What day is the sabath what day does the bible say?

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

If you were no longer under the curse at all, then you would not physically die.

Sure you would. The wages of sin is death... Galatians 3:13

 

[klutedavid]

Read Paul...what do you think it means?

You said.

I am not under the curse, that was done away. Sin is still the transgression of the law.

I asked you what you meant when you said, 'I am not under the curse'.

You replied that I should read what Paul said about the curse

I consulted the following passage below to understand what being under that curse meant.

Galatians 3:10:14
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”, in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

So that phrase, 'under the curse', would have the following meanings.

1. Performing the works of the law is the same as being under the curse.

2. A person is cursed who does not abide by all the things written in the law.

3. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law.

 

[packermann]

I never said that Paul taught against the law. But he taught that the believer is dead for the law. Not the law has been made void, but the believer.


Upholding the law includes saying what the law tells about itself: It is a witness against men, no means of salvation.

If you think this is "teaching against the law" you are joining those who accused Paul of forsaking the law.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Romans 8:1-4

This issue is far more complicated than what you think it is - it is paradoxical.
On the one hand, through Christ Jesus we are free from the law of sin and death. ON THE OTHER HAND, the righteous requirement of the law is to be FULLY MET IN US. Notice, it does not say that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in Christ, as if His obedience to the law was imputed to us, so that we do not have to meet it. Not at all! The righteous requirement of the law must be met in us, who walk not according to the flesh but the Spirit.
Also notice that it is the RIGHTEOUS requirement of the law that is to fulfilled in us, not the ceremonial requirement of the law. The ceremonial requirement of the law is circumcision, the Sabbath, graven images, whether or not you ask the angels or saints to pray for you, etc. These are mere shadows of things to come, but the substance is Christ. But the righteous or moral aspect of the law must still be kept.

Verse 13 makes it clear that keeping the moral aspect of the law is not optional:
For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

We MUST put to death the misdeeds of the body by the Holy Spirit, or else we will die spiritually and eternally.

It is ironic that many Christians will condemn us Catholic Christians for having graven images, praying the Rosary, having a devotion to Mary, kneeling before statues, etc, that has to do with the ceremonial aspect of the Law, but they have no problem with a Christian who breaks the moral aspect of the Law. A Christian who lusts after a woman, or divorces his wife, or has a temper will still go to heaven because we Christians are now dead to the law. We can go ahead and lust after a woman, or divorce your wife, or lose your temper because Christ died for THOSE sins. But if do Catholic practices that were condemned in the Torah but not by Christ or any of the writers of the New Testament, well, that cannot be tolerated. We Catholics are going to hell! Martin Luther once told his friend to sin boldly, because Christ died for his sins and he is dead to the the Mosaic Law. But we Catholics are going to hell because we ask Jesus' mother to pray for us or because we call our priest father?

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Matthew 23:23, 24

We are straining the gnat and swallowing the camel! Even if what we Catholics do is wrong, which I do not believe is wrong, I do not believe that God would not care! He cares about the weightier matters of the law. Am I just in my dealing with others? Am I merciful to others? Am I faithful to my wife, my family, to my friends, and especially to God? In other words, am I a loving person - to God and others?

But those who uphold justification by faith alone get upset! "No, we are judged only by our faith. We are not judged by how just we are, or how merciful we are, or how faithful we are, or even how loving we are!" And yet they will turn around and judge us for the way we pray or worship. It is straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.

So we are dead to the ceremonial aspect to the law, such as circumcision, graven images, etc. God will not judge us these things. But He will judge us on our justice, our mercy, and our faithfullness.

 

[packermann]

Not sure that I would agree with what you wrote.

For example you said.
But the Old Testament does, in fact, present a very detailed image of the creator.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

Anyone could paint, draw, mould, a picture of that man. i.e., the creator. Without too much effort. So I would strongly disagree with you.

So when Jesus said "This is my body", Protestants take it figuratively. But you take Daniel literally, even though this would contradict the rest of the Bible.

No one has seen God at any time. The one and only God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him (John 1:18).

Did the Apostle John lie to us? He wrote that NO ONE has seen God at any time! That would include Daniel. So what did Daniel see? Christian theologians call it a theophany - God manifested Himself in a way that Daniel could relate to. No, God is NOT actually wearing a belt! Does He need a belt to keep His pants up? Maybe sometime he wear suspenders.

Who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:16).

God is in unapproachable light! NO MAN HAS SEEN OR CAN SEE! That includes Daniel! Is the Apostle Paul lying to us? Or could it be that the passage you cited is a theophany?

If you believe that God has a body then you need to join the Mormon cult (see https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Bickmore.GodHaveBody.pdf). They believe that God has a body. But I know of no Protestant denomination, as well as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, that believes that God has a body. If God had a body then God could not be infinite. His presence could not be everywhere.

If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths [hell], you are there.
Psalms 139:8

How could Daniel see a Being whose presence is in heaven and hell at the same time? That is pretty big! Theologians would point out that the whole universe, it still has a limit. But once you reach that limit, you still have God. So how could anyone see God? Can a finite human being stand at the end of ocean and see the WHOLE ocean. Of course not! So how could Daniel see all that there is to see of God? That would be absurd!

Acts 18:28 says "In Him we move and have our being". Colossians 1:17 says that "In Him ALL THINGS hold together". Everything, the whole universe hold to together in Him! What holds the atoms of each human being together? It is God. He is the ground of all continued existence everywhere in the universe! So if everything exists in Him, how is it possible that anyone can actually see Him. Can you see everything in the universe all at once? Then how can anyone see God who contains all things?

there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult

This amazes me. People who condemn us Catholics for graven images of Christ have an image of God that makes Him nothing but a creature - only bigger! You, my friend, see Him as a man dressed in linen, with a belt of pure gold, with a face, eyes, arms, and feet! He sounds like one of those pagan gods rather than the great "I AM"! But He is beyond what we can see or comprehend. Whatever He reveals of Himself, He is infinitely much more than that. We could never fathom Him! If you disagree, then you are making God into your own image. Your God is too small!

