The Church started in the wilderness

[SabbathBlessings]

Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Thats right. Past sins when confessing and repenting. Which means a a change of heart and a change of direction. Why when Jesus gave grace, He immediately would say, go and sin no more. We are not saved in our sins, we are saved from sin Mat 1:21. He wants a complete heart transformation.

 

[ralliann]

Thats right. Past sins when confessing and repenting. Which means a a change of heart and a change of direction. Why when Jesus gave grace, He immediately would say, go and sin no more. We are not saved in our sins, we are saved from sin Mat 1:21. He wants a complete heart transformation.

Right that is why confession of grave sin before partaking. Partaking in communion with all the members. The Catholic speaks of communion of the saints, or sharing in the life of the Church.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Right that is why confession of grave sin before partaking. Partaking in communion with all the members. The Catholic speaks of communion of the saints, or sharing in the life of the Church.

I’m not Catholic so for me I believe the Bible is the path that should guide us Psa 119:105

We don’t need communion or an earthy priest to confess our sins, I view communion more of a mini baptism - our recommitment to Christ. Jesus is our High Priest and anytime we sin we should go to Jesus and ask for His forgiveness and for His power to help us overcome temptation and sin.

Pro 28:13 He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” [g]says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[ralliann]

I’m not Catholic so

You did quote a Catholic historian, concerning a dispute within the Church

for me I believe the Bible is the path that should guide us Psa 119:105

We don’t need communion or an earthy priest to confess our sins, I view communion more of a mini baptism - our recommitment to Christ. Jesus is our High Priest and anytime we sin we should go to Jesus and ask for His forgiveness and for His power to help us overcome temptation and sin.

Pro 28:13 He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” [g]says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

My response has been concerning Easter as the Lords supper, and the dispute in Eusebius.
I also am not Catholic either. But the ancient Orthodox Church is.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You did quote a Catholic historian, concerning a dispute within the Church

I ran across that article when I was searching for another one, but had a similar message.

I agree with the author on these things
1. Easter came from pagan influences
2. Passover was never always on a Sunday in scripture
3. Man changed the day of Passover, just like they changed the corporate day of worship, as we were warned Dan 7:25

For a Catholic historian I will have to agree with him about the weekly Sabbath as well

What Day Is the Sabbath?

thecleartruth.com

 

[DamianWarS]

All have sinned (broken the law...Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law (I John 3:4) and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). When Jesus (the true Lamb of God) was sacrificed, he removed our past sins. If we accept Jesus as our sin offering, we are required to repent and get baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS ("there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved..."(Acts 4: 12).

To repent means to turn from our sinful ways and start obeying God's law. The water baptism signifies the washing away of our past sins. After repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus it would be foolish for us to turn around and willingly break God's commandments. If we make an honest mistake Jesus can help us, but if we sin willingly, look out! "...there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation..." (Hebrews 10:26-27).

Are you saying not getting physically circumcised is a transgression of the law, thus is sinful?

According to Gen 17 circumcision is an everlasting covenant between Abraham and God for generations to come that must be in the flesh otherwise you are cut off from your people. This word "everlasting" is the same word used to describe sabbath.

So is not getting circumcised in the flesh against the the law or does it agree with the law?

There are 2 problems depending on how you answer it (as you seem to be avoiding this answer). If not getting circumcised is a transgression against the law thus is sinful you have a problem with NT teaching that explicitly states circumcision in the flesh is not needed and even discourages the practice. If it is not sinful then you have a problem with God's law that explicitly states as physical and everlasting which uses the same language of the Sabbath, you must then consider the same outcome not just to the sabbath but to all law. Either we circumcise, (not to mention the many others we ignore) or we view all law in a different way.

Circumcison is a great example as it is spelled out in the NT and it's value of circumcision is of the heart, not a physical value but a spiritual value. Since God is of order not of chaos we can use this as a heuristic approach to view all law. If this is too abtract just add "of the heart" at the end like Sabbath of the heart, or as a catch all just say "law written upon our hearts".

Sabbath of the heart is salvation and when we seek it as well as ensure those under our care, including foreigners, we are keeping Christ commandment to love and spreading the gospel. When we shut the blinds and lock our doors so we may simply resist working.... we aren't doing anything for the kingdom, certainly not loving our neighbour.

 

[JSRG]

What is Easter?
An English Monk named Bede wrote a book about the English calendar 725 AD. He explains that in England, the Passover season was called Easter because in former times the people had celebrated a spring festival at that time in honor of a goddess named Eostre. (Bede, The Reckoning of Time, chapter 15).

So, Bede's remarks regarding Eostre can be found here. It is very critical to note that this is the only mention we have by anyone of Eostre. If anyone tries to make any claims about Eostre that are not in those quoted sections, they're simply speculating.

Here is where we run into an issue with the claim that the word Easter comes from Eostre (or from the month allegedly named after Eostre--Bede's Latin is unclear on the subject). This is the fact that outside of Bede's brief remarks, which only come about because he's talking about where the names of the English months come from, we have no clear evidence that this goddess ever existed. Given that Bede for the prior month (Hrethmonath) says it was named after a goddess, who we also have no clear evidence of outside of his brief remark, there is a considerable probability that Bede was simply wrong on this.

It's possible Bede had access to records we do not. But this etymology must be regarded as uncertain.

In addition to changing the name from Passover to Easter, many traditions were added to this festival, such as Easter eggs, rabbits, and hot crossed buns. These customs were borrowed from pre-Christian spring holidays that celebrated fertility.

Sorry, but this is total nonsense. None of these were taken from "pre-Christian spring holidays". Not only is there a lack of evidence of these things in "pre-Christian spring holidays" to begin with, they appear too late in Easter traditions for this to work. Easter eggs appear to have come about around the 10th century. The earliest mention of the Easter Bunny anyone has been able to point to is a 17th century work. The first mention of hot cross buns is, as far as I can tell, from the 18th century. All of these are too late for this hypothesis to work because paganism had been long gone at this point; even the earliest, easter eggs, come too late. So this paragraph is a load of nonsense.

Jesus told His disciples to remember Him by following the example He gave to them that night. In other words, in original Christianity, Christians celebrated the Passover with the symbols of bread and wine, and with foot washing (John 13:15). All of the apostles, did exactly what Jesus taught them. They kept the Christian Passover, with the New Covenant symbols of the bread and wine, on the night of the 14th day of the first month of the Hebrew calendar.

We find that more than 150 years later, the churches in Asia Minor (western Turkey), were still keeping the Christian Passover in the same way and on the same day as the apostles.

It is a bold claim indeed to claim that "all the apostles" kept the Christian Passover on the 14th day. The very source it appeals to--Eusebius's Church History (this is the exact link they offer)--states the opposite:

A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour. 2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote. 3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.

