Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The church of God is from OT to NT as we see in Heb 11.
I guess we all agree that no scripture calls Mary "the ark of the New Covenant"
We have an understanding of the New Covenant that actually has the ability to quote the New Covenant itself as we find it in Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 "I will make a NEW Covenant... THIS is the Covenant I will make...".
You are right on that point.
There is no such thing as "new ark of the covenant" in all of scripture. I assumed we both knew that.
hmmm.. that speaks volumes - you are saying that what is at play is something not found at all in all of scripture.
ok so since you post not one single text for "ark of the New Covenant" (much less Mary ark of the New Covenant) -- We need to look for where there is something in your text that comes from the actual Bible.
Indeed - Christians pray to God daily and read their Bibles daily, we have devotions daily..
The subject is the "Sabbath" not "20 minutes of worship on any given day". Read the title. Read the actual Sabbath commandment -- take a look at the texts we keep referencing.
yep. But that did not delete the Ten Commandments or the Sabbath commandment.
He was not resurrected weekly, not once every seven days etc.
Step one for a thread about "what day is the Sabbath" should be to actually quote the Sabbath commandment as a rudimentary basic point of reference since avoiding the actual Sabbath Commandment text -- could lead some folks to suppose that any time one says a prayer or reads a Bible verse - they just turned that day into the weekly "Sabbath".*Permission to post in full*
If we believe we have to "honor the Sabbath day," why aren’t Catholics obliged to attend Mass on Saturday instead of Sunday?
@The Liturgist
One of the most appealing teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is their insistence that Christians must obey the Ten Commandments . . . all ten of them. They rightly expose the errant thinking among many Protestant Christian sects that claims, “We don’t have to keep the Ten Commandments for salvation anymore.”
Of course, as Jesus reminds us:
Given our agreement on this point, the Seventh-day Adventist commonly asks: “If you believe we have to keep the Fourth (our Third) Commandment, why aren’t Catholics obliged to attend Mass on Saturdays instead of Sunday?”
We can draw our first source from the the Catechism, which declares:
Thus, the Third Commandment is “fundamentally immutable” because it’s one of the Ten Commandments, which Jesus said we must follow to attain everlasting life. However, the Catholic Church teaches the particular day we celebrate in keeping the Third Commandment to be ceremonial, or an accidental component of the law that is changeable. Here’s how the Catechismputs it:
Are there biblical data that concur with this teaching of the Church? Absolutely!
St. Paul tells us that the ceremonial aspect of the old law—the Sabbath day itself—is no longer binding for the Christian faithful:
Clearly, the Sabbath is “a mere shadow”—that is, fleeting by nature. And “shadow” (Greek, skian) is the same word used by the inspired author of the letter to the Hebrews for the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant—also no longer binding on Christians.
Moreover, it is important to note how Paul uses the same division of “festivals” (annual holy days), “new moons” (monthly holy days), and “Sabbaths” (the weekly holy days) that the Old Testament uses in 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4, 8:12-13, 31:3; and elsewhere, when referencing Jewish holy days. Clearly, along with the yearly and monthly holy days—which no Christian today claims is binding upon believers in Christ—the Sabbath is included in what Paul calls a mere shadow.
When Paul teaches that Christians do not have to keep the Sabbath, he speaks of the holy days that were specific to the Jews. He is not saying—and does not say—that we do not have to keep any holy days at all. In context, Paul is dealing with Judaizers, who were telling Gentile Christians they had to be circumcised and keep the Old Covenant law that had passed away, which would include the Sabbath and other holy days, in order to be saved. Some overlook this fact when they use Paul’s epistle to the Romans against the necessity of keeping the Third Commandment.
During the first few decades of Church history, the question of Jewish-Gentile relations with the Church and the law was a hot topic. As long as the Temple was standing, Christians of Jewish descent were free to attend the Temple and keep certain aspects of the Old Law, as long as they did not teach these things to be essential for salvation.
Many will claim the Catholic is in grave error here because Hebrews 4:9 declares: “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” And a surface reading here does appear to bind Christians to the seventh day. However, the context within verses 4-8 greatly clarifies things for us:
The context makes clear that the Jewish “seventh day” has been superseded, or, more properly, fulfilled, in “another day,” “a certain day,” that is a new “Sabbath rest for the people of God.” What day is this? In Hebrews, it is not so much a day at all as it is a person: Jesus Christ. In fact, the entire discussion of “the Sabbath rest” disappears into the discussion of our “great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God” (4:14ff). It is Jesus Christ himself who actualizes the “rest” that was merely foreshadowed by the Sabbath.
