Did the early church worship on Sabbath?

[Adventist Dissident]

Sunday was a normal workday until Constantine made it a day of rest in the 4th century, so there would have been very few people in the

This is true, and yet they had a service on it like prayer meeting. When your digital service to their Sabbath service

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I never said those verses say not to keep the Sabbath commandment. They merely challenge your interpretation of what keeping it means.

Most don't even say anything about the Sabbath so why would you only apply it to this one commandment when the scriptures didn't. Would you also apply those verses as now we no longer need to only worship God? The scripture never said pick one out of Ten or 9 out of Ten. Jesus taught not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments Mat 5:19-30

Paul in several of them was referring to the law of circumcision Gal 2:3 nothing to do with the Sabbath commandment. Its why the context is so important, well at least it should be.

 

[The Liturgist]

Most don't even say anything about the Sabbath so why would you only apply it to this one commandment when the scripture didn't. Would you also apply those verses as now we no longer need to only worship God?

Sorry, that’s a strawman argument, a non sequitur, and therefore fallacious, and also a deeply offensive statement, since the very suggestion that I would say we have no obligation to worship God contradicts what I have said consistently throughout this thread and is deeply offensive, so I will not be replying to that.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Sorry, that’s a strawman argument, a non sequitur, and therefore fallacious, and also a deeply offensive statement, since the very suggestion that I would say we have no obligation to worship God contradicts what I have said consistently throughout this thread and is deeply offensive, so I will not be replying to that.

According to scripture you break one of the commandments you break them all James 2:10-12. You took several scriptures that had nothing to do with the Sabbath commandment yet were trying to use it as a reason we don't keep it in the NT but why stop there, why not apply it to any of the Ten Commandments according to scripture there is no difference.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Your post is too verbal and too emotional. If you wish, try it again with short and precise answers to each point.

Sadly, I see no relevant reaction in your posts. For example, I said Bible never mentions Saturday and you replied with bunch of texts about Sabbath. I said God did not give us the Mosaic Law and you replied with bunch of texts about how it was given to ancient Israel. Similar shooting off target is also in the rest of your text.

it was short and precise with appropriate scripture, I did put the minimum text necessary for comprehension. I can do no more for you at his time.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

I have not “bashed” anyone’s beliefs, but on the other hand, there has been a consistent criticism by yourself and @SabbathBlessings of those churches which adhere to traditional doctrine concerning the Sabbath.

This has extended to a post that warned that at some point in the near future, we would be at risk of receiving the Mark of the Beast if we do not adhere to your denomination’s positions on the subject of the Sabbath, which is a fairly extreme criticism.

I did not report the post in question because it is permitted to criticize other people’s beliefs, up to a certain point. Also, every post I have made has been in response to posts criticizing traditional churches for their views on the Sabbath. I have also made it clear that I would have no problems with sabbatarians who did not constantly criticize non-sabbatarian churches, which the majority of SDA members do not, and indeed I am friends with some Messianic Judaism members of the site.

Dialogue about the Sabbath and the Law is what this specific forum was established for - this is not the Adventist subforum, where obviously it would be against the rules for me to criticize the SDA (but conversely, they can say whatever you want about us in that forum).

you and others too often bash the SDA, using as Ellen white's writings ( BTY you seem to know a lot of Ellen white's writings, which I find a bit strange) as pretext to reject everything @Sabbathblessing says. Know that She uses only Scriptures and to my knowledge never used anything else that deviate from the bible. She knows the bible extremely well, more than I and many would greatly benefit from truly listen to what she writes which Is the truth according to scripture. She is not promoting SDA. it is you who disagree with the truth that keep over and over disparaging SDA on this forum.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

you and others too often bash the SDA, using as Ellen white's writings ( BTY you seem to know a lot of Ellen white's writings, which I find a bit strange) as pretext to reject everything @Sabbathblessing says. Know that She uses only Scriptures and to my knowledge never used anything else that deviate from the bible. She knows the bible extremely well, more than I and many would greatly benefit from truly listen to what she writes which Is the truth according to scripture. She is not promoting SDA. it is you who disagree with the truth that keep over and over disparaging SDA on this forum.