And it is further stated later:

1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words: 2. “Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.”

This is in reference to Narcissus and Theophilus, who as noted earlier were holding Pascha/Easter only on the day of the Resurrection. As it notes here, they cite the authority of the apostles that came before them as doing so.

So the tradition of holding it only on the day of the Resurrection is stated to also be of apostolic tradition. Thus it appears that the apostles themselves had diverging practices on this subject.

Around 190 AD, leaders from other areas tried to force the Christians in Asia Minor to keep the Passover on Sunday, instead of on the 14th day of the first month on the Hebrew calendar. Polycrates, a leader in the church at Ephesus wrote to the bishop of Rome, and gave along list of names of people in Asia Minor who all kept the 14th day, including Phillip and John who were among the original 12 Apostles of Jesus. This is what Polycrates wrote next:



Polycrates confidently declared that the date he and the others in Asia Minor kept was confirmed by the Bible and by tradition going all the way back to the 12 Apostles of Jesus.

Polycrates said two of them--John and Phillip--did it on the day Polycrates was. He does not make any such claim regarding the other apostles. Nor does Polycrates--at least in the letter quoted--say that the other areas were wrong to do it on a different day than he did, but rather that Asia/Turkey would continue to follow their own custom regardless of what others were doing.

More than 100 years later, the Council of Nicaea decreed in 325 AD that Easter must be kept on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, and that the Hebrew calendar must not be used to determine the date of Easter. After that time, everyone who continued to keep the Christian Passover on the original date was called a heretic. That is how the Easter Sunday date finally became law.

The decrees of the Council of Nicaea were less about whether to celebrate it on Nisan 14 or on the Sunday after--indeed, the Nisan 14 practice appears to have largely faded out by then--but on the question of how to decide the date.

The main way prior was to just look at whenever the Jews sacrificed their lamb, and then celebrate Pascha/Easter the next Sunday. But there were urges to move to figuring out the date without using Jewish calculations, partially because of dislike of having people who rejected Jesus set the time of a Christian celebration, but also due to accusations that the Jews were messing up the timing and sometimes putting it before the spring equinox (Passover is supposed to occur the first full moon after the equinox). So the decision was made for Christians to figure it out themselves.

So this article you were copying all of this from makes quite a few errors and misrepresentations.

 

[ralliann]

Are you saying not getting physically circumcised is a transgression of the law, thus is sinful?

According to Gen 17 circumcision is an everlasting covenant between Abraham and God for generations to come that must be in the flesh otherwise you are cut off from your people.

This is why there are no lost tribes. Uncircumcised are not Jew's.

This word "everlasting" is the same word used to describe sabbath.

So is not getting circumcised in the flesh against the the law or does it agree with the law?

There are 2 problems depending on how you answer it (as you seem to be avoiding this answer). If not getting circumcised is a transgression against the law thus is sinful you have a problem with NT teaching that explicitly states circumcision in the flesh is not needed and even discourages the practice. If it is not sinful then you gave a problem with God's law that explicitly states as physical an everlasting and using the same language of the Sabbath, you must then consider the same outcome not just to the sabbath but to all law.

Circumcison is a great example as it is spelled out in the NT it's value of circumcision of the heart, not a physical value but a spiritual value. We can use this is a heuristic approach to view all law and if this is too abtract just add "of the heart" at the end like Sabbath of the heart, or as a catch all just say "law written upon our hearts"

And The uncircumcised could not eat the Jewish Passover.

So, Bede's remarks regarding Eostre can be found here. It is very critical to note that this is the only mention we have by anyone of Eostre. If anyone tries to make any claims about Eostre that are not in those quoted sections, they're simply speculating.

Here is where we run into an issue with the claim that the word Easter comes from Eostre (or from the month allegedly named after Eostre--Bede's Latin is unclear on the subject). This is the fact that outside of Bede's brief remarks, which only come about because he's talking about where the names of the English months come from, we have no clear evidence that this goddess ever existed. Given that Bede for the prior month (Hrethmonath) says it was named after a goddess, who we also have no clear evidence of outside of his brief remark, there is a considerable probability that Bede was simply wrong on this.

It's possible Bede had access to records we do not. But this etymology must be regarded as uncertain.



Sorry, but this is total nonsense. None of these were taken from "pre-Christian spring holidays". Not only is there a lack of evidence of these things in "pre-Christian spring holidays" to begin with, they appear too late in Easter traditions for this to work. Easter eggs appear to have come about around the 10th century. The earliest mention of the Easter Bunny anyone has been able to point to is a 17th century work. The first mention of hot cross buns is, as far as I can tell, from the 18th century. All of these are too late for this hypothesis to work because paganism had been long gone at this point; even the earliest, easter eggs, come too late. So this paragraph is a load of nonsense.



It is a bold claim indeed to claim that "all the apostles" kept the Christian Passover on the 14th day. The very source it appeals to--Eusebius's Church History (this is the exact link they offer)--states the opposite:

A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour. 2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote. 3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.

And it is further stated later:

1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words: 2. “Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.”

This is in reference to Narcissus and Theophilus, who as noted earlier were holding Pascha/Easter only on the day of the Resurrection. As it notes here, they cite the authority of the apostles that came before them as doing so.

So the tradition of holding it only on the day of the Resurrection is stated to also be of apostolic tradition. Thus it appears that the apostles themselves had diverging practices on this subject.



Polycrates said two of them--John and Phillip--did it on the day Polycrates was. He does not make any such claim regarding the other apostles. Nor does Polycrates--at least in the letter quoted--say that the other areas were wrong to do it on a different day than he did, but rather that Asia/Turkey would continue to follow their own custom regardless of what others were doing.



The decrees of the Council of Nicaea were less about whether to celebrate it on Nisan 14 or on the Sunday after--indeed, the Nisan 14 practice appears to have largely faded out by then--but on the question of how to decide the date.

The main way prior was to just look at whenever the Jews sacrificed their lamb, and then celebrate Pascha/Easter the next Sunday. But there were urges to move to figuring out the date without using Jewish calculations, partially because of dislike of having people who rejected Jesus set the time of a Christian celebration, but also due to accusations that the Jews were messing up the timing and sometimes putting it before the spring equinox (Passover is supposed to occur the first full moon after the equinox). So the decision was made for Christians to figure it out themselves.

So this article you were copying all of this from makes quite a few errors and misrepresentations.

The Apostles to the Jew's were doing everything they could to save the Jew's from the coming wrath to those under the Law. They were under a curse. As John the baptist preached it was coming, on that generation. Even Paul lived as a Jew when among Jew's to gain them. The wrath had already come/begun by the time of the first councils. Gentile Christians did not eat passover with Jew's, nor would the apostles have allowed it. Nor would any appearance of doing so been done. Paul was accused among the Jew's of bringing uncircumcised men into the temple. He did not, nor would he have. The councils were mainly for the Church, not to those subject to the law, and the covenant whose sign was the Sabbath. Jew and Gentile alike. Why would they be forming Doctrines that were for those under the law. It makes no sense

 

[DamianWarS]

This is why there are no lost tribes. Uncircumcised are not Jew's.