 

[helmut]

Semantics...what do you think Ivrit means?

With "Ivrit" I refer to the Hebrew spoken today, by Western Jews (Rabbis), Christian theologians and in Israel (the three versions are quite similar, so there is no need to differentiate between them in this thread).

This is opposed to Hebrew as spoken in OT times, and more or less in the times of Jesus.

The Greek usage was well after the Aramaic...

No. The Aramaic form in the time o9f Jesus was yeshu` (with Ayin!). From there stems ancient Greek iesous, the pronunciation of that word changed by Itacism (about 100 AD?) into isus (with long i, cf. the pronunciation of "ee" as long i in modern English), and from isous stems Aramaic Isho.

Not everyone is are of the language changes involved, there are people that think Hebrew hasn't changed (in spite of the fact, that there are oriental Jews ho still pronounce the consonant in-pronoucable for European Jews) or that Aramaic hasn't change (despite the fact that Yehowshuw` ["Yoshua"] is Hebrew, but Yeshu` ["Yeshua"] is Aramaic).

EDIT: corrected a lot of typos.

 

[helmut]

I thought that was a given. But just as the Holy Spirit works on the first Council, He has worked infallibly through the subsequent Councils.

Are you sure? And what councils do you refer to? There was a council that condemned trinitarianism, it is not counted as council by now (the victor defines what counts and what does not count), it is known as the "robber's council".

No, I'm a Trinitarian, but I can't see the Holy Spirit in every Council that occurred.

No Council is valid without the approval of successor to St. Peter.

Peter had several offices. One was leader in Jerusalem, and by this office he was the leading Christian representative for the Church (or all churches).

In Acts 12, Pete leaves Jerusalem, and then James the Just is his successor. He is the leading one which, according to Jewish custom, speaks at the end of the assembly in Acts 15. So we have to conclude that the successor of Peter in the office as leading representative of the Church was James the Just (the author of the letter of James). It is contrary to Scripture to count any successor in another office as successor in leadership.

If you disagree, then you must concur that the infamous "Robber Council" was a valid Council. This council has all the bishops, and they sided with the heresy of Monophysitism. Everything was valid except it did not have the approval of the pope.

You see the problem: if you define what is right by councils, you get into difficulties.

Also, it is curious that the Orthodox churches have had not one council since they split from Rome.

This is not curious, it is consequent: Unlike the pope, the other patriarchs didn't want a schism, therefore they insisted that a valid council must be approved by all patriarchs, which includes the Pope. And all the "councils" held by the medieval catholic church or by the modern rcc are no real councils, because the orthodox patriarchs were not involved.

Also, it is only to Peter that our Lord that he is the Rock that He will be build His Church. It is only to the Church built on Peter that He said that the gates of death and hell shall not prevail against it. It is only to Peter that Jesus gave Him the keys to the kingdom. Not to the other apostles.

Right, it was Peter, and Peter alone, who was promised that his decisions will be in accordance with what has been (previously) decided in heaven. And we see this fulfilled in Acts: Peter decided that Samaritans (Acts 8) and gentiles (Acts 10-11) are allowed to enter the Church, while hypocrites are to be excluded (Simon Magus).

There is no hint that this promised is also for the successors to Peter, neither James the Just nor any successor in any other office can claim this promise for himself. Unless we meet Aliens and have to decide whether Christ died for them or not, we don't need one to tell us more as Peter told, led by the Holy Spirit.

Also, do a search in the Bible. There is no Biblical justification at all that certain bishops, patriarchs, are higher than the other bishops.

So there is no justification to see a "arch"bishop higher that an bishop, a patriarch higher than an archbishop or a pope higher than a patriarch.

Interesting, but so what? If call myself "pope" does that mean I am the head of the Church? If I call myself "President of the United States" does that mean I am the President?

No. It was a confirmation that "Pope" originally meant "patriarch of Rome", no more.

There are a number of Alexandrian patriarchs by now, one orthodox, one Coptic (the coptic Pope), and AFAIK one catholic "patriarch", and maybe more from other churches.

Instead, you are a Protestant schismatic. Check out you own denomination. Each one split from another church.

Every church (except the Orthodox church, and the Assyrian church of the East) split from another church.

There are also the "brethren" who didn't split from another church, but gathered as Christians from different denominations into one church (the "Plymouth" brethren split from there, so they are schismatic).

I heard that there are overs 30,000 splits in Protestantism. It it at least in the thousands. Just the Baptists alone, they have over 200 splits.

There may be 30,000 churches, but this is due to the fact that most churches do not organize themselves in more than one country.

We may compare this to the situation in Rome: It was forbidden to have an organization which extended over the whole city. So unless Peter disobeyed his own letter, he could only be Bishop in one of the 14 districts in Rome. In other districts (probably not in every one, since Christianity was not spread everywhere) there were other bishops in Rome. These different bishops in Rome do not prove any schism.

I'm not that interested in the outward form. A couple of years ago I changed the local church I attend to (out of practical reasons, no "theology" involved) and this changed the denomination (FeG into efG, it is hard to explain the difference between these two German denominations, I don't understand why thy don't fuse). And when I am in my wife's country, I go to a third denomination - but I consider myself always to be in the same church, the Church of Jesus Christ, the foundation of truth.

Also, the Early Church Fathers BEFORE the Orthodox split saw Peter himself as the Rock that Jesus built the Church. Some are even from the East. Here is just some of them:

The crucial question is not whether they see Peter as the rock etc. (as I do, see above), the question is whether they link that to Rome.