Thank you. I have a lot to learn about the scriptures as well but there are some foundational teachings like the commandments of God and keeping them not to be saved but because one is saved Rev 14:12 and loves Jesus. John 14:15 Exo 20:6 If we understand this all the scriptures will come together with prayerful study as they all work in harmony. I am so happy for you that you found this Truth. Psa 119:151 Mockers are unfortunately what comes with the territory, it used to bother me a lot more, now I give it to Jesus and put my faith in Him to be my shield. I agree with you and your previous scriptures, sometimes we just have to walk away and say our prayers. I‘m still learning this. God bless!

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

The thread was about what sources are official as sources of Roman Catholic Doctrine, in response to the assertion of @SabbathBlessings that the official position of the Roman Catholic Church was that they had changed the date of the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but the documents she provided which apparently claimed that are not official pubilications of the Vatican..

Obviously, all Christian churches accept the Bible as official, so the question here is one of interpretation. But in order to understand how Roman Catholics interpret the Bible, we need to make sure we are using official sources of Roman Catholic doctrine, as opposed to unofficial, obsolete or spurious third-party sources, since our traditional Catholic friend @chevyontheriver denied that that was the teaching, and pointed out the documents cited were not official sources, and also that the function of the imprimatur was being misunderstood (which I had asserted previously as well).

Additionally, as I had pointed out previously, the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church are not relevant as criticisms of the decision making process of the Orthodox Church of myself or @Lukaris or the Lutheran church of @Ain't Zwinglian and @MarkRohfrietsch.



Again, this is an example of a remark that seems to imply that Bad Things Will Happen if non-sabbatarian denominations do not change their doctrine so as to match that of Sabbatarians in terms of how they interpret and follow the Sabbath commandment, which in the Orthodox Church we absolutely do follow, insofar as we have worship services on Saturday as well as Sunday, and furthermore the repose of Christ on the seventh day is remembered through the Eucharist.

the thread was about the early church and if they worshipped on the sabbath, see OP. and title.

The answer is yes they did. The early church primarily worshipped on the Sabbath (Saturday), as it was the traditional day of rest in Judaism. However, many early Christians began gathering on Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection. This shift is hinted at in early Christian texts; for example, Acts 20:7 mentions the disciples gathering on the first day of the week also to break bread.

By the 4th century, this practice gained official endorsement with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, issued by Emperor Constantine, which granted religious tolerance to Christians. Constantine's support was crucial, as he convened the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to address theological disputes and unify Christian doctrine. This council reinforced the emerging custom of Sunday worship as distinct from Sabbath observance. Men did change the sabbath day.

While Constantine himself was not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, his actions laid the groundwork for its development. The bishop of Rome (the Pope) began to assert greater authority, particularly in the 5th century under Pope Leo I, who emphasized the primacy of the Roman See.

By the time of the Great Schism in 1054, which formally divided the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church had developed a distinct identity. The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century further solidified this identity, leading to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which reaffirmed Catholic doctrines. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church evolved into a major religious institution in Western Europe, distinct from both its early forms and other Christian traditions, with Sunday as its primary day of worship.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

the thread was about the early church and if they worshipped on the sabbath, see OP. and title.

The answer is yes they did. The early church primarily worshipped on the Sabbath (Saturday), as it was the traditional day of rest in Judaism. However, many early Christians began gathering on Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection. This shift is hinted at in early Christian texts; for example, Acts 20:7 mentions the disciples gathering on the first day of the week also to break bread.

By the 4th century, this practice gained official endorsement with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, issued by Emperor Constantine, which granted religious tolerance to Christians. Constantine's support was crucial, as he convened the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to address theological disputes and unify Christian doctrine. This council reinforced the emerging custom of Sunday worship as distinct from Sabbath observance. Men did change the sabbath day.

While Constantine himself was not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, his actions laid the groundwork for its development. The bishop of Rome (the Pope) began to assert greater authority, particularly in the 5th century under Pope Leo I, who emphasized the primacy of the Roman See.