And The uncircumcised could not eat the Jewish Passover.

The Apostles to the Jew's were doing everything they could to save the Jew's from the coming wrath to those under the Law. They were under a curse. As John the baptist preached it was coming, on that generation. Even Paul lived as a Jew when among Jew's to gain them. The wrath had already come/begun by the time of the first councils. Gentile Christians did not eat passover with Jew's, nor would the apostles have allowed it. Nor would any appearance of doing so been done. Paul was accused among the Jew's of bringing uncircumcised men into the temple. He did not, nor would he have. The councils were mainly for the Church, not to those subject to the law, and the covenant whose sign was the Sabbath. Jew and Gentile alike. Why would they be forming Doctrines that were for those under the law. It makes no sense

This is the (false) dichotomy that is being presented. "God's law" which includes the 10 and arbitrarily cherry-picked laws outside of the 10 apparently absorbed under the 1st commandment or risk the judgment of hellfire.

I'm exposing the flaw in the logic, if we are to value these things labelled under "God's law" then why is circumcision off the table? Why this cherry-picking laws? Who decided what is the real God's law and what was just for the Jews? Read Gen 17 and tell me where it implies that in the flesh is temporary and someday will be only of the heart? Tell me where it implies we are to stop circumsion someday or where it implies it is only for the Jews? Then contrast this with Rom 2:25-27, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15, Col 3:11, 1 Cor 7:17-20 and see the NT value that circumcision's merit is in the heart not on the flesh.

Can this not be an heuristic approach for all law? Not to mention dovetailed in with Christ's law. Obverse the Sabbath of the heart, the physical may give you physical relief but the physical itself has no spiritual merit. There are a lot of reasons to value circumcision for health benefits, Paul still calls it nothing.

 

[Leaf473]

This is the (false) dichotomy that is being presented. "God's law" which includes the 10 and arbitrarily cherry-picked laws outside of the 10 apparently absorbed under the 1st commandment or risk the judgment of hellfire.

I'm exposing the flaw in the logic, if we are to value these things labelled under "God's law" then why is circumcision off the table? Why this cherry-picking laws? Who decided what is the real God's law and what was just for the Jews? Read Gen 17 and tell me where it implies that in the flesh is temporary and someday will be only of the heart? Tell me where it implies we are to stop circumsion someday or where it implies it is only for the Jews? Then contrast this with Rom 2:25-27, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15, Col 3:11, 1 Cor 7:17-20 and see the NT value that circumcision's merit is in the heart not on the flesh.

Can this not be an heuristic approach for all law?

Yes, it can

Why, then, do some of our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ not follow that approach?

I look at it this way -

All of us stumble in many ways. Some of us stumble by being attracted to the elemental things of the world - observing sunsets

Since we all stumble, let us all learn and grow together

Not to mention dovetailed in with Christ's law. Obverse the Sabbath of the heart, the physical may give you physical relief but the physical itself has no spiritual merit. There are a lot of reasons to value circumcision for health benefits, Paul still calls it nothing.

 

[ralliann]

So the tradition of holding it only on the day of the Resurrection is stated to also be of apostolic tradition. Thus it appears that the apostles themselves had diverging practices on this subject.



Polycrates said two of them--John and Phillip--did it on the day Polycrates was. He does not make any such claim regarding the other apostles. Nor does Polycrates--at least in the letter quoted--say that the other areas were wrong to do it on a different day than he did, but rather that Asia/Turkey would continue to follow their own custom regardless of what others were doing.



The decrees of the Council of Nicaea were less about whether to celebrate it on Nisan 14 or on the Sunday after--indeed, the Nisan 14 practice appears to have largely faded out by then--but on the question of how to decide the date.

The main way prior was to just look at whenever the Jews sacrificed their lamb, and then celebrate Pascha/Easter the next Sunday. But there were urges to move to figuring out the date without using Jewish calculations, partially because of dislike of having people who rejected Jesus set the time of a Christian celebration, but also due to accusations that the Jews were messing up the timing and sometimes putting it before the spring equinox (Passover is supposed to occur the first full moon after the equinox). So the decision was made for Christians to figure it out themselves.

So this article you were copying all of this from makes quite a few errors and misrepresentations.

I have wondered if the various sects among the Jew's had anything to do with Sunday in particular.
From what I have read (Jewish sources as well) The day of his resurrection was long a conflict between three sects. While there was common agreement concerning the 14 day, they disagreed concerning what was the morrow after the Sabbath to bring the wave sheaf of first fruits, on the first day of the weeks to pentecost.
Lev 23: 10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: {sheaf: or, handful: Heb. omer }
11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.
12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.

Just an aside: Irony. The Pharisees would use the Septuagint to refute The other sects.
7 weeks vs 7 sabbaths in vs 15

15 ¶ And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:
16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

Three of the most prominent ruling sects among the people. Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes. The Pharisees were the only sect among these that did not interpret the Sabbath as Saturday, but Rather a Sabbath by date in the year, the 16th.. The other two sects interpreted the text to be a Saturday,( although different Saturday's I think) therefore the day of firstfruits always fell on a Sunday for these two sects.. Each of the seven weeks began on a Sunday. Both of these sects were affiliated with the priesthood. There is speculation John the Baptist was an Essene. But, none the less there is this

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Or were the sects reconciled that year? According to the Church at least Two may have been.

 

[Bro.T]

Are you saying not getting physically circumcised is a transgression of the law, thus is sinful?

According to Gen 17 circumcision is an everlasting covenant between Abraham and God for generations to come that must be in the flesh otherwise you are cut off from your people. This word "everlasting" is the same word used to describe sabbath.

So is not getting circumcised in the flesh against the the law or does it agree with the law?

There are 2 problems depending on how you answer it (as you seem to be avoiding this answer). If not getting circumcised is a transgression against the law thus is sinful you have a problem with NT teaching that explicitly states circumcision in the flesh is not needed and even discourages the practice. If it is not sinful then you have a problem with God's law that explicitly states as physical and everlasting which uses the same language of the Sabbath, you must then consider the same outcome not just to the sabbath but to all law. Either we circumcise, (not to mention the many others we ignore) or we view all law in a different way.

Circumcison is a great example as it is spelled out in the NT and it's value of circumcision is of the heart, not a physical value but a spiritual value. Since God is of order not of chaos we can use this as a heuristic approach to view all law. If this is too abtract just add "of the heart" at the end like Sabbath of the heart, or as a catch all just say "law written upon our hearts".

