Catholic Dogma and Authority of Bible
Andrew
Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority, but a
*lesser authority* than the magesterium. And therefore all confessors
(Catholics), must always submit to the authority of the ~magesterium,
and not that of the Scriptures. Such a belief emboldens them to make
such statements as the following..acknowledging their departure from
the clear, plain word of the living God as given to us in the Scriptures.
"People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority
should logically become Seventh-day Adventists and keep Satur-
day holy."
Source: Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21,1995
Andrew
Whazit Tooyah
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:aC_ug.1433$157....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The perfect conclusion from one who admittedly does not base their beliefs
solely on scripture. Just like the SDAs who place biblical authority on the
writings of Ellen G, White the Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel
failed to study scripture alone and came to an incorrect conclusion.
--
WT
By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Monte Cassino
wrote:
>
>Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority, but a
>*lesser authority* than the magesterium.
Cite, please? According to the Second Vatican Council Encyclical Dei
Verbum, you are incorrect:
"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between
sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from
the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and
tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God
inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the
divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition
hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the
apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in
their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and
make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred
Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything
which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred
Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and
reverence."
>And therefore all confessors
>(Catholics), must always submit to the authority of the ~magesterium,
>and not that of the Scriptures.
Incorrect and misleading; see above.
MC
Stephen Korsman
"Monte Cassino" <Monte_Cas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:si4qb21ts8epbon8r...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:47:50 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority, but a
> >*lesser authority* than the magesterium.
>
> Cite, please? According to the Second Vatican Council Encyclical Dei
> Verbum, you are incorrect:
Andrew made that up. He makes many things up about Catholicism, and when
you disagree with him, he tells you that you don't know what the Catholic
Church teaches, and you're contradicting it. When you show him that he's
wrong, he ignores you, and comes up with the same story a few months later.
> "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between
> sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from
> the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and
> tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God
> inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the
> divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition
> hands on in its full purity God's word, which was entrusted to the
> apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
>
> "Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in
> their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and
> make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred
> Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything
> which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred
> Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and
> reverence."
>
>
> >And therefore all confessors
> >(Catholics), must always submit to the authority of the ~magesterium,
> >and not that of the Scriptures.
>
> Incorrect and misleading; see above.
He also quotes snippets from newspapers instead of actual Catholic teaching
that the Apostles began Sunday keeping.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
"Whazit Tooyah" <nos...@ofg.net> wrote in message
news:oO_ug.7221$rT6.915@trnddc03...
Andrew knows that the Catholic Church believes that the Apostles began
Sunday keeping, which limits the newspaper clippings he can quote.
He won't get an official statement like that from the Church itself, because
they are better informed.
There is sufficient evidence in the New Testament to see that Sunday was
kept, and definitely enough to know that the Sabbath didn't need to be kept.
Andrew has not yet provided us with a single reference from the Bible that
shows a command to Christians to keep the Sabbath, or an example of
Christians doing so after the resurrection of Jesus.
He can't convince us why his beliefs are right using the Bible, so he tries
to convince us that Catholicism is wrong by telling lies about it.
http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority,
>> but a *lesser authority* than the magesterium.
>
> Cite, please?
"Sunday is our mark of authority...The church is above the Bible,
and this transference of sabbath observance is proof of that fact."
-- The Catholic Record, London, Ontario, September 1, 1923
"Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claim to observance can
be defended only on Catholic principles..From beginning to end
of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer
of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first."
-- Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August 1900
"The holy day, the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday.
'The Day of the Lord' [dies domini] was chosen, not from any
direction noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of
its own power..... People who think that the Scriptures should be
the sole authority, should logically become Seventh-Day Adventists,
and keep Saturday holy."
-- Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel
Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995
Pastor Dave
<Monte_Cas...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
It is right on the money and your quote only supported
his statement.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."
Mavis
Why do you hate the authority of the Church so much , yet you claim
infallibility to the books they put together and claim it as an authority.
"Pastor Dave" <zanani...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7gqb29jlqdtohc9e...@4ax.com...
Monte Cassino
wrote:
Which of the foregoing, (a), (b), or (c) is the one that you claim
records the official minutes of the Magesterium?
MC
Monte Cassino
wrote:
My quotation is miles away from what he claims. He claims that the
RCC places Scripture as a lesser authority than Tradition. I have
quoted an officicial Church encyclical that (1) is directly on point,
and (2) contradicts his assertion. How you can conflate the two is
beyond me.
MC
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com Not-Easily-Duped
New Testament.
NEW TESTAMENT IS MAN MADE
Teresita
> Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority, but a
> *lesser authority* than the magesterium
Not true, Andrew. Ask a Catholic. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition,
and the Magisterium of the Church are of equal authority.
Andrew
news:1153263543.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Authority of the BIBLE? Christ know nothing
> about the authority of the New Testament.
>
> NEW TESTAMENT IS MAN MADE
****
The NT is based upon Jesus Christ.
It was commissioned to be by Him.
To reject it would be to reject Christ.
Those who reject Him will die in their
sins.
~ Andrew
Andrew
> Dear Pastor Dave.
>
> Why do you hate the authority of the Church so much ,
> yet you claim infallibility to the books they put together
> and claim it as an authority.
The apostles were not RC. They did not worship Mary.
Andrew
>"Andrew" wrote:
All of the above..(a) (b) and (c), illustrate the false concept that the
Church is above the Bible, as also stated in the official Catechism..
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been en-
trusted to the..teaching office of the Church alone. This means that
the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in com-
munion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" CCC 85
This says that the official Catholic position on Scripture, is that it can
not speak for itself, but that it must be interpreted by the Magisterium,
thereby placing the Magisterium of greater authority than the Scripture.
Andrew
Monte Cassino
wrote:
The Magesterium only interprets Scripture, it doesn't rewrite it. In
this sense, it becomes slave to the Scripture, and you know what Jesus
said about servants being greater than their masters...
Of course, the alternative is that there is no central authority to
interpret Scripture. In which case we get the 33,000+ (and
ever-growing) number of Protestant denominations today.
God bless,
MC
Doug
Andrew wrote:
>
> All of the above..(a) (b) and (c), illustrate the false concept that the
> Church is above the Bible, as also stated in the official Catechism..
>
> "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
> whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been en-
> trusted to the..teaching office of the Church alone. This means that
> the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in com-
> munion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" CCC 85
>
> This says that the official Catholic position on Scripture, is that it can
> not speak for itself, but that it must be interpreted by the Magisterium,
> thereby placing the Magisterium of greater authority than the Scripture.
>
>
> Andrew
Actually, Andrew, the Bible requires interpretation. You do it. EGW
did it. That is the only way things like "this is my body" can be
understood. The pamphlet "National Sunday Law" does a very complex job
of interpreting Scripture.
But the main difference between Protestantism in general, Adventism in
particular, and Catholicism is not the authority of Scripture, but the
interpretation thereof. Your claim that the "it must be interpreted by
the Magisterium, thereby placing the Magisterium of greater authority
than Scripture" has the the Adventist equivalent of "it must be
interpreted by EGW or by oneself, thereby placing EGW or oneself of
greater authority than Scripture".
To prove that you interpret Scripture, I challenge you to take John
6:53 at its face. As an Adventist, you can't because that would
undermine your theology. "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you
have no life in you." is typically interpreted by Adventists to mean
Jesus' words, not his literal flesh and blood.
By interpreting it that way, are you not placing your own authority, or
that of other Adventists above that of the Bible, which you charge
Catholics of doing with the Magisterium?
BTW, I believe the Church because I believed Scripture. Catholicism
and my reading of Scripture match. I returned to the Church because of
Scripture. My wife left Adventism and became a Catholic for that
reason as well. There is no better explanation for what Scripture
teaches than that provided by the Magisterium.
Doug
IKnowHimDoYou- A.
<zanani...@gmail.com> wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
Is it not incredulous how these poor lost souls cannot see the truth?
They are indeed blind....and lost!
Stephen Korsman
"Doug" <dmur...@catholicisp.com> wrote in message
news:1153281858.2...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >
> > All of the above..(a) (b) and (c), illustrate the false concept that the
> > Church is above the Bible, as also stated in the official Catechism..
> >
> > "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
> > whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been en-
> > trusted to the..teaching office of the Church alone. This means that
> > the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in com-
> > munion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" CCC 85
> >
> > This says that the official Catholic position on Scripture, is that it
can
> > not speak for itself, but that it must be interpreted by the
Magisterium,
> > thereby placing the Magisterium of greater authority than the Scripture.
> >
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Actually, Andrew, the Bible requires interpretation. You do it. EGW
> did it.
Acts 8:26-35 KJV
(26) And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go
toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza,
which is desert.
(27) And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of
great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of
all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
(28) Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
(29) Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this
chariot.
(30) And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias,
and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
(31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he
desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(32) The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a
sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened
he not his mouth:
(33) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare
his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
(34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom
speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
(35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and
preached unto him Jesus.
Adventists interpret Lev 23:32 refers to the weekly Sabbath, when the
context is discussing the Day of Atonement.
http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/139/From-sunset-to-sunset
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
> That is the only way things like "this is my body" can be
Stephen Korsman
Newspaper clippings coupled with your lack of understanding of Catholic
teaching.
Compare newspaper clippings with official Catholic statements:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
"The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
"The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to
the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day. St. John in the Apocalypse
makes mention of the Lord's day; and the Apostle commands collections to be
made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the interpretation
of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's day. From all this we learn that even then
the Lord's day was kept holy in the Church."
Pope John Paul II wrote in Dies Domini:
20. According to the common witness of the Gospels, the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead took place on "the first day after the Sabbath"
(Mk 16:2,9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). On the same day, the Risen Lord appeared to
the two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Lk 24:13-35) and to the eleven Apostles
gathered together (cf. Lk 24:36; Jn 20:19). A week later, as the Gospel of
John recounts (cf. 20:26), the disciples were gathered together once again,
when Jesus appeared to them and made himself known to Thomas by showing him
the signs of his Passion. The day of Pentecost, the first day of the eighth
week after the Jewish Passover (cf. Acts 2:1), when the promise made by
Jesus to the Apostles after the Resurrection was fulfilled by the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4-5), also fell on a Sunday. This
was the day of the first proclamation and the first baptisms: Peter
announced to the assembled crowd that Christ was risen and "those who
received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). This was the epiphany of the
Church, revealed as the people into which are gathered in unity, beyond all
their differences, the scattered children of God.
The first day of the week
21. It was for this reason that, from Apostolic times, "the first day after
the Sabbath", the first day of the week, began to shape the rhythm of life
for Christ's disciples (cf. 1 Cor 16:2). "The first day after the Sabbath"
was also the day upon which the faithful of Troas were gathered "for the
breaking of bread", when Paul bade them farewell and miraculously restored
the young Eutychus to life (cf. Acts 20:7-12). The Book of Revelation gives
evidence of the practice of calling the first day of the week "the Lord's
Day" (1:10). This would now be a characteristic distinguishing Christians
from the world around them. As early as the beginning of the second century,
it was noted by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, in his report on
the Christian practice "of gathering together on a set day before sunrise
and singing among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god".(19) And when
Christians spoke of the "Lord's Day", they did so giving to this term the
full sense of the Easter proclamation: "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil 2:11;
cf. Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 12:3). Thus Christ was given the same title which the
Septuagint used to translate what in the revelation of the Old Testament was
the unutterable name of God: YHWH.
Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday
This is an e-mail I wrote in response to a request for commentary got from
Robert Sanders, who has a ministry for Adventists at his website
http://www.truthorfables.com/ - his words are in green, my reply is in
black.
Thanks for offering me the chance to explain how we Catholics feel about the
Sabbath / Sunday "change."
If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not
change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the
Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but
it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.
Yes, that is pretty much the Catholic position summed up. We do, however,
also hold to the idea that Sunday observance is biblical, and the origins
are referenced in the New Testament (texts like Heb 4, Col 2, Rom 14, Gal 4,
Acts 20, 1 Cor 16 and others.)
One must just be careful in defining one's terms.
One person might say, "The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath" and another
might say, "The Apostles changed the Sabbath" and depending on their
background, they might mean the same thing, or they might be disagreeing
with each other.
Some terms, as used by Catholicism in general, of interest:
- Catholic Church - this refers to the Church as begun by Christ and led by
the Apostles after Pentecost
- Apostolic Church - this is a synonym for the Catholic Church during the
time when the Apostles were alive
- post-Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church once the last Apostle had died
- papacy - the office of Peter instituted in Matt 16:18, and continued in
his successors
- pope - the occupant of the papacy, beginning with Peter in the first
century
I do not expect you to AGREE with these terms or accept the theology we
Catholics accept. All I ask is that when you read Catholic texts written by
Catholics, you TRY to understand what we are saying, instead of applying
YOUR definitions for these words to something WE have written.
For instance, if a Catholic said, "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION" (quotes
from the original e-mail I am responding to) then this needs to be
understood using Catholic definitions, in order to know what the Catholic
means and understands. He is, therefore, NOT saying that Sunday observance
began in 300 AD or 600 AD or whenever it might be that a Protestant feels
the "Roman Catholic Church" <incorrect name, in fact> came into existence.
What the Catholic is actually saying with "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION"
is that Sunday observance is something that came from the Catholic Church -
without specifying era - and he would, in good conscience, say EXACTLY the
same of the decision in Acts 15 about circumcision - he would claim that
THAT TOO was a "Catholic institution" because that IS how he sees the early
Christian Church - as Catholic.
What often happens, then, is that Catholics claim authorship to Sunday
observance because they believe the Apostles began Sunday observance and
they view the Apostles as the first Catholic leaders, but when Adventists
hear these words, they grab them and remove their context and actual
meaning, and make it seem as if the Catholic Church is claiming that Sunday
observance was begun by a group which the Adventists define as the Catholic
Church, and NOT the Apostolic Church.
That said, I must differentiate between THREE types of texts that can be
used as evidence.
1. Statements by Catholics that a) agree with Catholic teaching but b) are
not official sources of Catholic teaching
2. Statements by Catholics that disagree with Catholic teaching
3. Statements that constitute official Catholic teaching
I have almost NEVER seen Adventists quote official Catholic teaching on the
issue of the Sabbath. (Simply because it would destroy what they want people
to believe we teach.) On the rare occasion, one will quote the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, and even more rarely, they will quote it in context.
Virtually ALL of the quotes they offer to support their view, are quotes of
type 2 (not real Catholic teaching) or type 1 quotes where context and the
author's intent have been abused.