By the time of the Great Schism in 1054, which formally divided the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church had developed a distinct identity. The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century further solidified this identity, leading to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which reaffirmed Catholic doctrines. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church evolved into a major religious institution in Western Europe, distinct from both its early forms and other Christian traditions, with Sunday as its primary day of worship.

Agree.

Just want to add for what its worth about Acts 20:7

Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight

Theres a few things about this verse. The days in scripture start in the evenings so this was a Saturday night meeting (beginning of day 1) and the reason they were meeting to break bread (have a meal) because Paul was going on one of his long mission trip in the morning. They were already gathered together to keep the Sabbath as scripture indicates they kept every Sabbath Acts 15:21 Acts 18:4 so Paul being long-winded from preaching on the Sabbath and leaving the next morning probably wanted to spend as much time with everyone. The scriptures indicate they broke bread daily Acts 2:46 and there is no indication that this gathering means any change to the Sabbath commandment. I’m sure you know this, but this is one of the verses people use against the Sabbath without careful study of the context and the fact it says nothing about changing one of God’s commandments.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

I never said those verses say not to keep the Sabbath commandment. They merely challenge your interpretation of what keeping it means.

I do see based only on scripture that Paul was an apostle and was converted, the problem I have is that Paul is indeed difficult to understand and easy to misinterpret. I see a huge difference in how the Message of Paul about his gospel to use his exact terms was compared to the Gospel as presented by Jesus. Because of this I tend to always go back to the words of Jesus or the other disciples/ apostles chosen by jesus and compare, I will give you an example how quickly things can go wrong

Justified by Faith​

Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

apparent contrast with James brother of Christ;

Faith Without Works Is Dead​

Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jas 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent themout another way?
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


How do we reconcile this, see what I mean?

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Agree.

Just want to add for what its worth about Acts 20:7

Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight

Theres a few things about this verse. The days in scripture start in the evenings so this was a Saturday night meeting (beginning of day 1) and the reason they were meeting to break bread (have a meal) because Paul was going on one of his long mission trips in the morning. They were already gathered together to keep the Sabbath as scripture indicates they kept every Sabbath Acts 15:21 Acts 18:4 so Paul being long-winded from preaching on the Sabbath and leaving the next morning probably wanted to spend as much time with everyone. The scriptures indicate they broke bread daily Acts 2:46 and there is no indication that this gathering means any change to the Sabbath commandment. I’m sure you know this, but this is one of the verses people use against the Sabbath without careful study of the context and the fact it says nothing about changing one of God’s commandments.

absolutely I agree yes!

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I do see based only on scripture that Paul was an apostle and was converted, the problem I have is that Paul is indeed difficult to understand and easy to misinterpret. I see a huge difference in how the Message of Paul about his gospel to use his exact terms was compared to the Gospel as presented by Jesus. Because of this I tend to always go back to the words of Jesus or the other disciples/ apostles chosen by jesus and compare, I will give you an example how quickly things can go wrong

Justified by Faith​

Gal 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

apparent contrast with James brother of Christ;

Faith Without Works Is Dead​

Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jas 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent themout another way?
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


How do we reconcile this, see what I mean?

I’m going to PM you! Probably a little later this evening, need to make hubby some supper.

 

[JSRG]

You are working under a false premise as if they aren't verified.

I personally haven't verified every single one of the quotes, but I have for many...and yes they are all basically saying the same thing, the Catholic church changed God's Sabbath commandment based on their own authority, not from scripture. Someone changed God's Sabbath commandment just as predicted Dan 7:25 and it wasn't God. He promised not to alter the words of His covenant Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18-19 and why the Sabbath never ended at the Cross Mat 24:20 or ever Isa 66:23 thus saith the Lord, which I believe is who we should follow over any man or institution.

