The following seems to be the textual support for the keeping of Sunday from the Catholic perspective. I will address each text. And please note that giving a rebuttal does not mean it is ignored. In fact it means that the time was taken to consider the arguments.
debiwebi said:
Go back a few pages and look at the Scriptural support cliff I have posted it now several times ... please do not do that because it is NOT becoming of you at this point ....
Here I will repost it for you
Scripture
Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.
As was noted before the context is simply saying that the ceremonies mean nothing without their heart being in it. Since they were turning away from God, their worship was of little value.
ISA 1:13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations--
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
ISA 1:14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
ISA 1:15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood;
ISA 1:16 wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,
Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus' resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.
a. it happened on Sunday, and was in fact an important event.
b. It fulfilled the OT service of the wavesheaf, the first fruits, just as His death fulfilled the Passover, and the events in Acts 2 fulfilled the feast of pentecost. This service was to take place on the first day after the passover, after the Sabbath. Paul recognized this fulfillment of this service in I Corinthians 15, stating that Jesus was the firstfruits from among the dead. Indeed He was. Just as the firstfruits are offered to God of the harvest, Jesus was the first from among the dead which guarantees our resurrection. Notice, He was not first in order, others were raised before Him, including at least three people that He raised Himself. But He was first in preeminence, and His guarantees the rest.
Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the "first day of the week." Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.
Nowhere in this text is it stated that this is in fact the new apostolic tradition. It says that they got together to break bread. Paul spoke at length because he was leaving the next day. If Luke had wanted to distinguish it from the Jewish form of worship he could certainly have been more clear.
1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches "on the first day of the week," which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.
1CO 16:1 Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me.
Actually it says that each one should set aside a sum of money and save it up. The reference seems to be to budgeting on Sunday, not giving a gift at church. The point is what he had said all along, that the money should be there as a gift willingly given, and that they should plan ahead. He had already boasted about their generosity and prompted others to give. Now if they did not give they would be embarrassed and so would he.
Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says "let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath."
The reference is to new moons and Sabbaths, of the feasts. These are in fact fulfilled in Christ. The weekly Sabbath preceded sin and needed no fulfillment. It is not pointing to the death of Christ, but the creation of the world. The feasts however, which had Sabbath rests as well, did point to Christ's sacrifice, and were fulfilled.
2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
We are not to hold to apostolic tradition over the written teachings of the apostles themselves. Just as they said to hold on to tradition they also said to test the spirits, and that savage wolves would come in devouring the flock.
Moreover the writings which you speak of were around during the time of the canonizing of the Scriptures, but they were not canonized. The canon had those works which from their beginning were recognized to be inspired, and to be from those who were closest to Christ. So to put the tradition ABOVE these writings seems to deny the whole point of forming a canon. The Scriptures were chosen to be placed above these other writings. Not to have their teachings subordinated to the later ones. While the Scriptures were canonized later their inspiration was recognized immediately. Peter called Paul's writings scriptures. So if they are seen then as coming from God then later teaching is to be judged by them, not the other way around. Because the church fathers themselves followed the apostles and were to be tested by them.
Since the tradition also shows some keeping the Sabbath in addition to Sunday then the whole argument that the one replaced the other makes no sense. Even Ignatius who you quoted said after keeping the Sabbath in the true way to keep Sunday. Now did he see Sunday as above Saturday by that time? Yes. But he did not do away with the Sabbath. Instead what we see in his letter is one step in a process that I already outlined straight from the pen of Pope John II in his papal letter on the subject. Sunday came to take on the meaning of the Sabbath over time.
Now from the papal perspective that is fine. As you said, they hold that they are in the line of Peter and have that right. We of course disagree on this point. But the point is that the papacy recognizes in its own writings that both were kept, Sunday did not at first take on this meaning, etc. So trying to make the apostles say what they did not say seems fruitless. You would be better to stick with the argument that the papacy did change it, but you feel they have the right to do so.
Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of "another day," which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord's resurrection, which was on Sunday.
Actually I don't in fact agree with Palehorse that this passage is stating anything about the weekly Sabbath observance per se. Instead it is stating that God began resting on the Sabbath and since that time has invited others to that rest. And this is in fact pointing to salvation, which is available through Christ. However, it neither affirms or denies the weekly Sabbath.
But to say that it refers to Sunday is also a distortion.
The day that is "another day" in the text is plainly spelled out:
HEB 4:6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7 Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."
He is simply quoting the OT verse AFTER the exodus to point out that the rest is more than just going into a new land. It is to rest in the Lord's salvation. And that invitation is open today. But if we harden our hearts we will miss out.
Within the context of the book he is staying with the theme that these Christians who had been in the faith for a long time, who were in danger of turning back to Judaism due to lack of spiritual growth, and to persecution, should not turn back as those in the desert did, to their old way of life.
Just as those in the exodus who came out, but then rebelled were destroyed, so they, who came out and took their stand for Christ, if they turn back, will be destroyed.
Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.
The Sabbath preceded the priesthood and the need for it. So this does not follow. If he wanted to say that we have a new day of rest...Sunday, or the first day, he certainly could have.
Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, the new day of rest in Christ.
Actually I don't see any reference to the eucharistic liturgy, perhaps you could point that out. He does say he was in the Spirit. I think that could happen on any day. There is evidence that the Lord's day could have in fact been understood to be
a. easter
b. Sunday
by this time. However, nowhere does John say that it replaced the Sabbath etc. And there is also evidence that if any day was the Lord's it was in fact the Sabbath. God calls it His Holy day.
One of the issues in this text is whether Lord is referring to Jesus, as it often did, or to God, which it also did. It is not LORD which in fact is an English rendering of the name for God. It is the generic lord which was used for any master, slave owners, God, Jesus etc.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.
Now this is really your only argument. So we can take that up at length at some point.
"In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered "friends of God." For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised--yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath--God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God." Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 2 (A.D. 203).
Now it is odd that you reference a heretic as your source. Especially since you have made the Trinity a part of your arguments in this thread. But in any case, coming at 203 AD when we have already shown that there was a gradual change seems to prove our point. Tertullian goes beyond Ignatius, who in turn went beyond the apostles. So we have no argument with him. He was giving the view of his time.
And then this question for why did the Lord our God save these men when they were indeed not Jews and did not observe the Sabbath?
Abraham and David were saved by grace (Romans 4). Salvation has always been by grace.
So you're saying he changed it after that and it wasn't nailed to the cross?