Sabbath of the heart is salvation and when we seek it as well as ensure those under our care, including foreigners, we are keeping Christ commandment to love and spreading the gospel. When we shut the blinds and lock our doors so we may simply resist working.... we aren't doing anything for the kingdom, certainly not loving our neighbour.

Let's go all the way into the future in Ezekiel 44: 5 And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary. 6 And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, 7 in that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations. 8 And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves. The Levites 9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

 

[Bro.T]

Easter is the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus, and Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus. How do they not have to do with Jesus?

It has been taught that Jesus died on Good Friday and rose early Sunday morning. As a result of this teaching, man instituted the holiday called Easter. On Easter Sunday you have Christians, world wide paying tribute to a day, in which they believe Jesus, was resurrected. In researching the scriptures one will find that the whole concept of Jesus dying on a Friday and being resurrected on Sunday is contrary to the bible itself. In other words, this tradition directly contradicts the word of God.

Where's the scriptures and verses? Before I get into the death and resurrection of Jesus we need to address history of Easter itself. Take a look at the symbols of Easter: rabbits and eggs. What does rabbits and eggs have to do with the birth of Jesus? Furthermore, when did rabbits start laying eggs? Additionally, we will look at the history of Easter sunrise service, lilies, candles, and hot crossed buns. If you research Easter in most encyclopedias, you will see that Easter has many customs and legends that are pagan in origin and have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or being a Christian.

Easter was named after Eostre (sometimes spelled Eastre), the great Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, fertility, and new life. Similar Teutonic dawn goddesses of fertility were known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos. Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Thus it is easy to see how "Eastre time" became "Easter time".

Easter Sunday falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 20th, the nominal date of the Vernal (sometimes referred to as spring) Equinox. This is the day (or period of days) in spring when the days and nights are of approximately equal length. This is a time of celebrating new life, the resurrection of nature from the dead, and it has typically featured fertility rites, merrymaking, and usually centers on orgiastic sexual activities. In ancient times there were the sacrificing of virgins, the worship of fertility gods and goddesses.

The Easter sunrise service, that is practiced in many Christian churches, can be traced back to the ancient pagan custom of welcoming the sun god at the vernal equinox - when daytime is about to exceed the length of the nighttime. It was a time to celebrate the return of life and reproduction to animal and plant life as well. Worship of the sun god at sunrise is the religious ritual condemned by the Lord as recorded in Ezekiel 8:15-18.

Ezekiel 8:15-18 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east. Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose. Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.


The Easter lily has long been revered by pagans of various lands as a holy symbol associated with the reproductive organs. It was considered a phallic symbol. Easter candles are sometimes lit in churches on the eve of Easter Sunday. However, this practice can be directly linked to the pagan customs of lighting bonfires at this time of year to welcome the rebirth/resurrection of the sun god. During Easter, some eat hot crossed buns during meals. At the feast of Eostre, the Anglo-Saxon fertility goddess, an ox was sacrificed. The ox's horns became a symbol for the feast. They were carved into the ritual bread. Thus originated hot cross buns. The word "buns" is derived from the Saxon word "boun" which means "sacred ox." Later, the symbol of a symmetrical cross was used to decorate the buns; the cross represented the moon, the heavenly body associated with the goddess, and its four quarters.

 

[Bro.T]

Constantine may have been the first to issue such a decree legally, but Christians had already abandoned the idea one must rest on the Sabbath and were already celebrating Sunday as their primary day of worship centuries beforehand.



What is your evidence that the Roman Catholic Church made such a change in 336 AD? I searched through the topic to see if perhaps there was some point in which you had offered evidence, but as far as I can tell despite your repeated claims, you have offered no evidence of this claim.

Certainly, this idea it happened then would surely have been a surprise to Justin Martyr when he wrote nearly two centuries earlier "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly" (First Apology Chapter LXVII) and made it clear that Christians did not observe the Sabbath in "Dialogue with Trypho".

If my response above seems familiar to anyone, it should. A number of pages ago you wrote up this exact paragraph ("Ample evidence" through "economic expediency") word-for-word prior, and I brought up the above issues with it. But instead of responding to anything I said, you instead ignored point and went on an unrelated rant. So here we go again, and we'll see if you actually answer any of these points.

This time you go on for a bit longer, though, and make a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Because they're all unsubstantiated there's not much to say about them, but I'd be remiss to not at least point out some particularly obvious errors:



Christianity didn't become the state religion under Constantine. That only happened in the Edict of Thessalonica, which was issued more than 40 years after Constantine died.



Aside from your lack of evidence that it was ever a "pagan festival", this implication that it was "finally" regarded as such by Pope Sylvester is blatantly wrong, given that we have Christian texts refer to Sunday as the "Lord's Day" at least as far back as the second century.

After 70 A.D......Man realizes the importance of setting one day aside to worship God. Nevertheless, he has tried to change God's set time and law of Sabbath worship. "And he shall speak great words against the most High...and think to change times and laws..." (Daniel 7:25). This change went into effect on March 7, 321 A.D., by Emperor Constantine of Rome. Constantine, "...enjoined Sunday rest from labor, except agricultural" (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 21, 1945). It is even recorded that Constantine used violence to enforce his new law, because the seventh day Sabbath was still being observed by true servants of God. Now if it would seem blasphemous for people to change their day of worship today, how do you think God felt when man changed his? Satan had caused the second commandment to be ripped out. But he wasn't finished. The leaders changed the fourth one also!

The change of the fourth commandment was attempted gradually over a period of time so as not to arouse anyone. But the change is a masterpiece of Satan's work.
Get ready for a shock.

The following mind-boggling statements were made by church authorities and are documented.

"Question - Have you any other way of proving that the church (Roman Catholic) has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Answer - Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority." A Doctrinal Catechism. by Stephen Keenan,pg. 174.
That's incredible!

"The Catholic church," declared Cardinal Gibbons, "by virtue of her divine mission changed the day from Saturday to Sunday." Again the question is asked to them:

Question - Which is the Sabbath day?

"Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.

"Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

"Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, pg. 50, 3rd ed.

What does the fourth commandment actually say? Here it is "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:8-11.

Do church authorities acknowledge that there is no command in the Bible for the sanctification of Sunday? They do! Look at this....The Catholic Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Fathers. pg. 111, said, "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

You see, in the Council of Trent (1545 A.D.), the church leaders ruled that "tradition" is of as great authority as the Bible! They believed that God had given them the authority to change the Bible any way they pleased. By "tradition" they meant human teachings.

Jesus said, "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9. Just as they had brought images into the church to make it easier for the pagans to come in, they changed the Sabbath of the Bible for the same reason.