Here's a link to verify three quotes A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan

I was told by a poster here Rev Keenan is not a reliable source and his teaching is in contradiction to the Catholic church despite CONFORM ABLY TO THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN. yet everything the Catholic church teaches exalts a man-made holy day Sunday above God's chosen holy day in His own Words Isa 58:13 that is also one of God's personally written commandments Exo 20:8-11, so the Catholic church appears to be in harmony with the teachings of Rev Keenan and the priests etc and from the other quotes. Did they change the Sabbath to Sunday ,Constatine did in the third century. Does it matter, not really because regardless who changed it we should only have faith in God and live by His words, not those who changed God's times and laws. We should follow God and His Word.

Here's another source verified https://www.preparingforeternity.com/converts-catechism1937.pdf
And another https://www.sabbathtruth.com/portals/20/documents/dies-domini.pdf
And another CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Ten Commandments
and another St. Catherine Catholic Church - Sentinel May 21, 1995 - Volume 50, Number 22, Algonac Michigan
and another one The Catholic Record, Sept. 1, 1923.
another one https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27435/27435-pdf.pdf

I don't know if you are aware, but the further we get from something occurring, the less accurate is the information, not more accurate. If we compare old dictionaries to new ones totally different definitions. Man makes errors. The devil is out to deceive the whole world and one way he is doing so is through the re-writing of information. Even in some of the new bible translations that millions of people buy completely changed the original Text and add many things, which one day they will have to answer to God for. The only thing we can trust is God's Word. God personally wrote Ten Commandments, numbered them by design Exo 34:28 Deut 4:13 said He would not alter Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18-19 and is if man has the authority to re-write God's holy law, they don't, its a very tempting and deceptive doctrine leading millions of people to break one of Gods commandments. The road is narrow and keeping true to what Jesus taught and kept will never deceive us. But we each have the ability to decide for ourselves, follow the popular path or follow what He said. This is the path Jesus taught John 14:15 Mat 15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13

Except they aren't "basically saying the same thing". Some of those quotes you cited didn't mention the Sabbath at all, or didn't say anything about the Catholic Church's "own authority".

It's also a bit odd that you protest I'm "working under a false premise as if they aren't verified" while simultaneously saying "I personally haven't verified every single one of the quotes." Now, if you have bothered to look up some, that at least puts you ahead of the majority of people who clearly have not (which is why I said "The quotations you offer are the usual copy/pasted quotations that people spread around, normally without having ever verified them") but you're still admitting some are unverified despite saying it's a false premise to say they're unverified.

But this is ignoring my larger point, which applied regardless of whether the quotations you offered were true or not. That's why I spent most of my post on this "larger point" and only mentioned the issue of copy/pasted quotations being unverified briefly. In your response post, you focus on this brief point while ignoring the larger, more important, point I made. Because the issue isn't just verification; it's also relevance. You've been appearing to claim that the Sabbath change not being found in scripture is some kind of "official teaching" of the Catholic Church, and then threw out the slew of copy/pasted citations. But as I noted:

Focusing on what most of your copy/pasted quotations seem to have in common, they're largely a bunch of Catholic writers trying to use the argument of "you think the Sabbath is to be observed on Sunday, but no such command is found in the bible, so you're violating sola scriptura" against Protestants. I don't personally think it's a particularly good argument, which may be why it has lost popularity (hence why the quotes you offered of it are overwhelmingly from the 19th or early 20th centuries), but at any rate that was the argument. The fact some guys in popular apologetics used this as an argument doesn't make it a teaching of the Catholic Church itself any more than the fact someone on Catholic Answers used a particular argument makes it a teaching thereof.

Indeed, quite a few of these are just things in newspapers... if I were to quote the National Catholic Reporter or National Catholic Register, it hardly makes it a teaching of hte Catholic Church. Some at least are a statement from a priest, but that doesn't mean it's some kind of Catholic doctrine any more than a random Lutheran minister saying something means it's Lutheran doctrine.

Now, let us be fair. While your copy/pasted quotations may largely lack any real authority, a few of them at least have an imprimatur and nihil obstat. But that does not mean everything in them is any kind of formal Catholic teaching. The meaning of the nihil obstat is often misunderstood; the nihil obstat does not say everything is Catholic doctrine, merely that it doesn't contradict Catholic doctrine. Possibly to remedy the confusion about it, later works with an imprimatur and nihil obstat include this helpful explanation on the page stating the nihil obstat:

"The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed."