Examples of texts of type 3 (official Catholic teaching) include:
- the Bible (Catholics DO view the Bible as an official source of truth)
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church
- papal encyclicals
- Council documents (e.g. from the Council of Nicaea, or the Council of
Trent) - these include catechisms, decrees, canons, letters, etc produced by
the council in question
- other official Vatican documents intended to convey or explain Catholic
teaching
Examples of texts of type 1 (agree with Catholic teaching but the text
itself is not authoritative) include:
- ALL Catholic newspapers
- ALL Catholic periodicals not published by the Vatican (and most which are,
e.g. their tax report)
- books with "Imprimatur" printed in front (this is only permission to
print, and says nothing about accuracy of content)
- books with "Nihil obstat" printed in front (this means that the book is
considered to be faithful to Catholic teaching by the local bishop, NOT that
the book is an official source of Catholic doctrine)
- many books whose titles contain the word "Catechism"
- my website (hopefully, I try to make it agree with Catholic teaching as
far as I can)
Examples of type 2 texts, which disagree with Catholic teaching, include:
- the abundant quotes referenced from the Catholic Mirror newspaper
- other similar texts
Note: I have, on record, Adventist pastors who tell me that the Bible
contains errors, that a lot of what Paul said we need not obey, that it was
merely opinion. I have Adventist pastors who have told me that Ellen White
is indeed infallible and has not erred, that she was inspired by God and
that her writings CAN RIGHTLY be used to interpret difficult passages in the
Bible (and by logical extension, faulty ones if the Bible contains error.)
Do THESE quotes constitute "official Adventist teaching" just because they
come from the mouth of an Adventist pastor? I doubt it. These statements
would fall into the type 2 category I described above. By taking type 1 and
type 2 statements and removing context, a strong straw-man case can be made
for the opposing position - as long as the reader is kept ignorant of the
true nature of these texts, and never shown any type 3 (official) texts
which show authentic teaching of the respective denomination. I will send,
just after this, a case study I have put together on this, which will
hopefully demonstrate the error in the pseudo-Catholic propaganda that many
Sabbatarians spread.
For a full view of Catholic teaching on the origins of the observance of
Sunday, and the removal of the Sabbath observance, I recommend you read the
papal encyclical Dies Domini, written by the current Pope. It can be found
on my website, at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/jp2dies.html
If this is true, then Ellen White is wrong in saying it was changed by "THE
POPE."
Ellen White would have defined the term "the pope" differently to
Catholics - she would likely have meant someone other than the Apostle
Peter, someone who lived much later in Christian history. She should name
him, and she does not. See also the Catholic Insight web page Ellen White,
F.P. (False Prophet)
(http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/white.htm) to see how
Ellen White prophesied falsely on this matter of the imaginary 4th century
change to Sunday.
It is interesting that the SDA Church cannot put a name on the Pope that
made the change.
That IS interesting :-> Certainly it shows that they are prepared to make
claims, but can't give details when the claims are questioned by informed
questioners.
Please visit the following site to view actual historical Christian quotes
about their Sunday observance dating to long before 300 AD:
ttp://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm
Stephen Korsman
In his Endtime Issues (#141, http://tinyurl.com/osynp) Samuele Bacchiocchi
again (http://tinyurl.com/dama6) criticises the papal stand on moral issues,
and the commitment of Catholics to the support of Catholic moral teaching.
It looks like moral strength is a sign of the end-time evil power. Or so
many Adventists would have us believe.
He also interprets HH Pope Benedict XVI's promotion of Sunday in a sinister
way - whereas in reality, the pope is merely promoting better devotion to
God in a way that Bacchiocchi does not like. Bacchiocchi has a history of
such peculiar interpretations. (http://tinyurl.com/dama6,
http://tinyurl.com/rywub)
Bacchiocchi says of the ecumenical progress:
"For example, Bishop Eero Huovinen of the Finnish Lutheran Church, told the
Eucharistic Congress: "We Finnish Lutheran wish to be part of the Catholic
Church." He expressed agreement with the theme of the congress by affirming
that "Lutheran cannot live without the sacrament of the Eucharist." He
closed saying: "From the bottom of my heart, I would like to anticipate the
day in which Lutherans and Catholics, together, unite in a visible way."
"Bishop Huovinen's statement is significant for two reasons. First, it shows
that the Catholic promotion of Sunday as the day of the eucharistic
celebration, serves as a rallying point for Christian unity under the
leadership of the Catholic Church. Second, it reveals that the historical
doctrinal differences that have divided Protestantism and Catholicism are
largely ignored. Part of this development is due to the historic Joint
Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which is an important
agreement between Lutherans and Roman Catholics."
Once again, Bacchiocchi demonstrates his ignorance on this matter. As I've
pointed out before (http://tinyurl.com/dama6), he doesn't realise that the
Finnish Lutherans have not changed their position on the Eucharist (or
Sunday observance) due to interaction with Catholicism. The Finnish
Lutherans have always been much closer to Catholicism in doctrine and
practice regarding both the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession than
mainstream Lutherans. Mainstream Lutherans in fact do not believe in
Apostolic Succession, whereas the Finnish Lutherans do. It should be made
clear that this bishop's statement reflects centuries of belief amongst
Finnish Lutherans, and not a movement away from historical protests.
Ecumenism is about understanding each other instead of doing what is popular
in many Adventist circles - feeding people incorrect information in order to
promote disunity.
Creating a climate of respect and mutual acceptance is slowly, but surely,
working. The Adventist camp that promotes their traditional propaganda has
decreased, and many now see Ellen White and her writings as flawed, affected
by the anti-Catholic climate of their day, and no longer the absolute
authority the more traditional Adventists of the past have seen them as.
The anti-Catholic propaganda has dwindled - because Adventists are starting
to learn the truth about Catholicism. The days where they blindly accepted
their pastors' claims that "Catholics worship Mary" and "the Pope claims to
be God" and "the Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday" are becoming history.
When Adventists find out what Catholicism really believes, and leave the
propaganda behind them, they can't but accept us Catholics as fellow
Christians. Bacchiocchi, in a way, whether wittingly or not, has helped
this process. Which is why the more conspiracy theorist part of the
pro-division faction in Adventism sometimes label him as a Jesuit
infiltrator.
Bacchiocchi bewails the fact that Protestants consider Catholics to be
Christians. Lately the question of whether to re-classify Adventism as a
cult (http://tinyurl.com/jlkqf) instead of a Christian denomination has been
asked more and more often in Evangelical Protestant circles. Is he just
trying to put Catholicism in the same boat?
Worship through Mary, saints, objects, shrines, icons, crucifixes, or
statues, is condemned by the Scripture as idolatry.
Maybe it is condemned in the Clear Word Bible (http://tinyurl.com/prsvm),
but not in the real thing. Worship of false gods, yes. Worship of false
gods in the form of idols, yes. The use of physical means for worship - no.
The Bible is full of evidence for shrines, sacramentals, statues permitted
by God, and grace coming through physical objects. Yes, even the New
Testament contains this. (http://tinyurl.com/syr58,
http://tinyurl.com/kp3d8, http://tinyurl.com/mwyjr,) Bacchiocchi is willing
to make sweeping - and inaccurate - statements about what the Bible says in
one place, without bothering to put real Catholic teaching and the Bible's
complete witness side by side and compare them.
Bacchiocchi's problem with the Catholic way of experiencing the divine is
not really what he says it is - after all, his own denomination does the
same thing in other ways - the Sabbath, diet laws, Ellen White's writings.
And at an Adventist service I attended, the congregation knelt in reverence
when the Bible was raised for them to see before it was read. Were they
worshipping the Bible? Were they allowing a visual, physical form of
worship to distract them from the real worship of God? Or is this a valid
form of respect that can be paid to the Bible, and thereby instill respect
for it in the hearts of those who believe it?
Bacchiocchi's real problem with the Catholic way of experiencing the divine
is simply becaused it is Catholic. He doesn't spend his time attacking
similar things in other denominations, or in his own. Nor does he spend his
time attacking similar things seen in the Bible - whereas, if he wants to be
consistent, he should be doing just that.
His section title to this section is "Revival of Marian Worship." He should
really know better than to use terms like that - but it serves his purpose,
which is to instill disapproval of Catholicism. As I said before, ecumenism
is about understanding, not about misinformation. This, from Bacchiocchi,
is about misinformation.
Catholics do not worship Mary. To claim they do is as ridiculous as
claiming that Adventists worship the Sabbath or Ellen White.
Yet, in a sense, they do. The term "worship" is not restricted to the
adoration due to God alone. In many places in the world, judges and
magistrates are called, "Your worship." Lovers are said to worship each
other, or to worship the ground walked on by the ones they love. In some
contexts, the word "worship" refers to giving honour or respect. This is
perfectly acceptable in contexts outside of the adoration of God. The Bible
itself contains many such examples - applying to humans, as well as sacred
objects. Those who hold the anti-Catholic position either have not read
these passages in the Bible, or simply dissociate them from the issue of
Catholicism, and never make the logical connection between the two
practices.
The problem is that, in our current language usage, the term "worship" has
become a lot more restrictive, especially in a religious context. When
people today see the term "worship," they associate it solely with the
adoration due to God alone. And this is exactly why Bacchiocchi's use of
the word is misleading. Many Adventists believe that Catholics do indeed
worship Mary in the way we worship God. Bacchiocchi is playing to that
misunderstanding.
Adventists, on the other hand, do give reverence to the Bible, to Ellen
White, and to the Sabbath. They can therefore be said to be worshipping
these things. But it needs to be pointed out that, in this context, the
term "worship" is not being used in the strict modern Christian
interpretation of the word. What Adventists really engage in is a form of
respect - not adoration of the divine. That they reserve for God alone.
And the same is true of Catholics.
The Catholic "worship" of Mary and the saints, etc., is simply what the
Bible shows is a legitimate form of honour. It is not the same as our
worship of God. Just as in the Bible the externals may have resembled that
worship of God, so today Adventists may see similarities - but they do not
see what is in the hearts of Catholics, and, not understanding how Catholics
experience their faith, assume they are the same type of worship. The vast
majority of Catholics, understanding that experience, can easily
differentiate between the two, and know what they are worshipping and what
they are merely paying respect to.
Those Catholics who don't understand this can end up somewhat horrified by
what they are doing, not realising that their actions are condemned by
Catholic teaching, and assume that the idolatry they were guilty of is also
what is going on in the hearts of other Catholics ... and so they loudly
proclaim that Catholics worship Mary, without really having understood what
is really taught. They end up in the same group as those who never manage
to make the logical connection between Catholic practice and the biblical
passages showing honour to non-divine entities.
So, just as Catholics give a biblically permissable form of respect to Mary,
the saints, etc., so Adventists do the same with their traditional icons.
Does this mean that Adventists are engaging in idolatrous worship? No. It
just means that, like Catholics, their hearts can and do know where the line
between God and God-given is drawn. It is through understanding of each
other that prejudices (pre-judgements) like this are dissolved. Bacchiocchi
does not seem to have mutual understanding on his agenda. In many ways,
such as refuting Ellen White on the origins of Sunday observance
(http://tinyurl.com/puaxo), he has contributed to moving Adventism away from
its roots and towards a more fact-based outlook on history - but, in this
newsletter, he does not seem to have this in mind.
Stephen Korsman
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:Kkgvg.49$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Nor do the RC. So the Apostles may well have been RC.
Andrew knows the following:
1. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in her Bible
2. Catholicism has the full version of the 10 Commandments in the CCC
3. Catholicism abbreviates the 10 Commandments for easy memorisation
4. We consider idols to be false gods, and therefore classify that as one
commandment
5. The Bible does not give the numbering
6. Adventism does not consider the numbering to be important
7. The Jews number the commandments on idols and false gods as one
commandment, like Catholics
8. Nothing has been deleted from the full versions
9. The Bible shows that bowing is a sign of respect that is not limited to
God alone
10. The Bible shows that God commanded certain statues to be made
11. English words can have different meanings, and different degrees of
meaning (love, Sabbath, etc)
Andrew refuses to discuss the following:
1. All 11 of the above points
2. Whether or not summarising is acceptable or seen by God as something bad
3. The fact that Catholics do not worship statues
4. The fact that Catholics do not worship Mary and the angels and the saints
5. The fact that worship is a mental and spiritual act, not a function of
body posture
Instead he continues to claim that Catholics worship Mary - he uses a text
that uses the word in an archaic way, and pretends it is used in the sense
of worship given to a divinity, even though he knows he is misrepresenting
what it means by interpreting it his way.
Instead he continues to claim that Catholicism has changed the commandments,
and deleted one, in spite of being shown where in the Catechism and where in
the Bible the full texts are, and how other denominations abbreviate the
commandments.
Instead he continues to say that bowing is forbidden as a body posture,
because that's the only way he can criticise Catholic practice. One would
think his own religion had a legalistic code of body posture prohibition and
recommendation.
Andrew won't discuss these issues because discussing Catholicism rationally
and honestly would leave him without an avenue to attack the Catholic faith.
So instead he continues to make such claims, and avoids all discussion with
those who are able to show him why he is wrong.
His attack on the Catholic faith is not based on truth, or on facts.
If he is going to continue to fight dirty, his propaganda needs to be
continuously shown to be just that - propaganda, and not fact.
God bless,
Stephen
Stephen Korsman
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:Kkgvg.49$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
More dishonesty from Andrew about the Catholic Church and Mary:
http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew
Stephen Korsman
"Teresita" <tere...@debian.org> wrote in message
news:z-qdnWpgIYCk4CDZ...@comcast.com...
Andrew doesn't ask Catholics. He tells them, giving his instruction from
newspaper clippings so as to avoid having to deal with official Catholic
teaching.
Stephen Korsman
It's because some people know Catholic teaching better than the Catholic
Church itself.
Dolf Boek
consists of one supreme and universal principle such as Marriage {ie.
Hymenealism deifies this principle}, from which are derived all our natural
moral obligations or duties--There are many erroneous opinions regarding
what is this fundamental rule of life: "In English this term is frequently
employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which
governs the activities of the material universe. Among the Roman jurists
natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the
lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of
offspring. In its strictly ethical application, the natural law is the rule
of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of
the nature with which He has endowed us." [New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia]
To paraphrase Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 CE), the right of humanity in their
own person, is an absolute unity of being which is capable of exercising
good will {eg. an idea is formed by the id #248 being the product of a
spontaneous, dynamic and probable contention between the 'super-ego' and
'ego'} as one that acts in accordance with universal moral laws--a single
moral obligation, which he called the Categorical Imperative, is derived
from the concept of duty. It is from the Categorical Imperative that all
other moral obligations are generated, and by which all moral obligations
can be tested--a practical syllogism as dialectic formulation:
22/7 as 3W1D ...
the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE - Formula of Universal Law},
which contains the law of that will: 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of the 'oth
cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to the 'constant sequence of sun and moon'
as 354 x 3 + 30 day intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days
the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE - Formula of Humanity}, which
contains the command to behave in accordance with the law, that is, the
principle of subsumption under the law: x 49 = 6J or 294 x 364 days or
365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20 March 1996 / 21 March = 1
Nisan 5756; and
the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE - Formula of Autonomy}, which
contains the verdict (sentence), what is laid down as right in the case at
hand: ... 6,000 as 122J3W1D + 9(9²+1)/2 as #369 with Septet #41 centric on
13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.
He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself {ie. Infinity
itself is the actual Logos as concept: Georg Hegel (1770-1841 CE) & Martin
Heidegger (1889-1976 CE) ([#4])} where the objective order or phenomenon of
nature as the logical grounding of infinity and the causal necessity that
operates within it as subject, are products of the mind in its interaction
with what lies outside of mind (the 'thing-in-itself').