“End of discussion,” say our Protestant friends.“There is no longer any such thing as a day that binds Christians in the New Covenant. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath, not some day we have to go to church.” And they are actually correct, but only partially. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath rest in the sense that only he can actualize the “rest” the Sabbath symbolized.
In Hebrews 10:1-26, we see movement toward tagging on the Church as fulfillment of all that was merely shadow in the Old Covenant and not just Jesus Christ in the abstract. And this makes sense only when we understand that “the Church” is the body of Christ, or Christ himself extended into the world (cf. Eph. 1:22-23).
As Christians, we “enter into the sanctuary” through baptism—bodies washed with pure water—and the Eucharist—his flesh—thus enters the necessity of the Church.
So if Christians are bound to keep the third commandment, and it involves “meeting together,” but not on the Sabbath, what day are we commanded to meet?
In Scripture, whenever we see Christians meeting to worship the Lord, receive Communion, take up collections—apart from the synagogue—it is either “daily,” or especially, it’s “on the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). It is true that you often see St. Paul entering into the synagogue on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14-44, 16:13, 18:4). However, in each instance, his purpose was to proclaim the truth about Christ to the Jews. These are not specifically Christian gatherings. But notice what we find in Acts 2:46:
Paul and his companions attended the temple, but “the breaking of bread” occurred in the house “churches” of Christians. “The breaking of bread,” by the way, is a Eucharistic phrase in St. Luke’s writings. For example, when Paul was in Troas in Acts 20:7, we read: “On the first day of the week, when we gathered together to break bread.” Luke 24:30-31 records that Cleopas and an unnamed disciple’s “eyes were opened,” and they recognized Jesus “in the breaking of the bread.” And according to Luke 24:1 and 13, this encounter was also on the first day of the week! Paul never says, “On the Sabbath, when we gathered to break bread.” Instead, the “breaking of bread” in Luke 24 and in Acts 20 occurs on the first day of the week.
It’s important to remember that when we talk about biblical “churches,” we mean the designated homes for “church” gatherings and specifically for “the breaking of bread.”
So those “homes” were actually house “churches” in which “the breaking of bread” happened, and it happened on the first day of the week: Sunday.
Sunday Is Not the Sabbath
If we believe we have to "honor the Sabbath day," why aren’t Catholics obliged to attend Mass on Saturday instead of Sunday?www.catholic.com
As with sabbathblessings, I get the impression that
SDA doctrine also has a poor understanding of the Eucharist / Lord's supper.
We actually use scripture to interpret scripture and if you notice we always provide scripture references instead of using personal interpretations which we are told not to do. Prov 3:5-6
At some point you need to state an actual fact. Pejoratives alone will not prove substantive.
Until you actually read our statements of believes and the texts upon which we say they stand or fall.
Indeed we do hold to the Bible doctrine on spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12) and that it includes "the gift of prophecy" 1 Cor 14:1-2 and that Ellen White is an example of someone with that gift.
You can of course find the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34 Heb 8:6-12
That is the spin that we get from the sola-tradition people at times since they cannot understand how sola-scriptura could actually work. It is like saying that they don't understand the Christian church emerging from the Jewish nation-church or they can't understand the Protestant reformation that came about as a result of protesting-Catholics finding flaws in their own traditions.
sola tradition again?
your efforts to avoid every scripture listed as it refutes your claims... noted.
false accusation "noted".
But we should not expect that much scripture-focus from sola-tradition participants -- apparently.
You're probably already aware of this thread. I think posts #1 and #4 are especially interesting.
www.christianforums.com
The 2 verses in revelation 11:19-12:1 is a good start.
Yes, maybe I should not, because I realize where most protestants will immediately go, not understanding that concept either. In order to not mess up matters too much, and not giving you more than you can chew, I will not go further into that concept.
Right.
Good. A good start.
To let you know, I was a sola scriptura for about 25 years. I have read the Bible through at least 3 times, and written through the new testament. I converted in 2019, and have limited grounding in catholic tradition. I try to take only what can be proved from Scripture.
Hm well I try to be pedagogical in my responses, and I try to not go off on tangents, to keep a focus to the conversation. If you are referring to the scriptures about the temple, I did not go into that, because the topic at hand is, how to interpret the passage revelation 11:19. I see it in the immediate context, and take those contextual clues.