Or to put it another way: It is a statement that a Catholic reader can accept everything in the work as valid without contradicting any Catholic doctrine, but does not say everything in it is a Catholic doctrine that must be accepted.

It's clear that some Catholic apologists seemed to think this "Sabbath change not found in scripture" was an argument worth using--more so in the past than in the present--but all the quotations of them doing so only mean is that some thought it was an argument worth using, but not that these apologetic arguments are some kind of teaching or doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I know it's perhaps a bit gauche to simply repeat my prior message again, but I feel like I almost need to simply because you didn't appear to respond to it. You just protested that some of the copy/pasted quotes can be verified (while also admitting not to have done that for all of them) and then went off on tangents not actually addressing the above points. The problem isn't merely the question of verification, it's the problem of relevance, which I discussed. Some guys making an apologetics argument doesn't make it Catholic doctrine.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Except they aren't "basically saying the same thing". Some of those quotes you cited didn't mention the Sabbath at all, or didn't say anything about the Catholic Church's "own authority".

It's also a bit odd that you protest I'm "working under a false premise as if they aren't verified" while simultaneously saying "I personally haven't verified every single one of the quotes." Now, if you have bothered to look up some, that at least puts you ahead of the majority of people who clearly have not (which is why I said "The quotations you offer are the usual copy/pasted quotations that people spread around, normally without having ever verified them") but you're still admitting some are unverified despite saying it's a false premise to say they're unverified.

But this is ignoring my larger point, which applied regardless of whether the quotations you offered were true or not. That's why I spent most of my post on this "larger point" and only mentioned the issue of copy/pasted quotations being unverified briefly. In your response post, you focus on this brief point while ignoring the larger, more important, point I made. Because the issue isn't just verification; it's also relevance. You've been appearing to claim that the Sabbath change not being found in scripture is some kind of "official teaching" of the Catholic Church, and then threw out the slew of copy/pasted citations. But as I noted:

Focusing on what most of your copy/pasted quotations seem to have in common, they're largely a bunch of Catholic writers trying to use the argument of "you think the Sabbath is to be observed on Sunday, but no such command is found in the bible, so you're violating sola scriptura" against Protestants. I don't personally think it's a particularly good argument, which may be why it has lost popularity (hence why the quotes you offered of it are overwhelmingly from the 19th or early 20th centuries), but at any rate that was the argument. The fact some guys in popular apologetics used this as an argument doesn't make it a teaching of the Catholic Church itself any more than the fact someone on Catholic Answers used a particular argument makes it a teaching thereof.

Indeed, quite a few of these are just things in newspapers... if I were to quote the National Catholic Reporter or National Catholic Register, it hardly makes it a teaching of hte Catholic Church. Some at least are a statement from a priest, but that doesn't mean it's some kind of Catholic doctrine any more than a random Lutheran minister saying something means it's Lutheran doctrine.

Now, let us be fair. While your copy/pasted quotations may largely lack any real authority, a few of them at least have an imprimatur and nihil obstat. But that does not mean everything in them is any kind of formal Catholic teaching. The meaning of the nihil obstat is often misunderstood; the nihil obstat does not say everything is Catholic doctrine, merely that it doesn't contradict Catholic doctrine. Possibly to remedy the confusion about it, later works with an imprimatur and nihil obstat include this helpful explanation on the page stating the nihil obstat:

"The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed."

Or to put it another way: It is a statement that a Catholic reader can accept everything in the work as valid without contradicting any Catholic doctrine, but does not say everything in it is a Catholic doctrine that must be accepted.