And I don't esteem the "holy church fathers" as infallible, we should decide according to Scripture. A proof that they fell into the error that produced the split of the Latin Church from the main church does not alter what is written in the Bible.

EDIT: again, a row of typos

 

[helmut]

This person is not God?

Dan 10:13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,

We are speaking about someone who could not overcome the "prince" of Persia, until he got help from Michael. How can you dare to say this is the Almighty God?

You seem to believe that the man described above was not God. Well here is another portrait of that man above from the book of Ezekiel.

This is about Jesus, the "Son of man", who will judge all the world. It speaks about the man-nature of Christ, not about Jesus as God.

Not every parallel means identity.

 

[helmut]

No one has seen God at any time. The one and only God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him (John 1:18).

This is only one side:
Deut 24:9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11 And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.

It not only stated that they saw the God of Israel, it is also emphasized that they did not die. So this is more than an appearance: God showed Himself to the elders.

No-one has seen God the Father, but Jesus appeared and was seen.

Acts 15:20 is not saying that we should abstain from images. It is not even about abstaining from idols. It is about abstaining from FOOD offered to idols.

Really?

There is no mention of food in the clause "ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπό τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων" (abstain from the pollution by images), food is mentioned only after the fornication, which is mentioned between the images and the "strangled and blood".

Paul took that letter from the Council and brought it to the other churches throughout the Roman empire. This is what he wrote about.

This was almost a decade after the Jerusalem assembly. So you cannot simply assume that Pauls writes about the same theme.

Since there are no other gods but the one, true God, there is no problem in eating food offered to idols as long the person eating the food is not intending by this act to worship a false god.

This is one-sided. Paul also writes:
1.Cor 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
[...]
19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.

Which God (or saint) is associated with the image may be secondary. There are demons, and (to cite a rather obvious example) the same demon can appear as Fatima, daughter of Muhammad (venerated as a sort of Saint by many Sunnites) and later as Our Lady of Fátima.

1 John 5:21 says to stay away from idols, not from images.

The word translated as "idols" is literally "images". You can't deny that.

That is what idolatry is - it could be our money, our houses, our looks, our intelligence, our selfishness, our pride. Anything that means more to us than God. Ultimately, it is placing ourselves before God.

Again, you stress one point and neglect other things that we can also find in the Bible:

Ex 32:5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.”

This is the reaction to the statement of the people, that the calf is the God ('elowhiym, formally plural, but often used for God) who led Israel out of Egypt.

The golden calf was not the issue of venerating another god (against the 1st commandment), it was the issue of venerating God through an image (against the 2nd commandment).

EDIT:
(1)corrected "acts" -> "1.Cor".
(2) added a missing clause

 

[helmut]

This issue is far more complicated than what you think it is - it is paradoxical.

I can't say all in a discussion, it would be too much for a single posting. Don't think I think as simple as you state it.

It is ironic that many Christians will condemn us Catholic Christians for having graven images, praying the Rosary, having a devotion to Mary, kneeling before statues, etc, that has to do with the ceremonial aspect of the Law, but they have no problem with a Christian who breaks the moral aspect of the Law.

This is not what I think.

Not being under the law does not mean that you can live neglecting the will of God.

Martin Luther once told his friend to sin boldly, because Christ died for his sins and he is dead to the the Mosaic Law.

This was not meant as an advice to sin, but for a person who saw no possibility not to sin. If you say "Whatever I can do is wrong, I will sin this way or the other way" then this advice to sin bravely (my translation from German) is for you. But I know that some Lutherans in the 17th and 18th century took it as you take it. The "pietist" movement in Germany began as a protest against that sort of Protestantism.

But we Catholics are going to hell because we ask Jesus' mother to pray for us or because we call our priest father?

As to calling a priest father, it is forbidden by Jesus himself, and AFAIK there is no OT verse against that. If you complaint being condemned for OT laws never mentioned in the NT, you should chose another example.

EDIT: Typo

 

[helmut]

So when Jesus said "This is my body", Protestants take it figuratively.

Well, whether this is taken figuratively or not is not uniform among protestants. This very question was one of the reasons Luther and Zwingli didn't come together.

The difference which separates Catholics from every protestant is another point: While Catholics think that bread has to be changed (by the priest) into the body of Christ, Protestant believe it is as said by Jesus: The bread is the boy, the wine is the blood of Christ. Whether this is real for the believer by faith (Luther), taken figuratively (Zwingli, Calvin) or even somewhat different third option, protestants have different opinions.

God is in unapproachable light! NO MAN HAS SEEN OR CAN SEE! That includes Daniel! Is the Apostle Paul lying to us? Or could it be that the passage you cited is a theophany?

As I pointed out in another posting, the figure klutedavid equates with God did need the help from Michael to overcome the prince of Persia (obviously a spiritual principality ...). I Think this settles the matter whether he was God.

 

[klutedavid]

So when Jesus said "This is my body", Protestants take it figuratively. But you take Daniel literally, even though this would contradict the rest of the Bible.

No one has seen God at any time. The one and only God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him (John 1:18).

You are directly denying the divinity of the creator.

John 14:7
If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.

John 14:9
Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

John 17:5
So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

Did the Apostle John lie to us? He wrote that NO ONE has seen God at any time!

Your church movement obviously misunderstands John's testimony.

John declared the divinity of the Christ.

You look at Jesus and your directly seeing the Father, as they are one and the same.

That would include Daniel. So what did Daniel see? Christian theologians call it a theophany - God manifested Himself in a way that Daniel could relate to. No, God is NOT actually wearing a belt! Does He need a belt to keep His pants up? Maybe sometime he wear suspenders.

Daniel was looking at the creator, YHWH, the same creator that Moses saw.