Sunday doctrine, Sun-Worship. Easter-Pagan...These things are not of Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost...Paul said in Romans 6:16 - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

The Lord (Jesus Christ) said the seventh day of the week...Seventh day

 

[JSRG]

It has been taught that Jesus died on Good Friday and rose early Sunday morning. As a result of this teaching, man instituted the holiday called Easter. On Easter Sunday you have Christians, world wide paying tribute to a day, in which they believe Jesus, was resurrected. In researching the scriptures one will find that the whole concept of Jesus dying on a Friday and being resurrected on Sunday is contrary to the bible itself. In other words, this tradition directly contradicts the word of God.

This whole post of yours looks to be just copied from someone else's writing. But let's go through it anyway.

In regards to this first point, upon looking at what seems to be your source, its assertion is that the crucifixion was Wednesday and the Resurrection occurred Saturday night. Even if true, this poses no problem for the statement of a Sunday resurrection; if we take the Jewish reckoning, then Sunday started on sundown on Saturday (what we nowadays normally call "Saturday night"), thereby putting it on Sunday in the Jewish reckoning. Or, if we want to consider it Sunday in the modern sense of it being past midnight... such would still be during the night. Thus we still can call it a Sunday resurrection, even should this claim of your source be accurate.

Where's the scriptures and verses? Before I get into the death and resurrection of Jesus we need to address history of Easter itself. Take a look at the symbols of Easter: rabbits and eggs. What does rabbits and eggs have to do with the birth of Jesus? Furthermore, when did rabbits start laying eggs? Additionally, we will look at the history of Easter sunrise service, lilies, candles, and hot crossed buns. If you research Easter in most encyclopedias, you will see that Easter has many customs and legends that are pagan in origin and have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or being a Christian.

And other, more accurate, encyclopedias correctly state that these supposed "pagan in origin" things actually don't come from paganism at all.

But let's take a look at your evidences of paganism.

Easter was named after Eostre (sometimes spelled Eastre),

The actual situation is far more complex than this. One writer, Bede, when talking about the origin of the names of the English months (we no longer use those months), asserts that Eosturmonab was named after a goddess named Eostre for which there were feasts in that month. As noted here, this is the entirety of what Bede says about Eostre:

In olden time the English people -- for it did not seem fitting to me that I should speak of other people's observance of the year and yet be silent about my own nation's -- calculated their months according to the course of the moon. Hence, after the manner of the Greeks and the Romans (the months) take their name from the Moon, for the Moon is called mona and the month monath.​

The first month, which the Latins call January, is Giuli; February is called Solmonath; March Hrethmonath; April, Eosturmonath; May, Thrimilchi; June, Litha; July, also Litha; August, Weodmonath; September, Halegmonath; October, Winterfilleth; November, Blodmonath; December, Giuli, the same name by which January is called. ...​

Nor is it irrelevant if we take the time to translate the names of the other months. ... Hrethmonath is named for their goddess Hretha, to whom they sacrificed at this time. Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance. Thrimilchi was so called because in that month the cattle were milked three times a day...​

The problem is that aside from this brief reference, we have no references to Eostre and have found no relics dedicated to her. Bede may have had access to things we do not... but he also could have just been relying on incorrect information. Remember, he attributes the name of the prior month to a goddess we also have no clear evidence of outside of his remark!

Even if we were to suppose Bede's information on the source of this month's name was right, Easter appears to have taken its name from the month. The translation above says "they designated that Paschal season by her name", but the Latin is unclear as to whether he is saying "her name" (Eostre) or "its name" (the month), as well explained here. For the reasons the link gives, it seems more plausible to me that Bede is saying it comes from the month.

But let us suppose that Bede's information on Eostre was completely correct and that it came from the goddess rather than the month. That would, at most, be an argument that in English we should use a different name. For you see, in most of the world, the word "Easter" is not used at all. In Spanish--which more people speak natively than English!--the word is pascua. Clearly this has nothing to do with any Eostre. At most, the English name is taken from this goddess--and again, even that is very far from certain.

the great Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, fertility, and new life.

But here we turn from a somewhat plausible claim to nonsense. As noted, the above quotes from Bede are we have on this alleged goddess. Do you see him say she was the goddess of spring, fertility, and new life? No. So this is total speculation. It also says she was "the great Anglo-Saxon goddess" even though apparently she wasn't "great" enough to leave a mark larger than an offhand reference!

Similar Teutonic dawn goddesses of fertility were known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos. Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Thus it is easy to see how "Eastre time" became "Easter time".

More made-up claims; there is not any real evidence of any of these, outside of the ones that can just be considered alternate spellings of Eostre. Indeed, Ostara was a conjecture. In the 19th century Jacob Grimm was aware that there was no evidence of Eostre outside of Bede's brief remark and that for this reason there was considerable skepticism that there ever was any Eostre who was believed in. But he respected Bede and wanted to assert that Bede was right. As part of his argument on why Bede was right, he conjectured the possibility of a corresponding German goddess named Ostara. That is where Ostara came from: A 19th century conjecture.

It is not clear where the claim that "eastre" was the ancient word for spring comes from. When I look up eastre in an Old English Dictionary, it simply tells me it's an alternate spelling for Easter.

Easter Sunday falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 20th, the nominal date of the Vernal (sometimes referred to as spring) Equinox. This is the day (or period of days) in spring when the days and nights are of approximately equal length. This is a time of celebrating new life, the resurrection of nature from the dead, and it has typically featured fertility rites, merrymaking, and usually centers on orgiastic sexual activities. In ancient times there were the sacrificing of virgins, the worship of fertility gods and goddesses.

And... so? If this is supposed to be some kind of argument against Easter, note this applies to Passover also.

The Easter sunrise service, that is practiced in many Christian churches, can be traced back to the ancient pagan custom of welcoming the sun god at the vernal equinox - when daytime is about to exceed the length of the nighttime. It was a time to celebrate the return of life and reproduction to animal and plant life as well. Worship of the sun god at sunrise is the religious ritual condemned by the Lord as recorded in Ezekiel 8:15-18.

Well then, if it can be traced back to these ancient pagan customs, how about you offer evidence?

But of course, you don't, for either this or the successive claims. This is the problem with these "Easter is pagan" claims. People make stuff up. They just say something and act as if that's the case without offering evidence.

The Easter lily has long been revered by pagans of various lands as a holy symbol associated with the reproductive organs. It was considered a phallic symbol.

Given how I've personally really never seen lilies used as symbols of Easter, the importance of this seems low. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that I haven't seen it.

But even so, I can't help but notice you yet again claim this without evidence. So please provide proof. Also provide proof that:
1) These pagans were doing this before it was used in Easter celebrations
2) These Easter celebrations utilizing it occurred early enough that it could have been taken from paganism
3) The pagan celebrations could have plausibly influenced Easter (i.e. it wasn't just something off in Japan or whatever)

Easter candles are sometimes lit in churches on the eve of Easter Sunday. However, this practice can be directly linked to the pagan customs of lighting bonfires at this time of year to welcome the rebirth/resurrection of the sun god.

