka the "resurrection day." We know this from letters of the Early Church Fathers. Bob's only answer to this is a desperate ploy to say that all these letters are frauds,

It is a pile of letters where all agree that the majority in that pile are confirmed fraud and the rest are suspected of being rife with interpolation. Howeever - in my post above - that is not the point I am making. And we all know it.

 

[Meowzltov]

No I am not. Just because you take a different POV does not mean those who differ with you are "dishonest" -- and we all know it.

Bob, I'm no longer going to answer posts where you quote the previous three posts. It's too much work to try to figure out exactly which part is the post to which you are actually replying. If I need to know the background of a post, I can follow the arrows back.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I'm no longer going to answer posts where you quote the previous three posts. .

So then you have to circle back to the ignatius pile of litters - each time I bring up the Bible and also bring up the fact that even your own RCC admits that the LORD's day in the Bible - as God gave it - in places like Is 58:13 - is the Bible Sabbath.. again you circle back to the pile of letters where everyone agrees that the majority of it is proven fraud and hoax. And each time you "circle back" that debunked position - we are to conclude "it is brand new"? Really?

The post you are complaining about shows you rejecting the Bible truth on the LORD's day as God gave it being the Bible Sabbath in Is 58:13 -- and it shows that even your own RCC admits to the very Bible detail you reject.

It just does not get any easier than that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Meowzltov]

So then you have to circle back to the ignatius pile of litters - each time I bring up the Bible and also bring up the fact that even your own RCC admits that the LORD's day in the Bible - as God gave it - in places like Is 58:13 - is the Bible Sabbath.. again you circle back to the pile of letters where everyone agrees that the majority of it is proven fraud and hoax. And each time you "circle back" that debunked position - we are to conclude "it is brand new"? Really?

The post you are complaining about shows you rejecting the Bible truth on the LORD's day as God gave it being the Bible Sabbath in Is 58:13 -- and it shows that even your own RCC admits to the very Bible detail you reject.

It just does not get any easier than that.

in Christ,

Bob

I've answered ALL OF THIS, showing that your claims are untrue. It seems all you can do is bring up the same old false claims over and over and over.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bob, you are being dishonest. You know very well that the Early Church considered Day 1 to be the Lords day. We have documents going back as early as the first century stating this. Other documents give the reasoning as being that Christ rose on the first day.

Bob, by quoting, Holy Scripture, is dishonest!?


But you, quoting no Scripture nor any <<first or second century documents>> for your dishonest groundless plain false claims, is honest?!


It for a fact is claimed, <<other documents give the reasoning that Christ rose on the first day>>, but the first such document must still be discovered. This claim like your other claim, is clearly dishonest groundless and false.


OR PLACE YOUR CLAIMED DOCUMENT!