You are in direct denial of the divinity and revelation of the Christ. The Christian God is a God that has been observed, touched, and loved.

Who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:16).

A poor interpretation of the scripture and lacking the more pronounced revelation of the Word. If you have seen Jesus, then you are really seeing the Father in all His glory.

God is in unapproachable light! NO MAN HAS SEEN OR CAN SEE! That includes Daniel! Is the Apostle Paul lying to us? Or could it be that the passage you cited is a theophany?

The Word became man and the Word was God.

If you believe that God has a body then you need to join the Mormon cult (see https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Bickmore.GodHaveBody.pdf). They believe that God has a body. But I know of no Protestant denomination, as well as the Catholic and Orthodox churches, that believes that God has a body. If God had a body then God could not be infinite. His presence could not be everywhere.

You need to accept the divinity of the Christ.

God, the Word, did indeed have a body as the vision of Daniel, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the apostles confirmed. You need to renounce your church doctrine and accept the declaration of the divinity of the Christ.

How could Daniel see a Being whose presence is in heaven and hell at the same time? That is pretty big! Theologians would point out that the whole universe, it still has a limit. But once you reach that limit, you still have God. So how could anyone see God? Can a finite human being stand at the end of ocean and see the WHOLE ocean. Of course not! So how could Daniel see all that there is to see of God? That would be absurd!

You are placing a limit on God Himself. God can do anything He chooses to do. You can peer into eternity by looking directly at God in the vision of Ezekiel.

Acts 18:28 says "In Him we move and have our being". Colossians 1:17 says that "In Him ALL THINGS hold together". Everything, the whole universe hold to together in Him! What holds the atoms of each human being together? It is God. He is the ground of all continued existence everywhere in the universe! So if everything exists in Him, how is it possible that anyone can actually see Him. Can you see everything in the universe all at once? Then how can anyone see God who contains all things?

Everything was created for Jesus.

You exist only for Jesus.

The universe exists for Jesus.

If you know and see Jesus, then your simply viewing the entire revelation of God to humanity.

Even Adam and Eve heard God walking in the garden, the God that Adam and Eve heard walking was wearing a belt of gold.

there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult

The Word, YHWH.

This amazes me. People who condemn us Catholics for graven images of Christ have an image of God that makes Him nothing but a creature - only bigger! You, my friend, see Him as a man dressed in linen, with a belt of pure gold, with a face, eyes, arms, and feet! He sounds like one of those pagan gods rather than the great "I AM"! But He is beyond what we can see or comprehend. Whatever He reveals of Himself, He is infinitely much more than that. We could never fathom Him! If you disagree, then you are making God into your own image. Your God is too small!

You deny the revelation of the creator, the Word, the Christ.

You are in deep error.

 

[eleos1954]

Hi I always thought sunday was the sabath day but some people think the sabbath is on Saturday and now I don't know what day it realy is Saturday or sunday I always thought Sunday because God rested on the 7th day

****
Sunday is the 1st day of the week not the 7th. (the 7th day of creation is the Sabbath)

The Sabbath (7th day) is God’s perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people (all believers). Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God’s creative and redemptive acts.

Genesis 2:1-3
Exodus 20:8-11
Exodus 31:13-17
Leviticus 23:32
Deuteronomy 5:12-15
Isaiah 56:5, 6
Isaiah 58:13, 14
Ezekiel 20:12, 20
Matthew 12:1-12
Mark 1:32
Luke 4:16
Hebrews 4:1-11

How do we know the 7th day (we call saturday) is the Sabbath - the Lords day (the 7th day He created)?

According to Scripture, Christ died on Friday and rose on Sunday, the first day of the week. Practically all churches acknowledge this by observing Easter Sunday and Good Friday. “This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. The women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment” Luke 23:52–56 .

This is clear evidence that Jesus died the day before the Sabbath! The day of His death was a “preparation day” because it was the time to get ready for the Sabbath. Notice, then, that the women rested over the Sabbath “according to the commandment.” The commandment says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath,” so we know they were resting on Saturday. The very next verse says, “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared. … And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre” Luke 24:1, 2 .

The calendar has not been changed so as to confuse the days of the week. Just as we know that Jesus and His followers observed the same day as Moses, we can be positive that our seventh day is the same day Jesus observed. Pope Gregory XIII did make a calendar change in 1582, but it did not interfere with the weekly cycle. What did Gregory do to the calendar? He changed Friday, October 5, 1582, to be Friday, October 15, 1582. He did not affect the weekly cycle of days.

The Jews have observed the seventh day from the time of Abraham, and they still keep it today. An entire nation of people, all around the world, continue to observe a Sabbath they have known for more than 4,000 years.

Over 100 languages on earth use the word “Sabbath” for Saturday. For example, the Spanish word for Saturday is “Sabado,” meaning Sabbath. What does this prove? It proves that when those languages originated long ago, Saturday was recognized as the Sabbath day and was incorporated into the very name of the day.

Some claim worshiping on the Sabbath (7th day) is for the Jews only ... whereas Jesus states clearly the Sabbath was created for mankind (not for just the Jews)

Mark 2

27 Then Jesus declared, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Jesus kept the 7th day Sabbath .... even in His death. He rested in the tomb.

 

[Skawk”]

****
Sunday is the 1st day of the week not the 7th. (the 7th day of creation is the Sabbath)

The Sabbath (7th day) is God’s perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people (all believers). Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God’s creative and redemptive acts.

Genesis 2:1-3
Exodus 20:8-11
Exodus 31:13-17
Leviticus 23:32
Deuteronomy 5:12-15
Isaiah 56:5, 6
Isaiah 58:13, 14
Ezekiel 20:12, 20
Matthew 12:1-12
Mark 1:32
Luke 4:16
Hebrews 4:1-11

How do we know the 7th day (we call saturday) is the Sabbath - the Lords day (the 7th day He created)?