Same points as the above. You're making this without evidence. Give the evidence I requested.

Indeed, why should one take the above claims seriously when you follow it up with the following whopper:

During Easter, some eat hot crossed buns during meals. At the feast of Eostre, the Anglo-Saxon fertility goddess, an ox was sacrificed. The ox's horns became a symbol for the feast. They were carved into the ritual bread. Thus originated hot cross buns. The word "buns" is derived from the Saxon word "boun" which means "sacred ox." Later, the symbol of a symmetrical cross was used to decorate the buns; the cross represented the moon, the heavenly body associated with the goddess, and its four quarters.

Once again: The only information we have about Eostre is from Bede's brief reference. Anything anyone says about Eostre outside of that is speculation. Or in this case, completely made up. All this stuff about how an "ox was sacrificed" for Eostre, and that they were carved into the bread? Totally made up! Just like, most likely, the things you previously said!

Just to further show off the errors, you claim that "buns" is derived from a word for "sacred ox." Funny--every etymological dictionary I consult says nothing of this. This is another made-up claim.

Oh, and hot cross buns are first attested to in the 18th century, or at least I've been unable to find anything beyond that. Care you explain how a tradition that started in the 18th century traces back to a (supposed) feast that no one had been celebrating for about one thousand years?

So all you've offered in your post is a bunch of claims made without any evidence, and much of them can be easily shown to be nonsense.

 

[JSRG]

After 70 A.D......Man realizes the importance of setting one day aside to worship God. Nevertheless, he has tried to change God's set time and law of Sabbath worship. "And he shall speak great words against the most High...and think to change times and laws..." (Daniel 7:25). This change went into effect on March 7, 321 A.D., by Emperor Constantine of Rome. Constantine, "...enjoined Sunday rest from labor, except agricultural" (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 21, 1945). It is even recorded that Constantine used violence to enforce his new law, because the seventh day Sabbath was still being observed by true servants of God. Now if it would seem blasphemous for people to change their day of worship today, how do you think God felt when man changed his? Satan had caused the second commandment to be ripped out. But he wasn't finished. The leaders changed the fourth one also!

The change of the fourth commandment was attempted gradually over a period of time so as not to arouse anyone. But the change is a masterpiece of Satan's work.
Get ready for a shock.

The following mind-boggling statements were made by church authorities and are documented.

"Question - Have you any other way of proving that the church (Roman Catholic) has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Answer - Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority." A Doctrinal Catechism. by Stephen Keenan,pg. 174.
That's incredible!

"The Catholic church," declared Cardinal Gibbons, "by virtue of her divine mission changed the day from Saturday to Sunday." Again the question is asked to them:

Question - Which is the Sabbath day?

"Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.

"Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

"Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, pg. 50, 3rd ed.

What does the fourth commandment actually say? Here it is "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:8-11.

Do church authorities acknowledge that there is no command in the Bible for the sanctification of Sunday? They do! Look at this....The Catholic Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Fathers. pg. 111, said, "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

You see, in the Council of Trent (1545 A.D.), the church leaders ruled that "tradition" is of as great authority as the Bible! They believed that God had given them the authority to change the Bible any way they pleased. By "tradition" they meant human teachings.

Jesus said, "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9. Just as they had brought images into the church to make it easier for the pagans to come in, they changed the Sabbath of the Bible for the same reason.

Sunday doctrine, Sun-Worship. Easter-Pagan...These things are not of Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost...Paul said in Romans 6:16 - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

The Lord (Jesus Christ) said the seventh day of the week...Seventh day

So in your prior post, you made the claim that:

"In 336 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church officially changed the observance of Sabbath to Sunday for political and economic expediency. Since then, the original Sabbath gradually gave way to Sunday observance and the practice remains to this day."

You have made this claim repeatedly. Last time I asked for evidence that the Roman Catholic Church "officially" did any such thing in 336, and I also noted that Sunday observance predated this by centuries. You didn't offer any evidence or offer any explanation for the issues I pointed out. Since you didn't offer anything, I felt there was no purpose in continuing that... but then you made the claim again as if I hadn't pointed out anything. So again I made the same points, as well as pointing out other errors you made in the post. Here you reply again and... don't actually address much of anything in my post. Instead you throw out a post that rambles on about various things but does not actually address my points. Nor do you make any acknowledgement or response to the errors I pointed out--for example, you incorrectly claiming Constantine made Christianity the state religion (he didn't) or your apparent claim that the 4th century Pope Sylvester was the first to use the phrase "Lord's Day" (it actually predates him by centuries).

But, I'm starting to realize the reason behind your odd posting style. When making posts--even when replying--you mostly just copy/paste things over and over from prior posts. Aside from a little you added at the start and the end to perhaps try to make it relevant to my post, you have made this exact post multiple times in the past in other topics. So no wonder you don't actually address anything! You're just copy/pasting things over and over with little regard to what you're actually responding to! You have done this not only to me, but also to others.

Since your post so completely bypasses the things I was saying, there isn't too much for me to say to it. But I do notice something interesting. You throw out a copy/pasted quote (meaning you are ironically copy/pasting your own copy/pastes) of someone claiming that "the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." Why we should accept this source (which appears to come from a work from a century ago) is unexplained by you. But if we suppose this is accurate, this ironically only proves your claim wrong. This is 364, not 336, and more importantly the Council of Laodicea had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church, given it was... well, in Laodicea. It was a local council, and the Roman Church had nothing to do with it.

So again you make claims without backing them up, and then when pressed on them, just evade the point. Though at least the prior times you did it, you didn't (in your copy/pasting) try to back up your claim with something that contradicts it!

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

So in your prior post, you made the claim that:

"In 336 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church officially changed the observance of Sabbath to Sunday for political and economic expediency. Since then, the original Sabbath gradually gave way to Sunday observance and the practice remains to this day."

You have made this claim repeatedly. Last time I asked for evidence that the Roman Catholic Church "officially" did any such thing in 336, and I also noted that Sunday observance predated this by centuries. You didn't offer any evidence or offer any explanation for the issues I pointed out. Since you didn't offer anything, I felt there was no purpose in continuing that... but then you made the claim again as if I hadn't pointed out anything. So again I made the same points, as well as pointing out other errors you made in the post. Here you reply again and... don't actually address much of anything in my post. Instead you throw out a post that rambles on about various things but does not actually address my points. Nor do you make any acknowledgement or response to the errors I pointed out--for example, you incorrectly claiming Constantine made Christianity the state religion (he didn't) or your apparent claim that the 4th century Pope Sylvester was the first to use the phrase "Lord's Day" (it actually predates him by centuries).