The first formulation (YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE - Formula of Universal Law as
Sovereignty: #1 - Nature contains Nature {#4 - Nature amended in its
Nature}) says: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will
a universal law of nature." / Remember the Sabbath? (22/7 = 3W1D)
The second formulation (YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE - Formula of Humanity as
Head of State: #2 - Nature rejoices in its Nature {#5 - Act of Nature})
says: "Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a
means." / Honor Parents (26J5W)
The third formulation (ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE - Formula of Autonomy as
Individual: #3 - Nature surmounts Nature {#6 - Form of Nature}) is a
synthesis of the first two. It says that "we should so act that we may think
of ourselves as legislating universal laws through our maxims, in a possible
Kingdom of Ends. We may think of ourselves as such autonomous legislators
only insofar as we follow our own laws." / Do Not Murder (40J4W)
The fourth formulation (ONE - Formula of Progression: #4 - Nature amended in
its Nature {#7 - Engendering Nature}) as a progressive adaptation within its
sphere of operation / Avoid Spiritual Adultery (50J)
The Discriminating Norm (Human Nature - Objective & Logical Grounding of
Infinity) [as #5 - Act of Nature {#8 - Transforming Nature} being
functionally equivalent to (YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE - Formula of Universal
Law as Sovereignty: #1 - Nature contains Nature {#4 - Nature amended in its
Nature})] / Do Not Steal (72J + 3(32+1)/2)
The Binding Norm (Norma Obligans - Subjective Grounding of Infinity), [as #6
- Form of Nature {#9 - Autonomous Nature} being functionally equivalent to
(YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE - Formula of Humanity as Head of State: #2 - Nature
rejoices in its Nature {#5 - Act of Nature})] / No False Witness (72J +
10(102+1)/2) and
The Manifesting Norm (Norma Denuntians) [as #7 - Engendering Nature {#10 -
Totality of Nature} being functionally equivalent to (ZHAN/SON/SEA/NUMBER -
Formula of Autonomy as Individual: #3 - Nature surmounts Nature {#6 - Form
of Nature})] / Do Not Covet (122J3W1D + 9(92+1)/2)
That a conceptual unification & integration is carried out by the mind
through the individual GRAPPLE Homoiotic Noumenon entries as nous conceptual
zones or the "categories of the understanding" operating on perceptions
within space and time, which are not concepts, but forms of sensibility that
are necessary conditions for any possible experience
Kant argued that the rational order of the world as known by science could
never be accounted for merely by the fortuitous accumulation of sense
perceptions. It was instead the product of the rule-based activity of
'synthesis'.
The discriminating norm is, as we have just seen, human nature itself,
objectively considered as the logical grounding of infinity. It is, so to
speak, the book as encyclical paradigm in which is written the text of the
law as categorical moral imperative, and the classification of human actions
into good and bad. Strictly speaking, our nature is the proximate
discriminating norm or standard. The remote and ultimate norm, of which it
is the partial reflection and application, is the Divine Nature itself, the
ultimate groundwork of the created order. The binding or obligatory norm is
the Divine authority, imposing upon the rational creature the obligation of
living in conformity with his nature, and thus with the universal order
established by the Creator. Contrary to the Kantian theory that [Roman
Catholic Orthodoxy] must not acknowledge any other lawgiver than conscience,
the truth is that reason as conscience is [the] only immediate moral
authority which we are called upon to obey, and conscience itself owes its
authority to the fact that it is the mouthpiece of the Divine will and
imperium. [Natural Law, New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia]
Given the neural linguistic connection (only 22 elements) how did a human
brain end up in an animal body? Isn't the regard for the Seventh-day Sabbath
also a consideration of Natural Law? If so, how then can the Papal Holy See
claim in its representations and protests to the governing authorities in
Germany, of the clear and energetic language as a mutual duty to respect and
fulfill the obligations of the natural law itself that were confirmed by the
Concordat?
Given the 'Male-Female-Number' paradigm as the 'order of male and female'
historically espoused by philosophy of religion is only drawn from symbolic
theology, there is expressed within the immediate context of Adolf Hitler's
four Nuremberg Laws introduced from 15 September 1935 as a Categorical
Imperative, an unnecessary repetition in the expression of an idea,
especially in the words 'marry/sexual intercourse' which fails to impart any
additional force or clearness as the basis for Natural Law's rule of
conduct:
Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are
forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if,
for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad. Proceedings
for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.
Sexual relations outside marriage between Jews and nationals of German or
kindred blood are forbidden.
Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens of German or kindred
blood as domestic servants.
Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the national
colors.
Because human actions, which are the subject of laws, are individual and
innumerable, it is not possible to establish any law that may not sometimes
work out unjustly. Legislators, however, in passing laws, attend to what
commonly happens, though to apply the common rule will sometimes work
injustice and defeat the intention of the law itself. In such cases it is
bad to follow the law; it is good to set aside its letter and follow the
dictates of justice and the common good. Logically, chronologically, and
ontologically antecedent to all human society for which it provides the
indispensable basis, the natural or moral law is neitheras Hobbes, in
anticipation of the modern positivistic school, taughta product of social
agreement or convention, nor a mere congeries of the actions, customs, and
ways of man, as claimed by the ethicists who, refusing to acknowledge the
First Cause as a Personality with whom one entertains personal relations,
deprive the law of its obligatory basis. It is a true law, for through it
the Divine Mind imposes on the subject minds of His rational creatures their
obligations and prescribes their duties. [Our Knowledge of the Natural Law,
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia]
--
- dolf
- <http://www.sybilline.bigpondhosting.com>
On 20/7/06 4:19 AM, in article Y7udnYgnQPl24iPZ...@is.co.za,
Andrew
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>> Monte Cassino spake thusly:
Yes, but Jesus came.."To seek and to save that which was lost."
Luke 19:10
Which is why we love them, because we want them to be saved.
Their great need is illustrated by the following candid statement by
this Catholic poster named Teresita:
______________________________________________________
"Teresita" wrote in message news:d3q8o...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> Catholics don't teach salvation. I don't even know what that is.
> Teresita
______________________________________________________
Andrew
Andrew
The problem is not that they rewrite it, but that they present a myriad of
extrabiblical teachings which are unsupported by the careful examination
of Scripture; and you are forbidden to say or think otherwise because in
Catholicism...the Magisterium holds greater authority than the Scriptures.
> Of course, the alternative is that there is no central authority to
> interpret Scripture. In which case we get the 33,000+ (and
> ever-growing) number of Protestant denominations today.
The alternative is to forsake all falsehood which is contrary to the inspired
word of God, and to find therein the beauty and simplicity of the truth of
God for mankind.
>
> God bless,
> MC
Andrew
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> All of the above..(a) (b) and (c), illustrate the false concept that the
>> Church is above the Bible, as also stated in the official Catechism..
>>
>> "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
>> whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been en-
>> trusted to the..teaching office of the Church alone. This means that
>> the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in com-
>> munion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" CCC 85
>>
>> This says that the official Catholic position on Scripture, is that it can
>> not speak for itself, but that it must be interpreted by the Magisterium,
>> thereby placing the Magisterium of greater authority than the Scripture.
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>
> Actually, Andrew, the Bible requires interpretation.
The Bible is its '''own''' interpreter. With beauty and simplicity one portion
connects itself with the truth in another portion until the whole Bible blends
into one harmonious whole. Light will flash forth from one text to illuminate
another portion. God's Word is the treasure house of truth. It places in our
possession all that is essential for our journey through this life, and for our
preparation for entrance into the city of God and eternity forever with Him.
Andrew
Monte Cassino
wrote:
>"Monte Cassino" wrote in message news:u0lrb2983v5i08v47...@4ax.com...
Well that's an awfully nice and circular argument.
The problem that most non-Catholics have, either in understanding or
accepting, is that there is a whole set of "extrabiblical" teachings
that goes under the name of Tradition (as opposed to "tradition.")
Capital-T Tradition is essentially the oral histories and teachings of
the Church from Apostlic time carried forward into the present day.
Nothing at all wrong with that.
For argument's sake, if you assume a stance *against* that sort of
Tradition, then you would have to argue that it was valid and licit
for hundreds of years, but holding onto such Tradition became anathema
upon compilation, production, and publication of the Bible. Why would
any Church in its right mind want to get rid of all teachings that
weren't to be found strictly within two leather-bound endpieces?
>> Of course, the alternative is that there is no central authority to
>> interpret Scripture. In which case we get the 33,000+ (and
>> ever-growing) number of Protestant denominations today.
>
>The alternative is to forsake all falsehood which is contrary to the inspired
>word of God, and to find therein the beauty and simplicity of the truth of
>God for mankind.
And how does that work in practice? Is the Holy Spirit more with one
particular group of Baptists that practice sola scriptura, or with the
Lutheran Missouri Synod? Or more with the Non-denominational
fundamentalists? Or the evangelicals? Because--and this may be a
news-flash--they disagree on some very important points of theology.
MC
Whazit Tooyah
"Doug" <dmur...@catholicisp.com> wrote in message
news:1153281858.2...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
No... One is placing common sense into the interpretation. Unless you are
willing to say that at the last supper Jesus took a chef's knife and started
slicing His thigh and saying, " Here boys, try a little leg of lamb (of
God), it's a little on the rare side," or that He sliced His wrists and bled
into a cup, then the references to eating His flesh and drinking His blood
are figurative just as they were at the last supper.
In the life of the believer, I believe that it is the job of the Holy Spirit
to instruct the believer using what has been read in scripture. Personally,
I read scripture and try to understand it literally except when the context
or common sense indicates that it should be understood figuratively. I have
found through the years that the closer I am walking with God, the better I
am able to understand the scripture I am reading. The Spirit opens the eye
of the mind to see different aspects of a passage, or to understand certain
nuances that weren't seen before. Sometimes He just reminds me of another
passage that explains something that I had not been seeing.
Jn 16:13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all
the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He
hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to
you.
15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes
of Mine and will disclose it to you.
Eph 2:18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the
Father.
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow
citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ
Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
NOTE: The stone on which the church is built is Christ.
1 Co 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit
searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the
man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the
Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is
from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
The Spirit of God living in us helps us understand and interpret scripture.
He who inspired it ought to be able to instruct us without the help of the
Church or EGW.
--
WT
By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Stephen Korsman
> "Doug" wrote in message
news:1153281858.2...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >> All of the above..(a) (b) and (c), illustrate the false concept that
the
> >> Church is above the Bible, as also stated in the official Catechism..
> >>
> >> "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
> >> whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been en-
> >> trusted to the..teaching office of the Church alone. This means that
> >> the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in com-
> >> munion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" CCC 85
> >>
> >> This says that the official Catholic position on Scripture, is that it
can
> >> not speak for itself, but that it must be interpreted by the
Magisterium,
> >> thereby placing the Magisterium of greater authority than the
Scripture.
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >
> > Actually, Andrew, the Bible requires interpretation.
>
>
> The Bible is its '''own''' interpreter.
Acts 8:26-35 KJV
(26) And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go
toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza,
which is desert.
(27) And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of
great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of
all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
(28) Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
(29) Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this
chariot.
(30) And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias,
and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
(31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he
desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(32) The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a
sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened
he not his mouth:
(33) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare
his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
(34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom
speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
(35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and
preached unto him Jesus.
And where in the Bible is Lev 23:32 interpreted to mean the 7th day of the
week?
Stephen Korsman
2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV
(15) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have
been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
> >> Of course, the alternative is that there is no central authority to
> >> interpret Scripture. In which case we get the 33,000+ (and
> >> ever-growing) number of Protestant denominations today.
> >
> >The alternative is to forsake all falsehood which is contrary to the
inspired
> >word of God, and to find therein the beauty and simplicity of the truth
of
> >God for mankind.
>
> And how does that work in practice? Is the Holy Spirit more with one
> particular group of Baptists that practice sola scriptura, or with the
> Lutheran Missouri Synod? Or more with the Non-denominational
> fundamentalists? Or the evangelicals? Because--and this may be a
> news-flash--they disagree on some very important points of theology.
Adventism. They are the only ones with the Spirit of Prophecy. The Spirit
of Prophecy is Ellen White.
Revelation 19:10 KJV
(10) And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou
do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the
testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy.
Doug
I agree that one part illuminates another, however people continually
make excuses to get around what the Bible actually says. Divorce and
remarriage is a prime example of this. Jesus was very clear that
divorce and remarriage is adultery, and attributed the opposite
practice to hardness of hearts. Yet the major Protestant denominations
make excuses and say that it is allowed. Do I then trust their
interpretation of the Bible? Absolutely not! They have clearly
rejected what the Bible says.
So why would I then trust that Jesus actually mean't something else?
The Old Testament from Genesis to the New Testament points towards
Jesus' sacrifice of Himself for our sins, and that this is connected to
the eating of bread, which is His Body and Blood. I'm not about to say
Jesus didn't really mean this in light of the tremendous testimony of
the Old Testament. I am further dissuaded from doing so in light of
Jesus' lack of a rebuke to those who took it literally. They left.
The disciples stayed. He did not explain or alter his words. In First
Corinthians, Paul reaffirms that it is the body and blood of Christ.
He tells people some have died for eating it in an unworthy manner. Am
I above Paul? Can I contradict him? I can't.
The very fact that you say "One is placing common sense into the
interpretation." means that you are placing something of your own into
the interpretation. You are putting in what seems reasonable to you.
That is a common thing, however Paul pointed out that he was a fool for
Christ.
What is this common sense you refer to? That depends upon who you ask.
To an atheist, it is common sense that there is no God. It defies
reason to them. To a Moslem, it is common sense that a man cannot be
God, as Jesus was. What is your common sense? Is it something of your
own? If it is something of your own, then you are putting something of
your own into Scripture. If you are comfortable with that, go right
ahead, but I cannot be comfortable with putting myself into God's Word.
I am not God. I am not above God. So I need to take what Jesus said
as He said it. The Magisterium of the Church does exactly that.
The most common thing that you will hear when change is proposed in the
Catholic Church is "We cannot." Not that they WON'T, but that they
CAN'T. They are unable to do so because they have not been given
authority to do so. Can your church say the same? Can they allow
divorce? Can they allow abortion? Regarding the Sabbath, Scripture
clearly says that they CAN, when Paul says that the Sabbath was but a
shadow of things to come, and let no man judge a Christian about a
Sabbath in Colossians Chapter 2.
Doug
Andrew
>
> Paul says that the Sabbath was but a shadow of things
> to come, and let no man judge a Christian about a
> Sabbath in Colossians Chapter 2.
>
> Doug
James Cardinal Gibbons says, "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 [Roman Catholics] never sanctify"
Faith of Our Fathers, p.111
"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Command-
ments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church
CHANGE the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer
yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!"
"Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"
James Cardinal Gibbons,
Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter
Sunday-keeping came into the church from paganism, but the commandments
of God were never changed. Now God is calling us to return to the keeping of
His commandments:
"Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is
come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea,
and the fountains of waters." Rev 14:7
Stephen Korsman
> "Doug" wrote in message
news:1153372132.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Paul says that the Sabbath was but a shadow of things
> > to come, and let no man judge a Christian about a
> > Sabbath in Colossians Chapter 2.