According to Scripture, Christ died on Friday and rose on Sunday, the first day of the week. Practically all churches acknowledge this by observing Easter Sunday and Good Friday. “This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. The women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment” Luke 23:52–56 .

This is clear evidence that Jesus died the day before the Sabbath! The day of His death was a “preparation day” because it was the time to get ready for the Sabbath. Notice, then, that the women rested over the Sabbath “according to the commandment.” The commandment says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath,” so we know they were resting on Saturday. The very next verse says, “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared. … And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre” Luke 24:1, 2 .

The calendar has not been changed so as to confuse the days of the week. Just as we know that Jesus and His followers observed the same day as Moses, we can be positive that our seventh day is the same day Jesus observed. Pope Gregory XIII did make a calendar change in 1582, but it did not interfere with the weekly cycle. What did Gregory do to the calendar? He changed Friday, October 5, 1582, to be Friday, October 15, 1582. He did not affect the weekly cycle of days.

The Jews have observed the seventh day from the time of Abraham, and they still keep it today. An entire nation of people, all around the world, continue to observe a Sabbath they have known for more than 4,000 years.

Over 100 languages on earth use the word “Sabbath” for Saturday. For example, the Spanish word for Saturday is “Sabado,” meaning Sabbath. What does this prove? It proves that when those languages originated long ago, Saturday was recognized as the Sabbath day and was incorporated into the very name of the day.

Some claim worshiping on the Sabbath (7th day) is for the Jews only ... whereas Jesus states clearly the Sabbath was created for mankind (not for just the Jews)

Mark 2

27 Then Jesus declared, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Jesus kept the 7th day Sabbath .... even in His death. He rested in the tomb.

Thanks for this good explanation now I understand it. When I growled up I was learned that sunday is the 7th day. But now I know Saturday is the 7th day

 

[packermann]

Are you sure? And what councils do you refer to? There was a council that condemned trinitarianism, it is not counted as council by now (the victor defines what counts and what does not count), it is known as the "robber's council".

I don’t think that the Robber Council condemned Trinitarianism. From what I read, that Council proposed Monophysitism, which is that Jesus had only a divine nature and not a human nature. Still, this was a heresy. But this is not a problem for a Catholic Church. This Council’s declaration for this heresy was not approved by the sitting pope. That is why the Catholic Church does not count it as one of the Councils. But this seems to be a problem for an Orthodox Christian. According to Orthodoxy, a Council does not need to be approved by the pope to be valid, so I would think that the Orthodox has no grounds to reject the Council.

No, I'm a Trinitarian, but I can't see the Holy Spirit in every Council that occurred.

No, not the Robber Council, because it was not approved by the sitting pope.

The Bible treats the Jerusalem Council as being led by the Holy Spirit. The Bible quotes this Council’s finding: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. The Bible treats this Council as being led by the Holy Spirit and there is nothing in the Bible that only this Council was led by the Holy Spirit.

But what even is more of a problem is how do you determine what should be in the New Testament? Take the Gospel of Matthew. How do you know it should in the Bible? Did Jesus ever say that Matthew was ever to write part of the Word of God? No! Did Matthew even hint that what he was writing was infallibly led by the Holy Spirit? No! Can we know from the Gospel itself that it was written by Matthew? No, there is nothing in the Gospel that suggests it was written by one of the apostles. So why is the Gospel of Matthew in the Protestant Bible?

I can tell you why it is in the Catholic Bible. There were two Councils in the fourth century where they determined what should be in the Bible, and then in 405 A.D. the current pope signed off on it. So we Catholics believe that the Gospel of Matthew is part of the Word of God because these two Councils and the pope declared it so. The same for all the other books in the Bible.

But the problem for the Protestant is that he cannot never have a rationale for accepting all the books in the Bible as being the Word of God. The best he can do is say that he has a certain feeling whenever he reads the Bible that convinces him that it is God’s Word that he assumes is from the Holy Spirit. But the Mormon can say the same thing about The Book of Mormon and the Muslim can say that about the Koran. The devil can masquerade himself as an angel of light. Sometimes those good feelings are not from the God but from the devil.

 

[packermann]

You are directly denying the divinity of the creator.

That is the impossibility.

According to dictionary.com this is the definition of God:

the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Definition of god | Dictionary.com

You cannot believe in the creator of all without believing in God. Since God is by definition the creator of the universe, once you accept the creator, you have to accept His divinity.

And I do believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. You are building a straw man and then attacking the straw man. I am Catholic, and I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Read the Nicene Creed. Jesus Christ is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God. Begotten, not made. Consubstantial with the Father". You cannot have Jesus more divine than that!

 

[klutedavid]

That is the impossibility.

According to dictionary.com this is the definition of God:

the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Definition of god | Dictionary.com

You cannot believe in the creator of all without believing in God. Since God is by definition the creator of the universe, once you accept the creator, you have to accept His divinity.

And I do believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. You are building a straw man and then attacking the straw man. I am Catholic, and I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Read the Nicene Creed. Jesus Christ is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God. Begotten, not made. Consubstantial with the Father". You cannot have Jesus more divine than that!

Your interpretation of the scripture is erroneous.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

Was that man in the verse above God?

Ezekiel 1:26-28
Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man. Then I noticed from the appearance of His loins and upward something like glowing metal that looked like fire all around within it, and from the appearance of His loins and downward I saw something like fire; and there was a radiance around Him. As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

Is the man shown above God?

Both passages from Daniel and Ezekiel only show a man with the appearance of God. Ezekiel has the throne and that man sitting on the throne, Ezekiel calls that man on the throne God.