But, I'm starting to realize the reason behind your odd posting style. When making posts--even when replying--you mostly just copy/paste things over and over from prior posts. Aside from a little you added at the start and the end to perhaps try to make it relevant to my post, you have made this exact post multiple times in the past in other topics. So no wonder you don't actually address anything! You're just copy/pasting things over and over with little regard to what you're actually responding to! You have done this not only to me, but also to others.

Since your post so completely bypasses the things I was saying, there isn't too much for me to say to it. But I do notice something interesting. You throw out a copy/pasted quote (meaning you are ironically copy/pasting your own copy/pastes) of someone claiming that "the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." Why we should accept this source (which appears to come from a work from a century ago) is unexplained by you. But if we suppose this is accurate, this ironically only proves your claim wrong. This is 364, not 336, and more importantly the Council of Laodicea had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church, given it was... well, in Laodicea. It was a local council, and the Roman Church had nothing to do with it.

So again you make claims without backing them up, and then when pressed on them, just evade the point. Though at least the prior times you did it, you didn't (in your copy/pasting) try to back up your claim with something that contradicts it!

The Council of Laodicea, which convened around 363-364 AD, was an important gathering in the early Christian Church that addressed a variety of doctrinal and practical issues, including the observance of the Sabbath. The council issued a series of canons (church laws) that sought to regulate the conduct of Christian believers, and among these, Canon 29 stands out for its instructions on Sabbath observance.

Canon 29 states:
"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's Day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ."

This canon is significant because it represents a clear directive against Christians adopting Jewish practices, particularly the observance of the Sabbath on Saturday, as mandated in the Jewish tradition. The phrase "Judaize" refers to Christians who, in the view of the Council, were either adhering too closely to Jewish customs or attempting to blend Christian faith with Jewish law. The Church at the time sought to distinguish itself from Judaism, which it viewed as outdated in the light of Christ's resurrection.

The canon further directs that Christians should work on Saturday, reflecting a rejection of the Jewish Sabbath, and should instead honor Sunday, which had increasingly become known as the Lord's Day. Sunday, the first day of the week, was chosen because it was believed to be the day of Jesus’ resurrection. This theological significance of Sunday had been developing for several decades, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as Christian worship began to shift away from the Sabbath observance and toward a celebration of the Resurrection.

The Church's encouragement of Sunday observance was not merely a matter of choosing a day for worship but was tied to a theological understanding of Christ’s victory over death and sin. As the early Church Fathers and Christian communities saw it, the Resurrection on Sunday marked a new creation, and Sunday thus became the day to honor and commemorate the saving work of Jesus Christ. This theological shift was crucial in separating Christianity from Judaism, which continued to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day (Saturday) according to the Commandments.

The language in Canon 29 also carries a warning for those who might continue to observe the Sabbath on Saturday. It states that if Christians were found "Judaizing," they should be excluded from the Christian community ("shut out from Christ"). This underscores the growing divide between Christians and Jews, as well as the Church's desire to establish distinct practices and beliefs that would define the Christian faith.


Thus, the Council of Laodicea was part of the broader movement in the 4th century to clarify and formalize Christian doctrine and practice, including the observance of the Lord’s Day on Sunday. The decision to make Sunday the primary day of Christian worship and to distance it from the Jewish Sabbath was part of a larger trend of Christianization within the Roman Empire, which had been accelerated by the Edict of Milan in 313 AD and the eventual rise of Christianity as the state religion under Emperor Theodosius I. This shift from Saturday to Sunday worship gradually became entrenched over the centuries, especially as Sunday observance became more institutionalized and linked to the Christian identity.

Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea represents a pivotal moment in the history of early Christianity, marking the official endorsement of Sunday as the day for Christian worship and setting a clear distance between the practices of Christians and Jews. It reflects the ongoing theological and practical shift that would shape Christian worship for centuries to come. The canon not only reinforced the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day but also emphasized the Church’s desire to establish its distinct identity, free from the perceived constraints of Jewish law.

Did this council have the right to change the sabbath day instituted by God Himself? Assuredly, They did not! It is Man that changed the day of the sabbath, GOD never did.

Main reference;

CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[ralliann]

The Council of Laodicea, which convened around 363-364 AD, was an important gathering in the early Christian Church that addressed a variety of doctrinal and practical issues, including the observance of the Sabbath. The council issued a series of canons (church laws) that sought to regulate the conduct of Christian believers, and among these, Canon 29 stands out for its instructions on Sabbath observance.

Canon 29 states:
"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's Day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ."

This canon is significant because it represents a clear directive against Christians adopting Jewish practices, particularly the observance of the Sabbath on Saturday, as mandated in the Jewish tradition. The phrase "Judaize" refers to Christians who, in the view of the Council, were either adhering too closely to Jewish customs or attempting to blend Christian faith with Jewish law. The Church at the time sought to distinguish itself from Judaism, which it viewed as outdated in the light of Christ's resurrection.

The canon further directs that Christians should work on Saturday, reflecting a rejection of the Jewish Sabbath, and should instead honor Sunday, which had increasingly become known as the Lord's Day. Sunday, the first day of the week, was chosen because it was believed to be the day of Jesus’ resurrection. This theological significance of Sunday had been developing for several decades, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as Christian worship began to shift away from the Sabbath observance and toward a celebration of the Resurrection.

The Church's encouragement of Sunday observance was not merely a matter of choosing a day for worship but was tied to a theological understanding of Christ’s victory over death and sin. As the early Church Fathers and Christian communities saw it, the Resurrection on Sunday marked a new creation, and Sunday thus became the day to honor and commemorate the saving work of Jesus Christ. This theological shift was crucial in separating Christianity from Judaism, which continued to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day (Saturday) according to the Commandments.

The language in Canon 29 also carries a warning for those who might continue to observe the Sabbath on Saturday. It states that if Christians were found "Judaizing," they should be excluded from the Christian community ("shut out from Christ"). This underscores the growing divide between Christians and Jews, as well as the Church's desire to establish distinct practices and beliefs that would define the Christian faith.


Thus, the Council of Laodicea was part of the broader movement in the 4th century to clarify and formalize Christian doctrine and practice, including the observance of the Lord’s Day on Sunday. The decision to make Sunday the primary day of Christian worship and to distance it from the Jewish Sabbath was part of a larger trend of Christianization within the Roman Empire, which had been accelerated by the Edict of Milan in 313 AD and the eventual rise of Christianity as the state religion under Emperor Theodosius I. This shift from Saturday to Sunday worship gradually became entrenched over the centuries, especially as Sunday observance became more institutionalized and linked to the Christian identity.

Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea represents a pivotal moment in the history of early Christianity, marking the official endorsement of Sunday as the day for Christian worship and setting a clear distance between the practices of Christians and Jews. It reflects the ongoing theological and practical shift that would shape Christian worship for centuries to come. The canon not only reinforced the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day but also emphasized the Church’s desire to establish its distinct identity, free from the perceived constraints of Jewish law.