> >
> > Doug
>
> James Cardinal Gibbons says, "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 [Roman Catholics] never sanctify"
> Faith of Our Fathers, p.111
>
> "Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Command-
> ments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the
Church
> CHANGE the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer
> yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!"
>
> "Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"
> James Cardinal Gibbons,
> Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in
a signed letter
>
>
> Sunday-keeping came into the church from paganism
Actually, it didn't. The first century texts that explain why Sunday was
kept tell us that it was because of Jesus' resurrection. So do the 2nd
century texts, and the 3rd, etc.
Furthermore, since Sunday was not kept holy by any of the pagans, it was
impossible for it to transfer to Christianity from paganism. The Jews and
Christians had a 7-day week. The Romans, Greeks, etc didn't. Mithraism
didn't. Your Adventist pastors will tell you that they did, but historians
won't.
> but the commandments
> of God were never changed.
Except for those that were, for example circumcision, the Levitical
priesthood, sacrifices, etc.
Stephen Korsman
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:qWEvg.648$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
news:1153372132.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Paul says that the Sabbath was but a shadow of things
> > to come, and let no man judge a Christian about a
> > Sabbath in Colossians Chapter 2.
> >
> > Doug
>
> James Cardinal Gibbons says, "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 [Roman Catholics] never sanctify"
> Faith of Our Fathers, p.111
>
> "Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Command-
> ments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the
Church
> CHANGE the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer
> yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!"
>
> "Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"
> James Cardinal Gibbons,
> Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in
a signed letter
Yet you will never get an official statement from the Catholic Church saying
such absurd things.
mikejames
dies Lunae Moon day Monday
dies Martis Mars's day Tiw's day Tuesday
dies Mercurii Mercury's day Woden's day Wednesday
dies Jovis Jupiter's day Thor's Day Thursday
dies Veneris Venus's day Frigg's day Friday
dies Saturni Saturn's day Saturday
these are preChristian and NOT Judaic.
Doug
> dies Solis Sun day Sunday
> dies Lunae Moon day Monday
> dies Martis Mars's day Tiw's day Tuesday
> dies Mercurii Mercury's day Woden's day Wednesday
> dies Jovis Jupiter's day Thor's Day Thursday
> dies Veneris Venus's day Frigg's day Friday
> dies Saturni Saturn's day Saturday
>
>
> these are preChristian and NOT Judaic.
In Spanish and Portuguese, the day is "Domingo", the Lord's Day.
In French, Dimanche. I don't know the etiology of that word, but it
doesn't make any reference to the Sun.
In Italian, it's Domenica, the Lord's Day.
References to the Sun are peculiar to the Germanic Languages, not to
the Latin based Romance Languages. This is due to the renaming of the
days of the week when the Roman Empire was Christianized, meaning that
those languages rooted in Latin used the Lord's Day as their name for
Sunday. The Germanic tribes were not Christianized until the mid or
even late Middle ages, and thus their language retained the pagan
names.
http://www.cjvlang.com/Dow/dow1.html
Your argument could be sound were it not for the simple fact that it is
only specific to the Germanic languages. Your argument does not work
in Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian. I don't imagine it would work in
any Asian languages either.
Doug
Whazit Tooyah
By the way, Jesus did allow exceptions for "porneia" i.e. sexual impurity.
Paul also said that one was not bound if an unbelieving spouse left the
marriage.
1 Co 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or
the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to
peace.
Paul also seems to allow remarriage of a divorced person.
1 Co 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you
released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not
sinned;
It seems that there is scriptural reasons for allowing divorce and
remarriage. You may not agree with how protestant churches understand these
verses, but you cannot say the protestant churches "made excuses," implying
without scriptural support.
> Do I then trust their
> interpretation of the Bible? Absolutely not! They have clearly
> rejected what the Bible says.
Okay, what would you propose? Should all churches refuse fellowship or
excommunicate anyone who is divorced and remarried no matter the reason?
Jesus also said that if you look on a woman to lust after her you have
committed adultery in your heart. Should all who have lusted be refused
fellowship? Many churches allow a divorced/remarried person or couple
membership and fellowship, but they are denied any leadership.
>
> So why would I then trust that Jesus actually mean't something else?
> The Old Testament from Genesis to the New Testament points towards
> Jesus' sacrifice of Himself for our sins, and that this is connected to
> the eating of bread, which is His Body and Blood. I'm not about to say
> Jesus didn't really mean this in light of the tremendous testimony of
> the Old Testament. I am further dissuaded from doing so in light of
> Jesus' lack of a rebuke to those who took it literally. They left.
> The disciples stayed. He did not explain or alter his words. In First
> Corinthians, Paul reaffirms that it is the body and blood of Christ.
> He tells people some have died for eating it in an unworthy manner. Am
> I above Paul? Can I contradict him? I can't.
>
> The very fact that you say "One is placing common sense into the
> interpretation." means that you are placing something of your own into
> the interpretation.
No, it means the common sense of including context. In the same passage
Jesus said, "I am the living bread." Did He somehow turn Himself into a
giant matzah in the sight of his audience? Jesus told Peter while washing
the disciples feet, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me."
Should we then assume that unless Jesus literally washes us we have no part
of Him? Jesus used metaphor and figures of speech often in His teaching.
In other places Jesus said He was; a vine; a door; a light; good shepherd;
the resurrection; the life; the way, etc. All of the examples are
figurative at the time He said them and still are figurative. We don't have
to turn Jesus into a literal door to enter in to salvation, nor do we
literally have to consume His flesh.
> You are putting in what seems reasonable to you.
> That is a common thing, however Paul pointed out that he was a fool for
> Christ.
Again, Paul was speaking metaphorically
>
> What is this common sense you refer to?
Context and the fact that Jesus used a lot of metaphors in His teaching.
That human flesh was never among the "clean animals" and Jesus was talking
to an audience still under the Law.
> That depends upon who you ask.
> To an atheist, it is common sense that there is no God. It defies
> reason to them. To a Moslem, it is common sense that a man cannot be
> God, as Jesus was. What is your common sense? Is it something of your
> own? If it is something of your own, then you are putting something of
> your own into Scripture.
Everybody puts something of their own into the reading of scripture. No
matter who you are, or what your life's experiences are, you in part put
your understanding based your life into your understanding of scripture.
This is true even if the church tells you what to think and believe, because
your life's experiences color the churches instruction also.
> If you are comfortable with that, go right
> ahead, but I cannot be comfortable with putting myself into God's Word.
> I am not God. I am not above God. So I need to take what Jesus said
> as He said it. The Magisterium of the Church does exactly that.
I am not above God, and neither is the church, nor is the church above
scripture which is the God breathed instruction to the believer. If the
church is over scripture, then the church is over God Himself.. As
Christians we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit who leads us to truth. We
are also instructed as individuals to examine everything closely and to hold
fast to the good and to disregard bad teaching. We are basically instructed
to do individually as the Bereans did, search the scriptures to see if these
things are true. There is no instruction in the Bible to be lazy and let
someone else tell you what the Bible means to you.
The Berean example:
Ac 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for
they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily
to see whether these things were so.
The individual's instruction to do basically the same thing:
1 Th 5:19 Do not quench the Spirit;
20 do not despise prophetic utterances.
21 **But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;**
22 abstain from every form of evil.
1 Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, **but test the spirits to see
whether they are from God,** because many false prophets have gone out into
the world.
Speaking of the church Paul said;
1 Co 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass
judgment.
By these we are even instructed to examine the teachings of our church.
>
> The most common thing that you will hear when change is proposed in the
> Catholic Church is "We cannot." Not that they WON'T, but that they
> CAN'T. They are unable to do so because they have not been given
> authority to do so. Can your church say the same? Can they allow
> divorce?
The church cannot stop divorce, that is now a matter for the state to
regulate. But regarding divorce, do you remember how Jesus told the
Samaritan woman at the well who had been divorced and remarried several
times to stay away from Him because she was not fit for the kingdom?
Neither do I.
> Can they allow abortion?
Allow it yes, because it is a matter of civil law. Fight to change that
law, yes again, and most evangelical churches stand side by side with
Catholic Church to prevent abortion by any and all legal and moral means.
Regarding the Sabbath, Scripture
> clearly says that they CAN, when Paul says that the Sabbath was but a
> shadow of things to come, and let no man judge a Christian about a
> Sabbath in Colossians Chapter 2.
Agreed, plus Romans 14 and Galatians 4.
Andrew
news:1153448577....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> mikejames wrote:
>
>> dies Solis Sun day Sunday
>> dies Lunae Moon day Monday
>> dies Martis Mars's day Tiw's day Tuesday
>> dies Mercurii Mercury's day Woden's day Wednesday
>> dies Jovis Jupiter's day Thor's Day Thursday
>> dies Veneris Venus's day Frigg's day Friday
>> dies Saturni Saturn's day Saturday
>>
>>
>> these are preChristian and NOT Judaic.
>
>
> In Spanish and Portuguese, the day is "Domingo", the Lord's Day.
>
> In French, Dimanche. I don't know the etiology of that word, but it
> doesn't make any reference to the Sun.
The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
"As a solar festival, Sunday was the sacred day of Mithra; and it is
interesting to notice that since Mithra was addressed as Dominus/,
"Lord,'' Sunday must have been "the Lord's Day" long before the
Christian times"
-- A. Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, p.145
> In Italian, it's Domenica, the Lord's Day.
>
> References to the Sun are peculiar to the Germanic Languages, not to
> the Latin based Romance Languages. This is due to the renaming of the
> days of the week when the Roman Empire was Christianized, meaning that
> those languages rooted in Latin used the Lord's Day as their name for
> Sunday.
The Roman Empire in the early centuries practiced the pagan religion of
Mithraism, which was brought in somewhat by the Roman legions from
their conquests in those areas where it was practiced. Although the term
"Lord's Day" has now been supposedly "Christianized" from its pagan
origins in its designation of Sunday..the true *Lord's Day* according to
the Bible would be the *Sabbath* which is in remembrance and in honor
of the one and only God who made the heavens and earth.
If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on MY HOLY DAY,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and THE LORD'S HOLY DAY honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
Then you will find your joy in the LORD ,
and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
The mouth of the LORD has spoken."
Isaiah 58:13-14 NIV
> The Germanic tribes were not Christianized until the mid or
> even late Middle ages, and thus their language retained the pagan
> names.
>
> http://www.cjvlang.com/Dow/dow1.html
>
> Your argument could be sound were it not for the simple fact that it is
> only specific to the Germanic languages. Your argument does not work
> in Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian. I don't imagine it would work in
> any Asian languages either.
>
> Doug
>
Andrew
Andrew
news:1153448577....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> mikejames wrote:
>
>> dies Solis Sun day Sunday
>> dies Lunae Moon day Monday
>> dies Martis Mars's day Tiw's day Tuesday
>> dies Mercurii Mercury's day Woden's day Wednesday
>> dies Jovis Jupiter's day Thor's Day Thursday
>> dies Veneris Venus's day Frigg's day Friday
>> dies Saturni Saturn's day Saturday
>>
>>
>> these are preChristian and NOT Judaic.
>
>
> In Spanish and Portuguese, the day is "Domingo", the Lord's Day.
>
> In French, Dimanche. I don't know the etiology of that word, but it
> doesn't make any reference to the Sun.
The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
"As a solar festival, Sunday was the sacred day of Mithra; and it is
interesting to notice that since Mithra was addressed as Dominus/,
"Lord,'' Sunday must have been "the Lord's Day" long before the
Christian times"
-- A. Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, p.145
> In Italian, it's Domenica, the Lord's Day.
>
> References to the Sun are peculiar to the Germanic Languages, not to
> the Latin based Romance Languages. This is due to the renaming of the
> days of the week when the Roman Empire was Christianized, meaning that
> those languages rooted in Latin used the Lord's Day as their name for
> Sunday.
The Roman Empire in the early centuries practiced the pagan religion of
Mithraism, which was brought in somewhat by the Roman legions from
their conquests in those areas where it was practiced. Although the term
"Lord's Day" has now been supposedly "Christianized" from its pagan
origins in its designation of Sunday..the true *Lord's Day* according to
the Bible would be the *Sabbath* which is in remembrance and in honor
of the one and only God who made the heavens and earth.
If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on MY HOLY DAY,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and THE LORD'S HOLY DAY honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
Then you will find your joy in the LORD ,
and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
The mouth of the LORD has spoken."
Isaiah 58:13-14 NIV
> The Germanic tribes were not Christianized until the mid or
> even late Middle ages, and thus their language retained the pagan
> names.
>
> http://www.cjvlang.com/Dow/dow1.html
>
> Your argument could be sound were it not for the simple fact that it is
> only specific to the Germanic languages. Your argument does not work
> in Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian. I don't imagine it would work in
> any Asian languages either.
>
> Doug
>
Andrew
Monte Cassino
After all, it's only been posted twice.
MC
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:36:02 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
There is no evidence of this, however.
> "As a solar festival, Sunday was the sacred day of Mithra; and it is
> interesting to notice that since Mithra was addressed as Dominus/,
> "Lord,'' Sunday must have been "the Lord's Day" long before the
> Christian times"
> -- A. Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, p.145
Various failures of logic and data in that. It would be preferable,
surely, that people say what the ancient sources say and not try to
twist it for religious reasons?
> The Roman Empire in the early centuries practiced the pagan religion of
> Mithraism, which was brought in somewhat by the Roman legions from
> their conquests in those areas where it was practiced.
The Roman empire was pagan. The mystery cult of Mithras arose at Rome,
according to modern scholars, but never formed part of the state
cultus.
Note that once people have to falsify facts to asperse Christianity,
the argument is over. Nothing in this thread betrays any research into
when the phrase "the Lord's day" arose in English, or whether a similar
usage existed in antiquity and if so when and by whom. And without
that information surely debate is fruitless? (I only know the stuff
about Mithras, you see).
All the best,
Roger Pearse
I. B. Wonderin
for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian pagans.
and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter their word
for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's name...
"Monte Cassino" <Monte_Cas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bm62c29ar4pkgq6v0...@4ax.com...
I. B. Wonderin
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
> > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
>
> There is no evidence of this, however.
Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN
THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
inquisitions. If you have a biblically based faith, then you have to
know the only day Jesus claimed to be Lord of was the Sabbath day. And
in scripture the similar term "day of the Lord" refers to the second
coming.
Sunday worship and not keeping the biblical Seventh-day Sabbath is why
the Council of trent ruled against the Sola Scriptura Protestants, and
announced their anathemas against them as Heretics.
And yes there is an abundance of proof for those willing to look with an
open heart and mind:
and I am not interested in circular arguments or debates, so if you love
truth; start here with "Rome's challenge to Protestants:
http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm#
Blessings...
Stephen Korsman
"mikejames" <a...@aa.commi> wrote in message
news:IHRvg.4282$ly1....@weber.videotron.net...
Nope ... those are names for days of the week, but the cultures from which
Adventists claim we adopted Sunday did not have a 7-day week. The Romans,
for instance, had a 8-day business week, and others for other purposes.