Is the man sitting on the throne in Ezekiel really Jesus Christ?

 

[packermann]

Peter had several offices. One was leader in Jerusalem, and by this office he was the leading Christian representative for the Church (or all churches).

Actually, the local leader of the Church of Jerusalem was James. Peter was the overall leader of the Church, and Peter’s successor was called endearingly papa, in Latin it is “pope”.

It is contrary to Scripture to count any successor in another office as successor in leadership.

This confuses me. I thought you were Protestant. Do you believe in apostolic succession? If you do not, then how can you write of Biblical rules for succession?
Be that as it may, where does it explicitly command us with something like “Thou shalt not count any successor in another office as successor in leadership”? If there is no command like that, then there is nothing contrary to scripture concerning this.

You see the problem: if you define what is right by councils, you get into difficulties.

Do you see the problem of defining what is the Word of God if you do not define it by the Councils, ratified by the sitting pope?
Did you know that there are over 16 gospels written back then? Most of them were not included in the Bible. The few I can recall are the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary Magalene. Have you read these gospels? I assume you have not. Some have made the argument that these are the true gospels, and not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Are you aware of these arguments?
You know, given your premise that we cannot let the Councils define things what is right should be open to the other gospels. And if these other gospels are the true gospels, then our idea of Jesus Christ would be completely wrong. These other gospels say that Jesus did not really die on the cross and instead he ran off with Mary Magdalene. How do you know that this is not true? Because of the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which were put into the Bible by these Councils? And you are arguing that these Councils were fallible! So how do you the Councils got it right on the Bible?

This is not curious, it is consequent: Unlike the pope, the other patriarchs didn't want a schism

Where is the evidence that the pope at that time wanted a schism? Did the pope say, “I want a schism”? And what is the evidence that the other patriarchs did not want a schism? Did they say, “We do not want a schism”? Cite primary sources, please.

It seems that we are arguing who broke off from whom. You seem to be argue that since there are more patriarchs than the Roman bishop, then it was he who broke off. But it matters not which side has more patriarchs. I doubt very much that even Orthodox Christians would argue that since they have more patriarchs that they are the true church. That would be ridiculous!

What matters is Jesus! What did He have to say about this?

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,["Petros" means "Rock" in Greek]and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:16-19

Jesus said the following about this apostle:

1. His name was originally Simon. Jesus change it to Peter, just as God changed Abram to Abraham. It was a huge deal back then when God changed a person's name. Our Lord did not change the name of any other apostle. He did not change the name of any other patriarch (Oh wait! None of the other patriarchs even existed yet!).

2. Jesus said to Peter that He will build the Church on him.

3. Jesus promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail on the Church built on Peter.

4. Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter.

5. Jesus said to Peter that whatever Peter binds on earth shall be bound in heaven.
True, the Bible does not say much of the successors of Peter. There is a good reason for this. Peter did not yet die yet when most of the Bible was written. Look at the Book of Acts of the Apostles. The only apostle who did in Acts was James. Acts ended with the apostles still alive! Now, since Acts does not record the deaths of Paul and Peter should we then that they never died? Of course not! Luke, the author of Acts, was just finished writing before their deaths. So things happened after Luke was finished with Acts.

So how do we know that the apostles, especially Peter, appointed successors just before their deaths? We know this by the writings that happened after their deaths, which means the writings of Christian leaders after the documents of the Bible were written. This does not mean that these writings were infallible! Something may not be infallible but can still be accurate. In fact, those closest to the apostles would be the best authority on what the apostle said and did.

Clement of Rome (either the first or fourth bishop of Rome after Peter)
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Clement, a very early bishop of Rome and still in the first century, saw it as a serious sin to disobey him. Like Peter, Clement saw that what he bound on earth will be bound in heaven.

Ignatius of Antioch (Early Church Father in the East)
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

According to this Early Father in the East, the See of Rome is above all other Sees (which means that the bishop of Rome is about the other patriarchs) and are taught by the See of Rome. And Ignatius would carry out Rome's instructions. The See of Rome could not be viewed this way unless it saw that Rome had a lineage that went back to Peter.


Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 189]).

The greatest and most ancient church of all is the See of Rome. It was founded by Peter and Paul. All other churches must agree with this church. It is in this church that the faithful have maintained the teachings of the apostles.

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen
And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness (Commentaries on John 5:3 [A.D. 226-232]).

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine (Eastern Father)
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).


These are the Early Fathers of the Church who even the Orthodox would recognize. And they say that Peter is first and foremost among the apostles. It is to him and him alone who was called Rock (Greek word is Petros – transliterated as Peter) by Jesus Christ and He built His Church upon him and his successors.

There is no hint that this promised is also for the successors to Peter, neither James the Just nor any successor in any other office can claim this promise for himself. Unless we meet Aliens and have to decide whether Christ died for them or not, we don't need one to tell us more as Peter told, led by the Holy Spirit.

Oh, there are definitely hints. It was Peter who decided the means to replace Judas(Acts 1:12-26). Now, since Judas was replaced with Matthias, does it not make sense that Peter would have made sure that he himself had a successor when he was about to die? Does not a king make sure that someone would be his successor after he dies? Does not a rich man make sure that all his riches are left to someone? Even parents, on date night, leave a baby-sitter or the oldest child in charge for the night! Are we to expect that that the apostles, especially Peter, did not care enough of the Church to leave anyone in charge after they were gone?

But they did. It is called “discipleship”. They made disciples with the view that these will be the leaders once they are gone. And those leaders after them will make disciples after they are gone. This is what we mean by “apostolic succession”.

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
2 Timothy 2:2
So here is the succession of Paul:
Paul -> Timothy -> Reliable people -> others.
That is four generations of apostolic succession!
So if Paul would do that, it is logical that Peter did that as well.