It's clear that some Catholic apologists seemed to think this "Sabbath change not found in scripture" was an argument worth using--more so in the past than in the present--but all the quotations of them doing so only mean is that some thought it was an argument worth using, but not that these apologetic arguments are some kind of teaching or doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I know it's perhaps a bit gauche to simply repeat my prior message again, but I feel like I almost need to simply because you didn't appear to respond to it. You just protested that some of the copy/pasted quotes can be verified (while also admitting not to have done that for all of them) and then went off on tangents not actually addressing the above points. The problem isn't merely the question of verification, it's the problem of relevance, which I discussed. Some guys making an apologetics argument doesn't make it Catholic doctrine.

Let’s be honest here I verified 9 of the quotes, so it’s not like the majority went unverified. You are free to prove they are false quotes but yet you did not do that.

The Sabbath was changed, not by scripture, people who claim to be catholic, in various Catholic publications and encyclopedias takes credit for this change and no uproar from the Catholic church on all these so called- false quotes in Catholic publications discrediting the egregious claim that they changed one of God’s finger-written commandments. That’s a serious charge, so I find it weird that no one would come forward saying these claims are wrong. Instead someone did come forward saying two of these quotes from centuries before were true.

Bottom line, the Sabbath was changed, just as predicted Dan 7:25 not by a thus saith the Lord. At the end of the day, what matters is obeying God over following man-made traditions, but we are all given free will.

 

[The Liturgist]

Constantine's support was crucial, as he convened the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to address theological disputes and unify Christian doctrine. This council reinforced the emerging custom of Sunday worship as distinct from Sabbath observance. Men did change the sabbath day.

This is factually incorrect. The Council of Nicaea was convened to address the heresy of Arianism, the teaching that Jesus Christ is not God incarnate. It did not enact any legislation that would have the effect of changing the day of worship, other than its decision to end Quartodecimianism in favor of the majority preference of celebrating the Pascha on the first Sunday after the vernal equinox.

But we know from St. Justin Martyr and other second century writers that the church already met on Sunday, which confirms what is indicated in the New Testament.

you and others too often bash the SDA, using as Ellen white's writings ( BTY you seem to know a lot of Ellen white's writings, which I find a bit strange) as pretext to reject everything @Sabbathblessing says. Know that She uses only Scriptures and to my knowledge never used anything else that deviate from the bible. She knows the bible extremely well, more than I and many would greatly benefit from truly listen to what she writes which Is the truth according to scripture. She is not promoting SDA. it is you who disagree with the truth that keep over and over disparaging SDA on this forum.

Only in response to SDAs attacking our churches. If they would leave us alone and not constantly criticize our churches for various reasons, especially the Roman Catholic and other liturgical churches, and make posts implying we are at risk of receiving the Mark of the Beast if we don’t change how we do things, we would have no cause to criticize them. I have never written a post critical of Messianic Judaism as the Messianic Jews have always been nice to me, personally, and have never made posts challenging their views.

Know that She uses only Scriptures and to my knowledge never used anything else that deviate from the bible.

That’s not true, the Great Controversy contains an extensive amount of ecclesiastical history, where she made multiple errors, and ignored the existence of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, probably because she was unaware of them, but this has the effect of showing her dualistic view of the Sabbatarians as the supreme expression of Protestantism that had existed since antiquity (which is untrue) versus the Roman Catholics as a false dichotomy. I do give her credit where it is due, for teaching Adventists the importance of the Trinity.

As for the extent of her knowledge of Scripture, who else have you read to compare her works to?

 

[The Liturgist]

Theres a few things about this verse. The days in scripture start in the evenings so this was a Saturday night meeting (beginning of day 1) and the reason they were meeting to break bread (have a meal) because Paul was going on one of his long mission trip in the morning.

That is called meeting on Sunday.

They were already gathered together to keep the Sabbath

Thar’s supposition. And the verses you provide do not say all of the Apostles kept every Sabbath - that’s a huge exaggeration of what it actually says, the first one mot applying to the Apostles at all and the second one stating that St. Paul addressed, at that time, the Jews and Greeks on a Sabbath in a synagogue, but it cannot be applied retroactively.

And it does not negate the three key event that happened on Sunday: the entrance of Light into the World at the start of Creation, the resurrection of Christ our True God, and the Descent of the Holy Spirit.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That is called meeting on Sunday.