None of them actually observed Sunday.
And as Doug said, the above comparison works only for English ... and the
early Christians didn't speak English, so their days were named differently.
Stephen Korsman
"I. B. Wonderin" <pos...@groups.com> wrote in message
news:j07wg.52171$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> > > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> > > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >
> > There is no evidence of this, however.
>
>
> Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN
> THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
> day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
> after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
> inquisitions. If you have a biblically based faith, then you have to
> know the only day Jesus claimed to be Lord of was the Sabbath day. And
> in scripture the similar term "day of the Lord" refers to the second
> coming.
>
> Sunday worship and not keeping the biblical Seventh-day Sabbath is why
> the Council of trent ruled against the Sola Scriptura Protestants, and
> announced their anathemas against them as Heretics.
>
> And yes there is an abundance of proof for those willing to look with an
> open heart and mind:
> and I am not interested in circular arguments or debates, so if you love
> truth; start here with "Rome's challenge to Protestants:
> http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm#
You will never get an official statement from the Catholic Church saying
such absurd things.
http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm
Stephen Korsman
> In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy, the word
> for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian pagans.
> and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter their word
> for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
>
> Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's name...
The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
bam
>
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>> > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
>> > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
>> > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
>> > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
>>
>> There is no evidence of this, however.
>
>
> Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN
> THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
> day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
> after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
> inquisitions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
What have you been reading?
BAM
Andrew
>> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
>> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
>> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
>> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
>
> There is no evidence of this, however.
"His [Mithra's] sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years
before the appearance of Christ." http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
But if we are talking about the LORD who made heaven and earth,
HIS ''Lord's Day'' is the seventh-day, holy Sabbath which HE has
sanctified and blessed.
I. B. Wonderin
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:4dadnQ5SKParhVzZ...@is.co.za...
You know "The Catholic Mirror" was the official mouthpeice of the only
ArchBishop and Cardinal in America then and spoke for Rome, and those
articles were published with the imprimitur. which is to show they are
approved by Rome and without error.
You and I know they contain a record of from the council of trent
itself, but you have to lie.shamelessly to try and decieve others
Korsman, and would deny your mother to defend Catholicism and attack
Adventism, as you consistantly do even here..
HERE IS A QUOTE YOU HAVE SEEN MANY TIMES::(Want a link?"see below)
[EDITORS' NOTE. - It was upon this very point that the Reformation was
condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged,
as here stated, that the Catholic Church had "apostatized from the truth
as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the
Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant
watchwords; and "the Scripture, as in the written word, the sole
standard of appeal," this was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation
and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." The Bible as
interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the
Fathers," this was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This
was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially
to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the
attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning
faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in
this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the
council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the
Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so
decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates
actually wrote to him that there was "a strong tendency to set aside
tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal."
But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying
the claims of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon
the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the
others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand
upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a
decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was
debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a
standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the
Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the
following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone:
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They
profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They
justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from
the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants claim, that
they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of
holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF:
The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as
the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they
do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be
observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout.
Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the
written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of
Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church.
Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and
the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully
established, the Protestants themselves being judges."
[The Archbishop of Reggio (Gaspar [Ricciulli] de Fosso) made his
speech at the last opening session of Trent, (17th Session) reconvened
under a new pope (Pius IV), on the 18th of January, 1562 after having
been suspended in 1552. - J. H. Holtzman, Canon and Tradition, published
in Ludwigsburg, Germany, in 1859, page 263, and Archbishop of Reggio's
address in the 17th session of the Council of Trent, Jan. 18, 1562, in
Mansi SC, Vol. 33, cols. 529, 530. Latin.]
There was no getting around this, for the Protestants' own statement
of faith - the Augsburg Confession, 1530 - had clearly admitted that
"the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the Church"
only.
The argument was hailed in the council as of Inspiration only; the
party for "Scripture alone," surrendered; and the council at once
unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an
unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the Catholic
Church; and proceeded, April 8, 1546, "to the promulgation of two
decrees, the first of which, enacts under anathema, that Scripture and
tradition are to be received and venerated equally, and that the
deutero-canonical [the apocryphal] books are part of the canon of
Scripture. The second decree declares the Vulgate to be the sole
authentic and standard Latin version, and gives it such authority as to
supersede the original texts; forbids the interpretation of Scripture
contrary to the sense received by the Church, 'or even contrary to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers,'" etc. (7)
This was the inconsistency of the Protestant practice with the
Protestant profession that gave to the Catholic Church her long-sought
and anxiously desired ground upon which to condemn Protestantism and the
whole Reformation movement as only a selfishly ambitious rebellion
against the Church authority. And in this vital controversy the key, the
chiefest and culminative expression, of the Protestant inconsistency was
in the rejection of the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, enjoined
in the Scriptures, and the adoption and observance of the Sunday as
enjoined by the Catholic Church.
And this is today the position of the respective parties to this
controversy. Today, as this document shows, this is the vital issue upon
which the Catholic Church arraigns Protestantism, and upon which she
condemns the course of popular Protestantism as being "indefensible",
self-contradictory, and suicidal." What will these Protestants, what
will this Protestantism, do?]
(7) See the proceedings of the Council; Augsburg Confession; and
Encyclopaedia Britannica, article "Trent, Council of."
>
> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
>
> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
>
> "The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the
week to
> the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day. St. John in the
Apocalypse
> makes mention of the Lord's day; and the Apostle commands collections
to be
> made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the
interpretation
> of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's day. From all this we learn that even
then
> the Lord's day was kept holy in the Church."
Vatican lies and claims without support.
Where did John ever say the Lord's day was the first day? Where did he
ever identify the Lord's day as Sunday?
Nowhere! Where is the record of any of the apostles saying they
consecrated the first day of the week? NOWHERE.
Wouldn't you think they would have mentioned it even once? Wouldn't you
think Korsman would no better then to deny what was published about this
change not being biblical? He thinks you are all too stupid to read what
he is well aquainted with:
Here is the proof:
A Conversation with Stephen Korsman about
Rome's Challenge and the Biblical evidence for Sundaykeeping.
http://biblelight.net/korsman.htm
<snip>
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> > > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> > > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >
> > There is no evidence of this, however.
>
> Is that important?
Only to the honest and intelligent. The rest merely rationalise their
wishes, of course.
(Various assertions of dubious relevance snipped)
I. B. Wonderin
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <pos...@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:SH6wg.52160$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy, the
word
> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
pagans.
> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter their
word
> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> >
> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's name...
>
> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
>
> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow INVALIDATE
WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own Church
again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....
See:
SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
Check this out:
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, p. 50,3rd ed.
Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
institute festivals of precept?
A. 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. <-------------
- Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
"Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the Bible,
and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath
to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical
authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal
Gibbons.
I. B. Wonderin
"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:JU8wg.11379$IB.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Is that how you prove a point?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
The Bible..
Then mine is also proved. ;-)
I. B. Wonderin
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153509337....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I. B. Wonderin wrote:
> > <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Andrew wrote:
> > > > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > > > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra,"
whom
> > > > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > > > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of this, however.
> >
> > Is that important?
>
> Only to the honest and intelligent. The rest merely rationalise their
> wishes, of course.
>
Like you?
> (Various assertions of dubious relevance snipped)
>
Denial is everything? Where is your evidence? Where is rational
explanation?
You dissapoint me.. but so be it. Your choice.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153509337....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > I. B. Wonderin wrote:
> > > <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Andrew wrote:
> > > > > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > > > > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra,"
> whom
> > > > > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > > > > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence of this, however.
> > >
> > > Is that important?
> >
> > Only to the honest and intelligent. The rest merely rationalise their
> > wishes, of course.
>
> Like you?
Projection noted.
> > (Various assertions of dubious relevance snipped)
>
> Denial is everything? Where is your evidence? Where is rational
> explanation?
You mean, the evidence you just said didn't matter? The rational
explanation you can't give?
> You dissapoint me.. but so be it. Your choice.
You seem to have some integrity issues; as is, sadly, so often the case
with people posting as you do. Deal with them.
bam
Yep - the Bible tells us all about the Inquisition, Bible banning, etc.
BAM
teresita
> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
I don't know anything about pagan festivals, I will leave that to Andrew.
But biblically the Lord's Day is famous for being that day that Jesus
presented St. John with a vision:
Rev.1:[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a
great voice, as of a trumpet,
--
Teresita
Donna
"teresita" <tere...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.21....@localhost.localdomain...
So what day does the bible identify as the Lord's day?
> --
> Teresita
>
> http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/
>
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >
> > There is no evidence of this, however.
>
> "His [Mithra's] sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years
> before the appearance of Christ." http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
This statement is quoted by JPH to *disagree* with it. That Cumont
asserts that Mithras had some connection with Sunday, and JPH accepts
this without further investigation, is neither here nor there, because
we are discussing the terminology. Where in ancient literature
precisely is Sunday described as "the Lord's day" in the context of
Mithras? It isn't.
Andrew
> "I. B. Wonderin" wrote:
>> "bam" wrote:
>>> "I. B. Wonderin" wrote:
>>> > <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> > news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> Andrew wrote:
>>> >> > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
>>> >> > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
>>> >> > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
>>> >> > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no evidence of this, however.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN
>>> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
>>> > day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
>>> > after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
>>> > inquisitions.
>>>
>>>
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> What have you been reading?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is that how you prove a point?
>>
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
>> The Bible..
>>
>> Then mine is also proved. ;-)
>
> Yep - the Bible tells us all about the Inquisition, Bible banning, etc.
>
> BAM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 Thess 2:3-4
2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of
perdition;
2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing him-
self that he is God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John 16:2-4
16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that
whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known
the Father, nor me.
16:4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may
remember that I told you of them.
bam
And Andrew, who repudiates his own patron saint, takes Bible snippets and
applies them to anyone he wants. I'm sure that when he reads the beatitudes
he thinks only of himself.
BAM
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
>> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
>> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
>> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
>
> I don't know anything about pagan festivals, I will leave that to Andrew.
> But biblically the Lord's Day is famous for being that day that Jesus
> presented St. John with a vision:
>
> Rev.1:[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a
> great voice, as of a trumpet,
>
Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Then what*day*
do you think would be the true and Biblical "Lord's day" ????????
Andrew
Since you have publicly refused to accept Christ, it would only be natural
for His words to de despised by you, while you are in a state of rebellion
against Him. Nevertheless, I am sure that He still loves you and is waiting
for you to accept Him in all His fullness to deliver you from the darkness
you have chosen.
>
> BAM
>
Andrew
teresita
> Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
> He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Then what*day*
> do you think would be the true and Biblical "Lord's day" ????????
You are equivocating on the word LORD, which is used only in the Old
Testament in place of the Tetragrammaton. Jesus is only refered to as the
Son of God or the Word made flesh, or even as "Lord", but never as "LORD".
--
Teresita
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
>> He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Then what*day*
>> do you think would be the true and Biblical "Lord's day" ????????
>
> You are equivocating on the word LORD, which is used only in the Old
> Testament in place of the Tetragrammaton. Jesus is only refered to as the
> Son of God or the Word made flesh, or even as "Lord", but never as "LORD".
>
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no Savior."
Isaiah 43:11
Whazit Tooyah
There is no command in the New Testament addressed to the New Testament
church to keep a Sabbath day! The Jerusalem council saw that the laws of
the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were for a particular people
at a particular time. They came to the conclusion that the only covenant
that Gentiles were still under was the Noahic covenant because we are all
children of Noah. (Acts
The writings of Paul indicate that the keeping of a special day is up to the
individual believer (Romans 14). They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2). He also states that the Sabbath is weak,
worthless and elemental.(Gal 4) He further states that if one is keeping
the Sabbath as something meritorious that he fears for them. How plain can
it get. Instead of a shadow we have the reality of rest in Christ (Mat 11;
Heb 4). Why would anyone turn from the reality and attempt to embrace a
shadow? It just doesn't make any sense
--
WT
By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another
Whazit Tooyah
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
>>> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
>>> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
>>> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
>>
>> There is no evidence of this, however.
>
> "His [Mithra's] sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years
> before the appearance of Christ."
> http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
If you can't prove your point through scripture then try guilt by
association.
>
> But if we are talking about the LORD who made heaven and earth,
> HIS ''Lord's Day'' is the seventh-day, holy Sabbath which HE has
> sanctified and blessed.
>
> If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
> and from doing as you please on MY HOLY DAY,
> if you call the Sabbath a delight
> and THE LORD'S HOLY DAY honorable,
> and if you honor it by not going your own way
> and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
>
> Then you will find your joy in the LORD ,
> and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
> and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
> The mouth of the LORD has spoken."
>
> Isaiah 58:13-14 NIV
"And I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father" My fathers
name was dad (I never called him by his first name), so this doesn't apply
to me. In other words a conditional promise made to a particular people.
Whazit Tooyah
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153526405.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Andrew hates it when you actually read cited material
Whazit Tooyah
was made for man, not for the Lord.
If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of John and may
have written before Revelation, one finds the common usage. The Lord's day
was always the first day of the week, or the eighth day which is also the
first. The Lord's day is never used as a term for the Sabbath. There are
several sites on the net with the writings of the first and second century
church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was centuries before
Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.
bam
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote
>> And Andrew, who repudiates his own patron saint, takes Bible snippets
>> and..
>
> Since you have publicly refused to accept Christ,
I adore Christ. Accept him? Nah - that's a Protestant thing. "Acceptance" is
far too little a condition to bestow upon the Redeemer of mankind. Jesus
commanded our obedience to His appointed representatives. Jesus never asked
for "acceptance" like some beggar at your door.
> it would only be natural
> for His words to de despised by you,
Wait a minute. It's *your* words I despise - why would I despise a Catholic
document, viz., the Bible?????
>while you are in a state of rebellion
> against Him. Nevertheless, I am sure that He still loves you and is
> waiting
> for you to accept Him in all His fullness to deliver you from the darkness
> you have chosen.
What a nice ambassador you are. But wait another minute:
Romans 10:14 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not
believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?
And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 And how can men preach
unless they are sent?
Who sent you?
BAM
Whazit Tooyah
One only has to study the writings of the first and second century church
fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as politely as
I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what matters is what
scripture teaches and what history shows. There are numerous statements
about gathering for worship on the first day of the week. There are
numerous statements about turning from the Sabbath. There is nothing in the
majority of these writings about turning Sunday into the Sabbath. These
were two separate things in their eyes.
Stephan has explained numerous times that in the mind of Catholics the early
church fathers were also Catholic as were the Apostles. It is by this
understanding that the Catholics claim that by her own authority the
Catholic church changed the Sabbath i.e. by the authority of the Catholic
apostles, not by some latter council.
I believe they are wrong about two things; first the Sabbath has never
changed, but we as Christians are not under a Sabbath day law which is what
scripture and the early fathers both state; second, I don't accept that the
early church fathers and apostles were Catholic as the word Catholic is
understood today.
Whazit Tooyah
Applies to the Godhead, not to Jesus alone. Read the context.