So there is no justification to see a "arch"bishop higher that an bishop, a patriarch higher than an archbishop or a pope higher than a patriarch.

Jesus never told a patriarch that the patriarch was the Rock upon which He would build His Church. Nor did He say that to a bishop, or another apostle. He only said it to Peter.

And since Peter and his successor can bind something on earth and it would consequently be bound in heaven, they can decree that an archbishop is higher than a bishop and patriarch is higher than an archbishop. This authority to do this was given by Jesus Christ.

No. It was a confirmation that "Pope" originally meant "patriarch of Rome", no more.

Sorry, wrong. In Latin, the word “pope” is an intimate term for “father”, such as “papa”. Pope - Wikipedia says this in the first sentence. But though the etymology of a word may be interesting, a rose is a rose even by any other name. What matters is that Jesus said that Peter is the Rock and the Early Church Fathers saw this being extended to his successors.

There are a number of Alexandrian patriarchs by now, one orthodox, one Coptic (the coptic Pope), and AFAIK one catholic "patriarch", and maybe more from other churches.

And Jesus never called any of them the Rock. The patriarchate was not an office created by Jesus. They only had their office by the authority of Peter's successors, who had the authority to bind and loose.

Every church (except the Orthodox church, and the Assyrian church of the East) split from another church.

Yes, outside the Catholic Church there are schisms galore!

There are also the "brethren" who didn't split from another church, but gathered as Christians from different denominations into one church (the "Plymouth" brethren split from there, so they are schismatic).

You are playing with words. Christian who gathered from other denomination is a nice way to say that they had split from other denominations. If they had left a church then they had split from that church.

There may be 30,000 churches, but this is due to the fact that most churches do not organize themselves in more than one country.

Even if a lack of organization was the cause, this proves that the organizations could not be from God. Jesus prayed that we all may be one. Why would God create an organization(s) that makes our Lord's prayer impossible?

We may compare this to the situation in Rome: It was forbidden to have an organization which extended over the whole city. So unless Peter disobeyed his own letter, he could only be Bishop in one of the 14 districts in Rome. In other districts (probably not in every one, since Christianity was not spread everywhere) there were other bishops in Rome. These different bishops in Rome do not prove any schism.

Where did Peter write anything that forbade any organization that extended over Rome???? Please cite that verse.

I'm not that interested in the outward form.

Then you should become Gnostic. Or become involved in the New Age Movement. They are not concerned with outward forms. They do not believe that God came in the flesh. They do not believe that an outward crucifixion to save our souls. They do not believe that Christ physically rose from the dead. They do not believe that God cares about any outward acts, such as whether you had sex with wife or your neighbor’s wife. All you need is love in your heart. Only the spirit matters.

And I don't esteem the "holy church fathers" as infallible, we should decide according to Scripture.

But without the Early Church Fathers, we would not be able to determine what is Scripture.

A proof that they fell into the error that produced the split of the Latin Church from the main church does not alter what is written in the Bible.

Read Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for… | Zondervan Academic.
This is written by a Protestant evangelical. This is one passage from the site:

None of the four gospels say that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Going just by the gospels, themselves, we have no idea who wrote them. So how can we be sure that they were inspired by God?

The web site goes on that we can know that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because of early tradition. This Evangelical realizes that we need tradition. Do away with tradition and eventually you will do away with the Bible. The Bible came to us through tradition. If you are sceptical tradition,you just may then be sceptical of the Bible.

Protestantism ushered in liberalism, modernism, and even atheism. It is the Law of Unintended Consequences. The leaders of the Protestant Reformation attacked the Catholic Church using the Bible and then in the last 200 years their followers have been attacking the Bible. Do some reading on how liberalism started. It started because the Protestant liberal scholars in Germany (the land of Luther) started to think among themselves that if the Catholic Church corrupted the gospel, then how do we know that the Church did not also corrupt the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). How do we know that the Catholic Church did not add passages into the original text that said that Jesus is God so that the Church could maintain its power over the people (as Dan Brown of the Da Vinci Code would argue)? They looked at every single verse in the Bible with scepticism. They not only questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary they denied the virgin birth of Christ. They not only denied that Mary was the Mother God, but they denied that Jesus is God! They asserted that both were taken from paganism. The opposite of traditionalism is modernism. You can have either hold to a traditional view of the Bible or a modern view of the Bible. But you cannot hold to a traditional view of the Bible and disdain tradition.

Many of today's atheists used to be Protestant ministers. I could not believe this when I first found that out! Why? Because once you think that Catholic beliefs and practices are superstitious then you start thinking that all Christian beliefs and practices are superstitious.

I pray to God that this does not happen to you.

 

[packermann]

Your interpretation of the scripture is erroneous.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

Was that man in the verse above God?

Ezekiel 1:26-28
Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man. Then I noticed from the appearance of His loins and upward something like glowing metal that looked like fire all around within it, and from the appearance of His loins and downward I saw something like fire; and there was a radiance around Him. As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

Is the man shown above God?

Both passages from Daniel and Ezekiel only show a man with the appearance of God. Ezekiel has the throne and that man sitting on the throne, Ezekiel calls that man on the throne God.

Is the man sitting on the throne in Ezekiel really Jesus Christ?

Daniel and Ezekiel was written in a certain genre called "apocalyptic literature". Was never intended to be taken literally. They were heavily symobolized. The Revelation of John is also of this genre. John wrote that he saw Jesus with a head of a Lamb! Are we supposed to take this literally???. Are we suppose to believe that Jesus is in heaven running around with a Lamb's head???

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. I most definitely believe that God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, came down from heaven and was born of a virgin, Mary. From that time on He has had a body. He suffered and died bodily for our sins. He rose bodily from the dead. And He bodily ascended into heaven and will come again in His glorified body to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end and He will forever have His body.