Saturday evening, the beginning of day one

Thar’s supposition. And the verses you provide do not say all of the Apostles kept every Sabbath - that’s a huge exaggeration of what it actually says, the first one mot applying to the Apostles at all and the second one stating that St. Paul addressed, at that time, the Jews and Greeks on a Sabbath in a synagogue, but it cannot be applied retroactively.

It says they kept every Sabbath- Acts 15:21 Acts 18:4. That would include the Sabbath when the apostles were together that evening, on the first day of the week, Saturday night to have a meal before Paul went on his mission trip in the morning. Nothing about changing the God’s Sabbath commandment.

And it does not negate the three key event that happened on Sunday: the entrance of Light into the World at the start of Creation, the resurrection of Christ our True God, and the Descent of the Holy Spirit.

And yet not a commandment to keep Sunday holy or that Sunday was sanctified or blessed by God, or God’s holy day. That would be important Text to have because even through God started creation on the first day and rose on the first day God still considers it a working day Exo 20:9 and not the holy day of the Lord thy God thus saith the Lord Isa 58:13. Its better imho to follow what God did say, than to assume something that is not there.

 

[The Liturgist]

The answer is yes they did. The early church primarily worshipped on the Sabbath (Saturday), as it was the traditional day of rest in Judaism. However, many early Christians began gathering on Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection. This shift is hinted at in early Christian texts; for example, Acts 20:7 mentions the disciples gathering on the first day of the week also to break bread.

As they were right to do, unless you now presume to criticize the Apostolic Church. Indeed the Orthodox continue to worship on Saturday and Sunday throughout the hear, with many churches worshipping on every Saturday. As I have mentioned in this thread.

This is why I am so bewildered by Adventist criticisms of us - they seem to be driven by the fact that we also worship on Sunday. For I keep the Sabbath according to the praxis of my church.

According to scripture you break one of the commandments you break them all James 2:10-12. You took several scriptures that had nothing to do with the Sabbath commandment yet were trying to use it as a reason we don't keep it in the NT but why stop there, why not apply it to any of the Ten Commandments according to scripture there is no difference.

As I have repeatedly said, I observe the Sabbath. Please stop accusing me of not observing it or of breaking it, or of encouraging others to do so.

Just because you disagree with how I keep the Sabbath does not give you the right to say I don’t keep it.

 

[The Liturgist]

evening, the beginning of day one

According to Judaism and traditional Christianity, it is Sunday. Saturday evening ends at sunset. And at any rate Scripture said they met on the first day, which could mean meeting the night before, but it could also mean meeting at any time prior to sunset on Sunday. Your idea that it was a Vesperal meeting is purely conjectural.

And regarding those other verses, they simply do not say what you assert, unless you are using a very different translation of the Bible from what I am using.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

As they were right to do, unless you now presume to criticize the Apostolic Church. Indeed the Orthodox continue to worship on Saturday and Sunday throughout the hear, with many churches worshipping on every Saturday. As I have mentioned in this thread.

This is why I am so bewildered by Adventist criticisms of us - they seem to be driven by the fact that we also worship on Sunday. For I keep the Sabbath according to the praxis of my church.



As I have repeatedly said, I observe the Sabbath. Please stop accusing me of not observing it or of breaking it, or of encouraging others to do so.

Just because you disagree with how I keep the Sabbath does not give you the right to say I don’t keep it.

Where in my post did I accuse you? Quoting what the scripture says is not accusing. I do hope you understand the difference. However I find it odd one would argue against the Sabbath while claiming to keep it, not accusing just find it odd. I try not to accuse people or make it personal, we all have to answer to a much greater Authority and there is nothing any of us can hide from God Ecc 12:13-14 He is the only who can read our hearts and He alone is our righteous Judge. I prefer to stick with what the scriptures say. God’s Word should do the talking, if one feels convicted by the scriptures, thats what they are supposed to do, they are to be as sharp as a two-edged sword. Heb 4:12