Doug
Andrew wrote:
> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
>
> interesting to notice that since Mithra was addressed as Dominus/,
> "Lord,'' Sunday must have been "the Lord's Day" long before the
> Christian times"
> -- A. Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, p.145
So let me get this straight..
When the Apostle John referred to being in the Spirit on "The Lord's
Day" in Revelation, he was really referring to Mithra?? I don't think
so. Obviously you don't either.
> The Roman Empire in the early centuries practiced the pagan religion of
> Mithraism, which was brought in somewhat by the Roman legions from
> their conquests in those areas where it was practiced. Although the term
> "Lord's Day" has now been supposedly "Christianized" from its pagan
> origins in its designation of Sunday..the true *Lord's Day* according to
> the Bible would be the *Sabbath* which is in remembrance and in honor
> of the one and only God who made the heavens and earth.
> Isaiah 58:13-14 NIV
So logically, the issue becomes whether the true Lord's Day is the
Sabbath or Sunday. The quote from Isaiah doesn't explicitly address
this, however the Apostle John's disciple, Ignatius of Antioch explains
the Lord's Day. It is an eminently reasonable conclusion that he
received this teaching from John. In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he
states
"Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner,
and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him
not eat."57 For say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt
thou eat thy bread."58 But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after
a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in
relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating
things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking
within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits
which have no sense in them.59 And after the observance of the Sabbath,
let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the
resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]."
This points to the Lord's Day coming AFTER the Sabbath, and is not
identical to the Sabbath. While he doesn't say we don't keep the
Sabbath, he states that it's observance is spiritual, and observing the
Lord's Day after the Sabbath. Looking at Paul's statements in Romans
14:5-6, For one person considers one day more important than another,
while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully
persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day observes it to the
Lord" (Rom. 14:5-6), this points towards the observance of the
Sabbath as a matter of individual devotion or discipline.
Doug
teresita
>> You are equivocating on the word LORD, which is used only in the Old
>> Testament in place of the Tetragrammaton. Jesus is only refered to as the
>> Son of God or the Word made flesh, or even as "Lord", but never as "LORD".
>
> "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no Savior."
>
> Isaiah 43:11
Congratulations, Andrew, you have identified the scripture Jews use to
reject the idea of a man being God.
--
Teresita
I. B. Wonderin
"Whazit Tooyah" <nos...@ofg.net> wrote in message
news:CXhwg.159$6G3.27@trnddc05...
>
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:6Egwg.1307$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "teresita" wrote in message
> > news:pan.2006.07.21....@localhost.localdomain...
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >>> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >>> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >>> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >>> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >>
> >> I don't know anything about pagan festivals, I will leave that to
Andrew.
> >> But biblically the Lord's Day is famous for being that day that
Jesus
> >> presented St. John with a vision:
> >>
> >> Rev.1:[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind
me a
> >> great voice, as of a trumpet,
> >>
> >> Teresita
> >
> >
> > Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
> > He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Then what*day*
> > do you think would be the true and Biblical "Lord's day" ????????
> >
> The Sabbath was never the "Lord's Day" in the New Testament.
What other day does Jesus claim to be Lord of????
>The Sabbath was made for man, not for the Lord.
What Bible are you quoting from or is it the Frank Moreau commentary?
The bible doesn't say that.
and "apostophe s" indicates Ownership. as in a day belonging to the
Lord.
Do you know How many times the bible says "My Sabbaths? or "My sabbath"
or Sabbath of the Lord your God"?
> If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of John
and may
> have written before Revelation,
Wrong.
>one finds the common usage. The Lord's day
> was always the first day of the week, or the eighth day which is also
the
> first.
And they are your authority and who you put your faith in?
That would be what we are talking about. Catholic dogma or Bible
authority.
It's a pretty sure bet you have your faith in Catholic dogma and
traditions of man, You quote the bible to discount keeping a day in
reference to the Sabbath, then you ignore the bible warnings about
believing false teachers who don't speak according to the word and
elevate another day - the first because you believe men's words and
traditions over God's.
Jesus said " In vain do they worship me teaching for commandments the
traditions of men"
The Lord's day is never used as a term for the Sabbath. There are
> several sites on the net with the writings of the first and second
century
> church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was centuries before
> Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.
Paul said the mystery of iniquity(transgression of the law) was already
present in his day.
The prophet Daniel spoke of Blasphemous Rome thinking to change times
and laws...
And his words about keeping days is in reference to former idoloters
who worshipped other gods before knowing the true god and days having to
do with the sun moon and stars- Check it out...
bam
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote
> Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
> He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8).
As usual, Andrew misquotes in order to misconstrue. That's not what Jesus
said.
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath. (the operative word
"even", being the one Andrew left out.)
Jesus was telling the Pharisees of His divinity; that He was the Lord of
everything - even the sabbath.
BAM
Andrew
> If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of John and
> may have written before Revelation, one finds the common usage. The
> Lord's day was always the first day of the week, or the eighth day which is
> also the first. The Lord's day is never used as a term for the Sabbath.
> There are several sites on the net with the writings of the first and second
> century church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was centuries
> before Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.
> --
> WT
Why go outside the Bible to build your structure? Jesus said "every plant, which
My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." In place of the authority
of the so-called fathers of the church, God bids us to accept the word of the true
Father,the Lord of heaven and earth. In the Bible alone can we be assured of truth
unmixed with error.
Jesus gave warning to those who accept the customs of a church, or the traditions
of the fathers above the truth of His word when He said..."In vain they do worship
Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Andrew
I. B. Wonderin
>
>
> There is no command in the New Testament addressed to the New
Testament
> church to keep a Sabbath day!
There are plenty of examples of Jesus teaching how and how not to keep
the Sabbath day, he even said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath
day"..Why ignore him in all this?.
The Jerusalem council saw that the laws of
> the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were for a particular
people
> at a particular time. They came to the conclusion that the only
covenant
> that Gentiles were still under was the Noahic covenant because we are
all
> children of Noah. (Acts
Uh.. they said nothing about a Noahide Covenant, or any other. They were
settling a dispute about the ceremonial law . I very much doubt if
someone used this argument to justify stealing you would say "that is
true as long as you don't eat fat, blood or a strangled animal and keep
yourself from idols, it's ok...The jerusalem council said that's all we
have to do!
> The writings of Paul indicate that the keeping of a special day is up
to the
> individual believer (Romans 14).
Paul actually said "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind",
he then went on later to say they should all be of one mind, and further
said let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus and .said he
taught nothing that was not already taught in the law and prophets...
What did Jesus do, and say?
> They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
> was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2).
That verse is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths, the new moons and
the feast days connected to them. The ceremonial law pointed to Christ.
Paul wrote that it was added because of transgression (of the moral law)
and said it was only given until the seed would come and that seed was
Christ.The Seventh day was created before sin ever entered the world, it
was not a shadow as it did not point forward, it pointed back and is a
memorial of Creation and our Creator. Thus the words in the commandment
"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy-- why? for in six days God
created the earth and on the seventh day He rested.
> He also states that the Sabbath is weak,
> worthless and elemental.(Gal 4)
Every thing God made was good.
Paul also said the law is perfect and the commandments holy just and
good you have him contradicting himself... So that is wrong He is not
talking about the Sabbath.
When did pagan idoloters and those who worshipped the sun moon and stars
ever keep the seventh-day Sabbath? How could they return to what they
had NEVER done?
Note what he actually said:
Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them
which by nature are no gods.
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how
turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire
again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
He further states that if one is keeping
> the Sabbath as something meritorious that he fears for them.
Look above, he didn't say that, you did.
We can do nothing to earn merit, this is a comman argument of those who
hate the Sabbath. We do what we do out of Faith motivated by love, or it
means nothing. Give up that sad argument.
> How plain can
> it get.
Exactly. Sol ivictus was a pagan Sun worship cult and yet you are
keeping that day with no command from Christ or any biblical reason to
do so, and cite unbiblical writers from the mystery of iniquity warned
about to support yourself. I fear for you as well.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
>> He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8).
>
> As usual, Andrew misquotes in order to misconstrue. That's not what Jesus said.
>
> Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath. (the operative word
> "even", being the one Andrew left out.)
> Jesus was telling the Pharisees of His divinity; that He was the Lord of
> everything - even the sabbath.
>
> BAM
It is true that He is Lord EVEN of the Sabbath. But He can not be your
*Lord* unless you accept Him as such, which you have publicly stated
you have not done and have no interest in doing. Those who DO accept
Him as Lord, will not be found desecrating the Sabbath, which He calls..
"MY HOLY DAY"
If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on MY HOLY DAY,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and THE LORD'S HOLY DAY honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
Then you will find your joy in the LORD ,
and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
The mouth of the LORD has spoken."
Isaiah 58:13-14
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Then what *day* do you think would be the true and Biblical "Lord's day"?
>>
>
>
I. B. Wonderin
Don't be silly! What Catholicism teaches is catholic dogma. What is the
title of this thread and subject?
There are numerous statements
> about gathering for worship on the first day of the week. There are
> numerous statements about turning from the Sabbath.
Now here you are referring to catholic writers again after saying this
is irrelevant...
> There is nothing in the
> majority of these writings about turning Sunday into the Sabbath.
Then what is this?
Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
institute festivals of precept?
A. 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. <-------------
Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
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, p. 50,3rd ed.
Is the Council of Laodicea Catholic writings? Where the apostles alive
then?
These
> were two separate things in their eyes.
> Stephan has explained numerous times that in the mind of Catholics the
early
> church fathers were also Catholic as were the Apostles. It is by this
> understanding that the Catholics claim that by her own authority the
> Catholic church changed the Sabbath i.e. by the authority of the
Catholic
> apostles, not by some latter council.
Then what is this?
Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
institute festivals of precept?
A. 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. <-------------
Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
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, p. 50,3rd ed.
Is the Council of Laodicea Catholic writings? Where the apostles alive
then?
> I believe they are wrong about two things; first the Sabbath has never
> changed, but we as Christians are not under a Sabbath day law which is
what
> scripture and the early fathers both state; second, I don't accept
that the
> early church fathers and apostles were Catholic as the word Catholic
is
> understood today.
> --
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Who do you think the mystery of iniguity Paul warned about in reference
to the Old testament prophecies was, and who was the man of sin he said
was yet to be revealed???
Whazit Tooyah
>
> "Whazit Tooyah" <nos...@ofg.net> wrote in message
> news:Rmhwg.406$2u4.147@trnddc06...
>>
>
>>
>> There is no command in the New Testament addressed to the New
> Testament
>> church to keep a Sabbath day!
>
> There are plenty of examples of Jesus teaching how and how not to keep
> the Sabbath day, he even said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath
> day"..Why ignore him in all this?.
List them! Jesus taught literally nothing about the Sabbath except to teach
that it is ceremonial, not moral in nature.(Matt 12; John 7) And that the
Pharisees were wrong in making it a moral command. Nearly all of the
references to the Sabbath in the gospels are noting what day it was when
Jesus did a particular act.
>
> The Jerusalem council saw that the laws of
>> the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were for a particular
> people
>> at a particular time. They came to the conclusion that the only
> covenant
>> that Gentiles were still under was the Noahic covenant because we are
> all
>> children of Noah. (Acts
>
> Uh.. they said nothing about a Noahide Covenant, or any other. They were
> settling a dispute about the ceremonial law . I very much doubt if
> someone used this argument to justify stealing you would say "that is
> true as long as you don't eat fat, blood or a strangled animal and keep
> yourself from idols, it's ok...The jerusalem council said that's all we
> have to do!
You don't know your Bible very well do you? And your second argument is so
sophomoric that its not worth wasting any more time on.
>
>> The writings of Paul indicate that the keeping of a special day is up
> to the
>> individual believer (Romans 14).
>
> Paul actually said "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind",
> he then went on later to say they should all be of one mind, and further
> said let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus and .said he
> taught nothing that was not already taught in the law and prophets...
> What did Jesus do, and say?
A sophomoric argument again. Jesus was under the Law. The law was finished
at the cross. Are you going to have Passover or observe Hanukah this year.
Jesus observed both.
>
>
>> They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
>> was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2).
>
> That verse is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths, the new moons and
> the feast days connected to them.
Just plain WRONG! The Greek word "sabbaton" is used only as a reference to
something that occurs on a weekly basis. You have to redefine the word to
understand it as you do.
>The ceremonial law pointed to Christ.
Yes and the Sabbath pointed to the rest found in salvation in Christ
> Paul wrote that it was added because of transgression (of the moral law)
> and said it was only given until the seed would come and that seed was
> Christ.The Seventh day was created before sin ever entered the world, it
> was not a shadow as it did not point forward, it pointed back and is a
> memorial of Creation and our Creator. Thus the words in the commandment
> "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy-- why? for in six days God
> created the earth and on the seventh day He rested.
>
>> He also states that the Sabbath is weak,
>> worthless and elemental.(Gal 4)
>
> Every thing God made was good.
Yes, but when one observes a shadow after the reality can be found, it
becomes weak worthless and elemental.
>
> Paul also said the law is perfect and the commandments holy just and
> good you have him contradicting himself... So that is wrong He is not
> talking about the Sabbath.
The word "Law" in the NT never refers to the TC alone, but to the whole Law.
>
> When did pagan idoloters and those who worshipped the sun moon and stars
> ever keep the seventh-day Sabbath? How could they return to what they
> had NEVER done?
> Note what he actually said:
> Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them
> which by nature are no gods.
> 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how
> turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire
> again to be in bondage?
> 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
> 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
Read Galatians! The context from beginning to end is gentiles taking on
Jewish Law as though it were a part of Christianity.
>
> He further states that if one is keeping
>> the Sabbath as something meritorious that he fears for them.
>
> Look above, he didn't say that, you did.
> We can do nothing to earn merit, this is a comman argument of those who
> hate the Sabbath. We do what we do out of Faith motivated by love, or it
> means nothing. Give up that sad argument.
Then why don't Sabbatarians stop beating everybody else up about the
Sabbath. Don't you think we also do what we do out of Faith motivated by
love.
>
>> How plain can
>> it get.
>
> Exactly. Sol ivictus was a pagan Sun worship cult and yet you are
> keeping that day with no command from Christ or any biblical reason to
> do so, and cite unbiblical writers from the mystery of iniquity warned
> about to support yourself. I fear for you as well.
>
>
Saturn was a pagan God, you worship on Saturn's day. Every day of the week
was named in a pagan manner after a pagan deity. What is your point.
alanm
You can simply obtain this information by reading it.
bam
> "bam" wrote in message
> news:Z_owg.19565$iP1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
>>> He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8).
>>
>> As usual, Andrew misquotes in order to misconstrue. That's not what Jesus
>> said.
>>
>> Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath. (the operative
>> word
>> "even", being the one Andrew left out.)
>> Jesus was telling the Pharisees of His divinity; that He was the Lord of
>> everything - even the sabbath.
>>
>> BAM
>
> It is true that He is Lord EVEN of the Sabbath. But He can not be your
> *Lord* unless you accept Him as such,
You have no Church; no connection to the Apostles; no priests, no altar, no
sacrifice, no forgiveness, no history, no sacred scriptures - nothing.