But Daniel and Ezekiel were written in the Old Testament - before the Incarnation. So at that time, even Jesus Christ would be a spirit without a body. However, He could have manifested Himself to us anyway He pleases, accommodating Himself in a way that we can comprehend Him. He stoops down to make Himself knowable to our little minds. But it would be a mistake to think that this is all He is. That is why He commanded us not to make any kind of image of Him and worship that image.

But since God the Son has made Himself flesh, we are free to make images of Him, such as a baby in a manger or as a man hung on the cross. Here many Protestants are terribly inconsistent. They will put up the baby Jesus in a manger on their lawns at Christmas time but condemn us for having Jesus on a cross.

 

[packermann]

This is only one side:
Deut 24:9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11 And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.

It not only stated that they saw the God of Israel, it is also emphasized that they did not die. So this is more than an appearance: God showed Himself to the elders.

No-one has seen God the Father, but Jesus appeared and was seen.

You seem to be content of there being"one side" and that there is another. But they have to be reconciled. Without reconciling them, you are admitting what the atheists are arguing - there any CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible! I am reconciling both sides. You seem to be content with the contradiction. But if the Bible is contradicting itself then it is not the Word of God. And if the Bible is not the Word of God, then we should all stop being Christians and find something better to do than being on this Christian forum.

My reconciliation is what even Protestant theologians call a "theophany" - God manifests Himself in a way that we can understand Him. God walked in the Garden of Eden. God appeared to Moses as a burning bush. This does not mean that God has legs to walk or that God is a bush! You above verse said that God showed Himself to the elders. It does not mean that they saw His very essence.

There is no mention of food in the clause "ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπό τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων" (that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols), food is mentioned only after the fornication, which is mentioned between the images and the "strangled and blood".

Actually, it is "things offered to idols" (see the interlinear Greek at Acts 15:29 Interlinear: to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom; from which keeping yourselves, ye shall do well; be strong!'). That is why it translated by the New International version of the Bible, which is the latest Protestant version, as "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols". The King James Bible has "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols". The NASB has "that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols". The RSV has "that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols". These are major Protestant translations, and none of them have "that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols", including the Greek interlinear.

This was almost a decade after the Jerusalem assembly. So you cannot simply assume that Pauls writes about the same theme.

As I showed above, all, the major Protestant translations translate the above verse to be about food sacrificed, and Paul wrote about food offered to idols. It sure sounds like the same them to me. I don't think Paul had Alzheimers.

This is one-sided. Paul also writes:

There you go again with that one-sided thing. It is not enough to say that, but you have to as a Bible-believing Christian attempt to reconcile both sides.

1.Cor 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
[...]
19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.

Which God (or saint) is associated with the image may be secondary. There are demons, and (to cite a rather obvious example) the same demon can appear as Fatima, daughter of Muhammad (venerated as a sort of Saint by many Sunnites) and later as Our Lady of Fátima.

How about the statue of Billy Graham?

See Google Image Result for https://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/tn/TNNASgraham_kentuckyeti2.jpg

Is this an act of idolatry? Is this also demonic? Why is it that when we do it then it is of the devil but when others do it it is OK?

The word translated as "idols" is literally "images". You can't deny that.

As I said beforehand, the etymology of a word may be interesting, but that may not influence the way it is currently used.

Again, you stress one point and neglect other things that we can also find in the Bible:

Not really. I'm not here to prove you arguments. Only mine.

Ex 32:5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.”


This is the reaction to the statement of the people, that the calf is the God ('elowhiym, formally plural, but often used for God) who led Israel out of Egypt.

The golden calf was not the issue of venerating another god (against the 1st commandment), it was the issue of venerating God through an image (against the 2nd commandment).

Veneration is not worship. To venerate is to honor. One is the Ten Commandments is "Honor (venerate) thy father and mother. The Israelites did not just venerate the golden calf. They worshipped it. We Catholics are taught in CCC classes that we should only worship God. Our parents and the saints can only be venerated. Since we are not worshipping a statues, like the Israelites worshipped the golden calf, we are not guilty of idolatry.

It is interesting that you are observing one of the Ten Commandments but not the other. When it comes to honoring the Sabbath, you do not care to observe it. You are free in Christ. But when it comes to graven images, you will not extend that same freedom to your Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. I am still waiting from you to show a specific verse in the NEW TESTAMENT against graven images. The only one I can think of is Christ being the image (icon) of the invisible God. Since Christ is now the image, we can now use images.

EDIT:
(1)corrected "acts" -> "1.Cor".
(2) added a missing clause

Do you have ghost writer?

 

[packermann]

Well, whether this is taken figuratively or not is not uniform among protestants. This very question was one of the reasons Luther and Zwingli didn't come together.

The difference which separates Catholics from every protestant is another point: While Catholics think that bread has to be changed (by the priest) into the body of Christ, Protestant believe it is as said by Jesus: The bread is the boy, the wine is the blood of Christ. Whether this is real for the believer by faith (Luther), taken figuratively (Zwingli, Calvin) or even somewhat different third option, protestants have different opinions.

I get the impression that you think this a positive for Protestantism. But it is not! Our Lord gave us this before He died. And yet, according to Protestants, Jesus does not care how we though of it, just as long as we do it! That makes no sense to me.

As I pointed out in another posting, the figure klutedavid equates with God did need the help from Michael to overcome the prince of Persia (obviously a spiritual principality ...). I Think this settles the matter whether he was God.

The issue is not whether this figure was God. The issue was whether it was in actual essence God or was it a manifestation of God (a theophany). If it was in actual essence God then there is a contradiction, because the Bible says that God has no form and no one has seen God. And if there is this contradiction, then you have just proven that the Bible is not the Word of God!