Did this council have the right to change the sabbath day instituted by God Himself? Assuredly, They did not! It is Man that changed the day of the sabbath, GOD never did.

Main reference;

CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

Do you know what Judaism taught concerning Gentiles and Sabbath keeping? For what I have read they consider that making a new religion. Death. When we read these things do we take into account what Judaism taught and required of a convert?

 

[JSRG]

The Council of Laodicea, which convened around 363-364 AD, was an important gathering in the early Christian Church that addressed a variety of doctrinal and practical issues, including the observance of the Sabbath. The council issued a series of canons (church laws) that sought to regulate the conduct of Christian believers, and among these, Canon 29 stands out for its instructions on Sabbath observance.

Canon 29 states:
"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's Day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ."

g adopting Jewish practices, particularly the observance of the Sabbath on Saturday, as mandated in the Jewish tradition. The phrase "Judaize" refers to Christians who, in the view of the Council, were either adhering too closely to Jewish customs or attempting to blend Christian faith with Jewish law. The Church at the time sought to distinguish itself from Judaism, which it viewed as outdated in the light of Christ's resurrection.

The canon further directs that Christians should work on Saturday, reflecting a rejection of the Jewish Sabbath, and should instead honor Sunday, which had increasingly become known as the Lord's Day. Sunday, the first day of the week, was chosen because it was believed to be the day of Jesus’ resurrection. This theological significance of Sunday had been developing for several decades, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as Christian worship began to shift away from the Sabbath observance and toward a celebration of the Resurrection.

The Church's encouragement of Sunday observance was not merely a matter of choosing a day for worship but was tied to a theological understanding of Christ’s victory over death and sin. As the early Church Fathers and Christian communities saw it, the Resurrection on Sunday marked a new creation, and Sunday thus became the day to honor and commemorate the saving work of Jesus Christ. This theological shift was crucial in separating Christianity from Judaism, which continued to observe the Sabbath on the seventh day (Saturday) according to the Commandments.

The language in Canon 29 also carries a warning for those who might continue to observe the Sabbath on Saturday. It states that if Christians were found "Judaizing," they should be excluded from the Christian community ("shut out from Christ"). This underscores the growing divide between Christians and Jews, as well as the Church's desire to establish distinct practices and beliefs that would define the Christian faith.


Thus, the Council of Laodicea was part of the broader movement in the 4th century to clarify and formalize Christian doctrine and practice, including the observance of the Lord’s Day on Sunday. The decision to make Sunday the primary day of Christian worship and to distance it from the Jewish Sabbath was part of a larger trend of Christianization within the Roman Empire, which had been accelerated by the Edict of Milan in 313 AD and the eventual rise of Christianity as the state religion under Emperor Theodosius I. This shift from Saturday to Sunday worship gradually became entrenched over the centuries, especially as Sunday observance became more institutionalized and linked to the Christian identity.

Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea represents a pivotal moment in the history of early Christianity, marking the official endorsement of Sunday as the day for Christian worship and setting a clear distance between the practices of Christians and Jews. It reflects the ongoing theological and practical shift that would shape Christian worship for centuries to come. The canon not only reinforced the observance of Sunday as the Lord's Day but also emphasized the Church’s desire to establish its distinct identity, free from the perceived constraints of Jewish law.

Did this council have the right to change the sabbath day instituted by God Himself? Assuredly, They did not! It is Man that changed the day of the sabbath, GOD never did.

Main reference;

CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

The majority of your post looks to have been generated by some kind of AI. I say that because the style is very AI-like, and it certainly is of a rather different style than your regular posts. And indeed, we can see a distinct change in style in your final paragraph, which abruptly loses the more "scholarly" look of the prior ones. Also, the prior paragraphs consistently put one space after periods, but then you abruptly switch to two. There are also capitalization errors not present at all in the prior paragraphs (capitalizing "They"). So it looks like it's mostly AI and then at the end shifts back to actually being written by you. Certainly, it being AI generated would explain why, much like Bro.T's copy/pasted posts, it doesn't seem to actually be a reply to my post but is instead going off on a mostly unrelated essay.

But, despite that, let's take a look at your post. You only continue to prove my point: Namely, that this claim of that "In 336 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church officially changed the observance of Sabbath to Sunday" (which Bro.T was apparently so confident about he said about seven times in this topic) seems simply false. All you've done, like him, is point to a local council the Roman Church had nothing to do with and which happened in a different year entirely.

So much for "336 A.D." and "Roman Catholic Church". But does this at least fulfill the requirement of "officially changed"? The difficulty with this is that, as noted, the keeping of Sunday and abandonment of the Sabbath as a day of required rest was not a fourth century thing; this was the case for centuries prior, as various writings attest to. Thus this canon would be merely a recognition of prior practice as seen in earlier writings. But perhaps the claim would be those writings aren't "official" enough as they aren't formal decrees. So I suppose it could be considered "official" in a sense, but more an official recognition rather than them bringing about any official change.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

The majority of your post looks to have been generated by some kind of AI. I say that because the style is very AI-like, and it certainly is of a rather different style than your regular posts. And indeed, we can see a distinct change in style in your final paragraph, which abruptly loses the more "scholarly" look of the prior ones. Also, the prior paragraphs consistently put one space after periods, but then you abruptly switch to two. There are also capitalization errors not present at all in the prior paragraphs (capitalizing "They"). So it looks like it's mostly AI and then at the end shifts back to actually being written by you. Certainly, it being AI generated would explain why, much like Bro.T's copy/pasted posts, it doesn't seem to actually be a reply to my post but is instead going off on a mostly unrelated essay.

But, despite that, let's take a look at your post. You only continue to prove my point: Namely, that this claim of that "In 336 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church officially changed the observance of Sabbath to Sunday" (which Bro.T was apparently so confident about he said about seven times in this topic) seems simply false. All you've done, like him, is point to a local council the Roman Church had nothing to do with and which happened in a different year entirely.

So much for "336 A.D." and "Roman Catholic Church". But does this at least fulfill the requirement of "officially changed"? The difficulty with this is that, as noted, the keeping of Sunday and abandonment of the Sabbath as a day of required rest was not a fourth century thing; this was the case for centuries prior, as various writings attest to. Thus this canon would be merely a recognition of prior practice as seen in earlier writings. But perhaps the claim would be those writings aren't "official" enough as they aren't formal decrees. So I suppose it could be considered "official" in a sense, but more an official recognition rather than them bringing about any official change.

I have 2 types of posts some I take time to write as I am preparing a website and keep these, the rest the casual answers like this one are more frequent. I am sorry you think people cannot write in a proper way. do not forget it is AI that mimics the writing style of others.
If you do not like a well written text then I suggest you pass to the nest post.