You're just one of those New Years Eve noisemakers.
Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is
great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there
is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the
Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.
BAM
Stephen Korsman
Can you name those ceremonial Sabbaths, and name the feast days? You'll
come up with the same list in each column.
Col 2 refers to annual, monthly, and weekly events. Since the only weekly
Sabbath was the weekly Sabbath, it must b referring to that.
> The ceremonial law pointed to Christ.
> Paul wrote that it was added because of transgression (of the moral law)
> and said it was only given until the seed would come and that seed was
> Christ.The Seventh day was created before sin ever entered the world, it
> was not a shadow as it did not point forward, it pointed back and is a
> memorial of Creation and our Creator. Thus the words in the commandment
> "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy-- why? for in six days God
> created the earth and on the seventh day He rested.
>
> > He also states that the Sabbath is weak,
> > worthless and elemental.(Gal 4)
>
> Every thing God made was good.
Do you keep Passover?
> Paul also said the law is perfect and the commandments holy just and
> good you have him contradicting himself... So that is wrong He is not
> talking about the Sabbath.
On the other hand, Paul said that the law written on stone has a lesser
glory than the law written on our hearts, and is replaced. He called it a
dispensation of death. There he was talking about the Sabbath, because that
was one of the laws written on stone.
> When did pagan idoloters and those who worshipped the sun moon and stars
> ever keep the seventh-day Sabbath? How could they return to what they
> had NEVER done?
> Note what he actually said:
> Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them
> which by nature are no gods.
> 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how
> turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire
> again to be in bondage?
> 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
> 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
The weak and beggarly elements Paul refers to are the Jewish law. After
abandoning paganism, they turned to the same day observance methods, just
within Christianity, taking on the days of the Jews.
http://tinyurl.com/kbkp9
http://tinyurl.com/g5y2t
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
> > >
> > > <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > > > > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra,"
> whom
> > > > > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > > > > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
Incorrect.
No newspaper is official Catholic teaching. It is merely the opinion of an
individual editor, and in this case - perhaps - an individual cardinal.
Neither of those make it official Catholic teaching. Nor does the
imprimatur, which does not mean it contains no error, but means it can be
printed with the permission of the cardinal. It doesn't mean it has been
approved by Rome at all.
You've fallen for Samuele Bacchiocchi's line regarding his alleged
imprimatur for his PhD thesis. He's wrong. http://tinyurl.com/hbhbt
> You and I know they contain a record of from the council of trent
> itself, but you have to lie.shamelessly to try and decieve others
> Korsman, and would deny your mother to defend Catholicism and attack
> Adventism, as you consistantly do even here..
You've accused me of denying Catholic teaching before, and I've proven you
wrong by providing quotes from official Catholic teaching.
> > The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> >
> > "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> >
> > "The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the
> week to
> > the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day. St. John in the
> Apocalypse
> > makes mention of the Lord's day; and the Apostle commands collections
> to be
> > made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the
> interpretation
> > of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's day. From all this we learn that even
> then
> > the Lord's day was kept holy in the Church."
>
> Vatican lies and claims without support.
You might not agree with what it says, but it's proof that you are wrong
regarding your claims about me contradicting Catholic teaching. You and
Andrew are like twins.
Stephen Korsman
"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:JU8wg.11379$IB.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <pos...@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:j07wg.52171$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >> > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >> > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >> > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >>
> >> There is no evidence of this, however.
> >
> >
> > Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN
> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
> > day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
> > after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
> > inquisitions.
>
>
>
> What have you been reading?
He has been conned by Andrew's newspaper clippings. Reading official
Catholic teaching is not on for him - he'd have to change his arguments and
stop misrepresenting Catholicism.
Stephen Korsman
"Dennis Gairdner" <dag2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1hittgz.1075letzu1armN%dag2...@gmail.com...
> I. B. Wonderin <pos...@groups.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN
> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
> > day.
>
>
> "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a
> loud voice like a trumpet"
> (Rev 1:10 RSV)
>
> The Jewish New Testament Commentary disagrees with this reading though
> noting it is the majority view. But it also concedes that:
>
> ...Ignatius, who claimed to be a disciple of the emissary
> Yochanan [read Apostle John], wrote letters only two decades or
> so after Revelation was written, in which he uses "kuriakę" to
> mean Sunday -- as does modern Greek.
>
> So a disciple of the author of Revelations uses the Greek equivalent of
> the term "the Lord's Day" for the first day of the week somewhere
> between five and twenty-five years after the writing of Revelations. If
> that isn't evidence, what is?
His previous response to the fact that there was no evidence for a claim:
> Is that important?
He's accused me of contradicting Catholic teaching, but ignores the evidence
I gave him from official Catholic sources. Then he accuses me again.
Obviously evidence means nothing; propaganda is what counts. As they say,
never let the facts confuse you.
Stephen Korsman
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153509494.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
> > <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Andrew wrote:
> > >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> > >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of this, however.
> >
years
> > before the appearance of Christ."
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
>
> statement only to disagree with it...
>
> As I said, there is in fact no evidence of such a thing.
Snippets out of context are Andrew's forté.
I wonder what Andrew thinks of the claims on the same page (also refuted,
but as we can see, Andrew isn't confused by the facts) that Mithra had 12
Apostles, was buried and rose after 3 days, etc.
Stephen Korsman
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153509337....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I. B. Wonderin wrote:
> > <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Andrew wrote:
> > > > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > > > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> > > > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > > > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of this, however.
> >
>
> Only to the honest and intelligent. The rest merely rationalise their
> wishes, of course.
That evidence is unimportant is a charactaristic of many Adventist claims
about the beliefs of others.
Stephen Korsman
> > "bam" wrote in message
news:dpdwg.12643$IB....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >> "I. B. Wonderin" wrote:
> >>> "bam" wrote:
> >>>> "I. B. Wonderin" wrote:
> >>>> > <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>> > news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> >> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> >> > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >>>> >> > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra,"
whom
> >>>> >> > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >>>> >> > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> There is no evidence of this, however.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
EVIDENCE
> >>>> > IN
> >>>> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the
Lord's
traditions,
> >>>> > after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
> >>>> > inquisitions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> What have you been reading?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>> The Bible..
> >>>
> >>> Then mine is also proved. ;-)
> >>
> >> Yep - the Bible tells us all about the Inquisition, Bible banning, etc.
> >>
> >> BAM
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 2 Thess 2:3-4
> > 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
> > except
> > there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed,
the
> > son of
> > perdition;
> >
> > 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
> > that is
> > worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing
> > him-
> > self that he is God.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > John 16:2-4
> > 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh,
that
> > whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
> >
> > 16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not
known
> > the Father, nor me.
> >
> > 16:4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come,
ye
> > may
> > remember that I told you of them.
>
> And Andrew, who repudiates his own patron saint, takes Bible snippets and
beatitudes
> he thinks only of himself.
Out of context, half the time. He does the same with newspaper clippings.
He defends the claim that Lev 23:32 refers to the weekly Sabbath - just one
of many examples. http://tinyurl.com/kmzru
Stephen Korsman
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >
> > There is no evidence of this, however.
>
> before the appearance of Christ."
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
Thanks for providing evidence that your claim is wrong ;-)
> But if we are talking about the LORD who made heaven and earth,
> HIS ''Lord's Day'' is the seventh-day, holy Sabbath which HE has
> sanctified and blessed.
>
> If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
> and from doing as you please on MY HOLY DAY,
> if you call the Sabbath a delight
> and THE LORD'S HOLY DAY honorable,
> and if you honor it by not going your own way
> and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
>
> Then you will find your joy in the LORD ,
> and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
> and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
> The mouth of the LORD has spoken."
>
> Isaiah 58:13-14 NIV
That refers to Israel, not the entire world, and not Christians.
The Sabbath prior to Moses
Before I discuss whether or not the Sabbath was known to any part of mankind
prior to the time of Moses, we should take a look at certain key passages.
(Exod 31:12) And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
(Exod 31:13) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my
sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your
generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
(Exod 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you:
every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth
any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
(Exod 31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of
rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he
shall surely be put to death.
(Exod 31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to
observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
(Exod 31:17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for
in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he
rested, and was refreshed.
(Exod 31:18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing
with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written
with the finger of God.
(Deut 5:1) And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel,
the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may
learn them, and keep, and do them.
(Deut 5:2) The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
(Deut 5:3) The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us,
even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
(Deut 5:4) The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the
midst of the fire,
(Deut 5:5) (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to show you the
word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up
into the mount;) saying,
(Deut 5:6) I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, from the house of bondage.
(Deut 5:7) Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
(Deut 5:8) Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the waters beneath the earth:
(Deut 5:9) Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I
the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
(Deut 5:10) And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep
my commandments.
(Deut 5:11) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for
the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
(Deut 5:12) Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath
commanded thee.
(Deut 5:13) Six days thou shalt labor, and do all thy work:
(Deut 5:14) 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, nor thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy
cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and
thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
(Deut 5:15) And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and
that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a
stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the
sabbath day.
(Deut 5:16) Honor thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath
commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with
thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
(Deut 5:17) Thou shalt not kill.
(Deut 5:18) Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
(Deut 5:19) Neither shalt thou steal.
(Deut 5:20) Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
(Deut 5:21) Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt
thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his
maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
(Deut 5:22) These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the mount
out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with
a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of
stone, and delivered them unto me.
(Neh 9:6) Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven
of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein,
the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the
host of heaven worshipeth thee.
(Neh 9:7) Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest
him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;
(Neh 9:8) And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant
with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and
the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say,
to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:
(Neh 9:9) And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heardest
their cry by the Red sea;
(Neh 9:10) And showedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his
servants, and on all the people of his land: for thou knewest that they
dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a name, as it is this
day.
(Neh 9:11) And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went
through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou
threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.
(Neh 9:12) Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in
the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they
should go.
(Neh 9:13) Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them
from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes
and commandments:
(Neh 9:14) And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them
precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:
(Ezek 20:9) But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted
before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known
unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.
(Ezek 20:10) Wherefore I caused them to go out of the land of Egypt, and
brought them into the wilderness.
(Ezek 20:11) And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments,
which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
(Ezek 20:12) Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me
and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
(Ezek 20:13) But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness:
they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a
man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted:
then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to
consume them.
A sign between God and whom?
Exod 31:12-17 - this text clearly states between which two parties the
Covenant is, and what the sign of the covenant is. The covenant is between
God and Israel, according to the text. That means it was not a sign between
mankind and God - there were other humans besides Israel, and the covenant
was not with them. The Sabbath was to be the sign of this covenant God made
with them at Sinai.
Deut 5:2-3, speaking of the same covenant, says that that covenant was not
made with their fathers - it was made with them for the first time. Moses
states explicitly that it was not with anyone before this time that God made
this covenant. This covenant began at this time, at the time of Moses.
Ezek 20:12 shows that God gave the Sabbath to Israel in the time of Moses.
It was then that God revealed the Sabbath to them. We see God contrasting
Israel with the other nations - and he says it was to Israel that he
revealed his principles, including the Sabbath. So he obviously did not
reveal the Sabbath to other nations.
Neh 9:9-14 tells us that the Sabbath was made known to Israel through Moses.
We know it is Israel of which Ezekiel and Nehemiah speak because of the
description given - these were the people God took out of Egypt, through the
Red Sea. The text says nothing about any other people, and it says nothing
about the Sabbath being known before this time.
So, if the Sabbath is a sign of the Old Covenant (Deut 5:2-3, Exod 31:17),
and the Old Covenant was given to Israel (Ex 31:17) and not anyone else
(Deut 5:2-3), then why are Adventists claiming that the Sabbath needs to be
kept by all mankind?
Where in the Bible does God EVER criticise anyone not of the chosen nation
of Israel for not observing the Sabbath? Nowhere.
Where in the Bible does God ever say that people not of the chosen nation of
Israel should keep the Sabbath? Nowhere.
These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign between GOD and ISRAEL,
that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that this covenant was
NOT made with their fathers. Scripture speaks of God giving ISRAEL the
Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to the
people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath. With
these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without an agenda to
push the Sabbath would come to the obvious conclusion that the Sabbath was
given first to Moses.
If the Old Covenant was given to Israel at the time of Moses, and we can see
that above, and if the Sabbath was made known to them at this time, and it
was the sign of the Old Covenant, it is impossible for the Sabbath to have
been given by God to any human prior to the time of Moses. Deuteronomy is
clear - this covenant was not a pre-existing covenant that was handed down
from their fathers, and ratified again at Sinai. This was a totally new
covenant, never before given to any human.
The 10 commandments are called the tablets of that covenant. The Sabbath is
the sign of that covenant. If you read about the nature of this covenant -
what it was, what the sign of it was, to whom it was given, and to whom it
was NOT given - it is clear that the Sabbath was part of this covenant, and
was therefore not revealed before the time this covenant came - the life of
Moses, the coming out of Egypt.
Prior covenants had their signs - Noah's covenant had the rainbow, Abraham's
had circumcision. With the Mosaic Covenant, God revealed the Sabbath to
them. The two go hand in hand.
That doesn't mean that the Sabbath could not point back to creation - it did
(Exod 31:17.) It also pointed back to the exodus from Egypt (Deut 2:15.) It
also pointed forward in time to the rest we as Christians have found in
Christ.
Yes, it was mentioned at creation by God the Father, addressing the Son, the
Spirit, and the angelic host. But it was first revealed to human beings in
the days of Moses, according to the passages of Scripture above. There is no
evidence anywhere in the Bible to state otherwise, no evidence that Adam,
Noah, Abraham or anyone else before the time of Moses ever knew abut, or
kept, the 7th day Sabbath - and so this, as a clear statement in the Bible,
goes uncontradicted by other biblical texts.
All I am asking you to do is this: do not add your own wishes to the Bible
and expect others to accept them, when the Bible actually says that this is
not the case. These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign between GOD
and ISRAEL, that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that this
covenant was NOT made with their fathers. It speaks of God giving ISRAEL the
Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to the
people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath. With
these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without a
Sabbath-promoting agenda would come to the obvious conclusion that the
Sabbath was given first to Moses.
For New Testament confirmation, see Gal 3:17, which says that the law only
came to men 430 years AFTER Abraham - that is the law that contained the
Sabbath.
Some Adventists will deny that the Sabbath pictures Christ's rest, because
Col 2:16 talks about a shadow of the reality we find in Christ. For the
purposes of getting around Col 2:16, they make the Sabbath look back to the
original creation, and the other annual holy days look forward to Christ.
They then state that we must look back in time to the original Sabbath Adam
and Eve kept in the Garden of Eden, forgetting that the Bible doesn't state
anywhere that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath - and denying what the passages
listed above clearly state.
To get this right, they play a word game - they confuse the meaning of the
term "remember." "Remember" is also a synonym for "observe." Consider the
following: when you ask your friends, your husband or wife, your children
definitely, to remember your birthday, are you asking them to cast their
minds back to the day you were born? Your children cannot do that for sure.
But you use the word "remember" anyway. It means that they must remember
it - remember to observe it - when the time comes. And that is what the
Sabbath commandment says.
A perpetual covenant?
Adventists also argue that the Sabbath is called a perpetual sign for all
generations, and therefore it can never pass away. But God also refers to
circumcision as a perpetual covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one
in Exod 30:8, to the Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these
so-called perpetual covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just
because they are called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose
will never come to an end. They have been fulfilled. The covenant they
symbolised was fulfilled, and came to a close. Circumcision was for ALL
Abraham's generations, yet although we are part of that people, circumcision
if not necessary for Christians. The same goes for the Sabbath.
The Sabbath shall cease
Speaking of the New Covenant, the Old Testament prophesies of a time when
the Sabbath shall cease - Isa 1:13-16, Hosea 2:11, Jer 31:31-4.
(Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new
moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
(Isa 1:13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;
the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with;
it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
(Isa 1:14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are
a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
(Isa 1:15) And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from
you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of
blood.
(Isa 1:16) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from
before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
(Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in
the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the
LORD:
(Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house
of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they
shall be my people.
(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every
man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
St Paul tells us that the law has indeed been written on our hearts (2 Cor
3:6-14) - we are a New Covenent people. Our nature has been changed through
baptism, we are a new creation in Christ.
Someone who understands what the Bible is telling us will realise that the
Sabbath and circumcision are merely signs of the Old Covenant, and since the
New Covenant is now in place, we must follow the signs of the New Covenant
and NOT the Old Covenant. Therefore modern Christians baptise instead of
circumcise, and they gather together on Sunday (1 Cor 16:2) instead of
Saturday.
Stephen Korsman
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:Ia9wg.1116$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153496729....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >
> > There is no evidence of this, however.
>
> "His [Mithra's] sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years
> before the appearance of Christ."
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
>
> HIS ''Lord's Day'' is the seventh-day, holy Sabbath which HE has
> sanctified and blessed.
>
> If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
> and from doing as you please on MY HOLY DAY,
> if you call the Sabbath a delight
> and THE LORD'S HOLY DAY honorable,
> and if you honor it by not going your own way
> and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
>
> Then you will find your joy in the LORD ,
> and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
> and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
> The mouth of the LORD has spoken."
>
> Isaiah 58:13-14 NIV
Do you have a Levitical priesthood in your church? If not, why not?
Why don't you keep the New Moon?
Isa 66:23
(Isa 66:1) Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place
of my rest?
(Isa 66:2) For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things
have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is
poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
(Isa 66:3) He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth
a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if
he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol.
Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their
abominations.
(Isa 66:4) I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears
upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spoke, they did
not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I
delighted not.
(Isa 66:5) Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your
brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the
LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be
ashamed.
(Isa 66:6) A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice
of the LORD that rendereth recompense to his enemies.
(Isa 66:7) Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came,
she was delivered of a man child.
(Isa 66:8) Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the
earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once?
for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
(Isa 66:9) Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith
the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.
(Isa 66:10) Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that
love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
(Isa 66:11) That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her
consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of
her glory.
(Isa 66:12) For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like
a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye
suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.
(Isa 66:13) As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye
shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
(Isa 66:14) And when ye see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bones
shall flourish like an herb: and the hand of the LORD shall be known toward
his servants, and his indignation toward his enemies.
(Isa 66:15) For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots
like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames
of fire.
(Isa 66:16) For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh:
and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
(Isa 66:17) They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the
gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the
abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
(Isa 66:18) For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I
will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.
(Isa 66:19) And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that
escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the
bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my
fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the
Gentiles.
(Isa 66:20) And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the
LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and
upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the
LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the
house of the LORD.
(Isa 66:21) And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith
the LORD.
(Isa 66:22) For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make,
shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name
remain.
(Isa 66:23) And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another,
and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me,
saith the LORD.
(Isa 66:24) And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men
that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither
shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Adventists will tell you that this passage, particularly verse 23, shows
that in the Kingdom of God, we will be keeping the Sabbath. That is a
typical Sabbatarian twisting of that text. The text says that people
worshipped FROM one Sabbath TO the next. It does NOT say that people
worshipped ON one sabbath AND the next. If you understood Hebrew and/or
English grammar, you would realise that this refers to continuous worship on
Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and again
the next Saturday ... from the one given point in time until the next given
point in time. This verse is talking about perpetual worship, not worship on
Saturdays only. And why is the Sabbath used as a delineation of the unit of
perpetual worship ? Well, the book was written by Isaiah, a Sabbath keeper
writing to Sabbath keepers. It is only natural that he would use imagery
that they would understand. But it is dishonest to interpret this text as
claiming that the Sabbath will be kept in the Kingdom of God, because that
is NOT what the text says at all. Go back and read it for yourself.
Please also go and re-read Isaiah 66:23 above - it says "from one Sabbath to
the next."
If I said the following, how would you interpret it? "X-Files shows on TV
every Friday night, and from one Friday to the next I wait in anticipation."
Would you say that I am waiting ONLY on the Friday in question, or do you
think I am waiting ALL the time between one Friday and the next? Using basic
English, we know that I am not just waiting ON the Fridays, I am waiting
continuously - from one Friday all the time right until the next.
So why do Adventists change the basic meaning of this phrase when it comes
to this particular verse? Why does "from one Sabbath to the next" have to be
interpreted "ON one Sabbath AND the next" here, in spite of it meaning
something different in actual English?
Also, the text mentioned "from one new moon until the next" as well.
If the text proves that Christians should keep the Sabbath, then surely the
same text also proves that Christians should keep the new moon. There were
three groups of festivals in the Old Testament - annual festivals (Passover,
Day of Atonement, etc) and there were monthly festivals - the observance of
the new moon on the first day of the lunar month cycle, and then there were
weekly festivals - the 7th day Sabbath. Did you know that?
So, if Passover and those other annual festivals are done away with in Col
2:14-17, then Isaiah 66:23 must be showing us that we must STILL keep the
other TWO festivals - the weekly Sabbath and the monthly New Moon. Do
Adventists keep the New Moon every month? No! So why is there a difference
between the New Moon and the Sabbath here, when the text says we will be
keeping both?
Looking closer, Isaiah 66 never actually states that we will KEEP the
Sabbath, OBSERVE the Sabbath. The text simply uses the Sabbath as a point in
time by which to reference the fact that our worship of God is CONTINUOUS
... like Hebrews tells us about the New Sabbath which replaces the Old 7th
day Sabbath - TODAY when you hear his voice, harden not your hearts. We live
TODAY, we worship TODAY - continuously, not weekly.
The only reason Isaiah uses the term Sabbath is because he is writing to
Sabbath keepers to whom this particular moment in time is important. It is a
reference point with which they can identify. But the grammar prevents us
from interpreting the text as a prophecy of the Sabbath being kept in the
future.
Going further, proving that this does not literally apply to the Christian
context: verse 21 mentions priests and Levites ... show me where we have Old
Covenant priests and Levites in ANY Christian context - Catholic,
Protestant, Orthodox, even Adventist ... they are not there. This priesthood
mentioned does not exist any more - it is written using Old Covenant
symbolism. It is essential to accept that the symbolism used is that which
the author and his readers knew personally, and cannot (like the Levitical
priest bit) be taken literally in our context.
Then, we see in verse 22 that there are new heavens and a new earth. Because
it is convenient for their theology, Adventists - without looking further -
assume that this means that the world will have ended, and since it has not,
the law is still intact. Yet there is sufficient evidence in the New
Testament to prove quite reasonably that the new heavens and new earth HAVE
already come! That I've discussed in a different section.
Stephen Korsman
"alanm" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%7qwg.9063$tE5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Something he won't do. I've quoted official Catholic teaching for him, and
he won't accept that it's official Catholic teaching. He considers the
Council of Trent and the Pope to be ignorant of official Catholic teaching,
and newspapers and other unofficial sources that he takes out of context to
be a better source of information.
God bless,
Stephen
Stephen Korsman
"I. B. Wonderin" <pos...@groups.com> wrote in message
news:U9awg.128343$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:4dadnQlSKPanhVzZ...@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <pos...@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:SH6wg.52160$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy, the
> word
> > > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
> pagans.
> > > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter their
> word
> > > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> > >
> > > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> > > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's name...
> >
> > The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> >
> > "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
>
> Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow INVALIDATE
> WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
> worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own Church
> again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....
Whether that is a false and unproven claim is irrelevant. What is NOT false
or unproven is that that is official Catholic teaching. You might not
accept official Catholic teaching, but if you're honest, you will
acknowledge that those quotes from Trent and Pope John Paul II are in fact
official Catholic teaching.
> See:
> SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
Sorry, that proves me right and you wrong concerning official Catholic
teaching:
"Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of
reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish
Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn
worship of God."
> CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
"Constantine moreover placed Sunday under the protection of the State. It is
true that the believers in Mithras also observed Sunday as well as
Christmas. Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord, but
of the everlasting day of the sun."
So Sunday observance existed before Constantine ... and his act was only to
appease the Mithra followers.
We know that Sunday observance began long before Constantine - so don't even
try to bring up that claim.
Finally, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible, and gets changed as
knowledge advances. Whether they're correct on Mithraism is debatable, but
whether Sunday observance was adopted from Mithraism is not. It wasn't.
All you can point to is a similarity - not an origin.
And you have to acknowledge that Catholicism teaches that Sunday observance
was instituted by the Apostles. It is an undisputable fact that Catholicism
teaches this. Your quotes have to be taken in that context.
So your quotes are really irrelevant to the Sabbath issue, and shouldn't
convince any Protestant of anything, since they believe exactly the same
thing - that the Apostles began Sunday keeping.
Stephen Korsman
> > "teresita" wrote in message
> > news:pan.2006.07.21....@localhost.localdomain...
> >>
> >>> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >>> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >>> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >>> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >>
Andrew.
> >> But biblically the Lord's Day is famous for being that day that Jesus
> >> presented St. John with a vision:
> >>
> >> Rev.1:[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a
> >> great voice, as of a trumpet,
> >>
> >> Teresita
> >
> >
> > do you think would be the true and Biblical "Lord's day" ????????
> >
> was made for man, not for the Lord.
Excellent point. Jesus was the Lord of the Sabbath, which was Man's day.
> If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of John and
may
> have written before Revelation, one finds the common usage.
Common usage is not relevant. Evidence - ignore it if it conflicts with
propaganda necessary to defend Adventist beliefs. Don't let the facts
confuse you.
> The Lord's day
> was always the first day of the week, or the eighth day which is also the
> first. The Lord's day is never used as a term for the Sabbath. There are
> several sites on the net with the writings of the first and second century
> church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was centuries before
> Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.
Then how did Constantine invent Sunday keeping, if they kept it centuries
before his time? Don't let the facts confuse you!
Stephen Korsman
There are bad traditions. Jesus describes those here.
There are good traditions. Paul describes those here:
2Th 2:15 KJV Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which
ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
The observance of Sunday is one of those. (1 Cor 16:2)
The observance of the Sabbath became one of the bad ones (weak and beggarly
elements) at the Cross. (Gal 4:10-11, Col 2:16)
Stephen Korsman
> "teresita" wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.21....@localhost.localdomain...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >
> > I don't know anything about pagan festivals, I will leave that to
Andrew.
> > But biblically the Lord's Day is famous for being that day that Jesus
> > presented St. John with a vision:
> >
> > Rev.1:[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a
> > great voice, as of a trumpet,
> >
> > Teresita
>
>
> Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
> He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Then what*day*
> do you think would be the true and Biblical "Lord's day" ????????
Nowhere does it use the term "Lord's day" to describe the Sabbath. Since
we're talking about a specific name given to a day, that is very relevant.
Mark 2, Matt 12, Luke 6
(Mar 2:23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the
sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of
corn.
(Mar 2:24) And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the
sabbath day that which is not lawful?
(Mar 2:25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he
had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?
(Mar 2:26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the
high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for
the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
(Mar 2:27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the sabbath:
(Mar 2:28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
(Mat 12:1) At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and
his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
(Mat 12:2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy
disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
(Mat 12:3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he
was hungry, and they that were with him;
(Mat 12:4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread,
which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him,
but only for the priests
(Mat 12:5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the
priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless
(Mat 12:6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the
temple.
(Mat 12:7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
(Mat 12:8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
(Mat 12:9) And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
(Mat 12:10) And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And
they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they
might accuse him.
(Mat 12:11) And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that
shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he
not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
(Mat 12:12) How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is
lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
(Luk 6:5) And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the
sabbath.
(Luk 6:9) Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful
on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy
it?
Adventists claim that these passages show that the Sabbath is still in
effect, and Christians are obliged to keep it. They claim that Mark 2:27, in
saying that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, proves
that the Sabbath was not given to Israel alone, but to all mankind.
They are taking the verse out of context. If one goes back and read the
entire passage along with verse 27, one sees that Jesus was not speaking
about whether or not the Sabbath was made for Jews or for all mankind for
all ages and in all places. Jesus was accused of breaking the law in many
places in the Bible, and the Sabbath was one they often picked on him for -
here he is pointing out that the purpose of the Sabbath is to serve man, not
a case of man being made to glorify the Sabbath. By removing the verse from
its context, Sabbath keepers turn the meaning around. This is a
well-documented logical fallacy, called the false dichotomy. The verse, out
of context, is presented as presenting two points (the false dichotomy) -
the Sabbath was made for man, or the Sabbath was made for Jews. But in
context, the actual dichotomy is between the legalist/Pharisee perspective
(the Sabbath was more important than those keeping it) and Jesus'
perspective (the Sabbath was made to serve those keeping it.)
When Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, he was NOT contrasting
mankind with Judaism. He was contrasting the LAW with MAN ... what he was
saying is that the LAW was made to serve MAN, NOT man being made to keep the
law. There is NOTHING about Jews or Israel AT ALL in this text ...
Adventists are reading something into the text that is not there, and, by
removing a statement from its context, making it say something that doesn't
even fit into the actual context at all. The Old Testament is explicit - the
Sabbath was made for Israel, and is explicitly called the sign of the Old
Covenant. We all know that this was abolished at the Cross. And the Old
Testament also tells us clearly that the Sabbath was given to MOSES, and NOT
before the time of Moses. That alone proves that the Sabbath was not given
to ALL mankind, because Adam, Noah, and Abraham never knew of it or kept it.
See the article here for more info on that.
Jesus is not saying that Christians must keep the Sabbath. That is taking
Jesus' words out of context. Does Jesus actually preach anywhere about the
future Christian Church and the laws it must keep? Such an idea is not found
ANYWHERE in this passage, or in the New Testament. What Jesus is doing is
instructing the Sabbath-keeping Jews of his day on how to deal with God's
law. They were legalistic, and put the law above love and mercy. Jesus is
turning that around, and saying that the Sabbath God gave them is not meant
as an end in its own right, but as a means to serve mankind. Jesus is
explaining that the Sabbath is a means for grace and mercy, and not what the
Pharisees made it into - the holy of holies, the final end of Jewish
worship. This principle is equally valid in ALL Christian denominations.
There is nothing at all in the text to suggest that Jesus is proclaiming
that the Sabbath will continue. He is merely using a real problem of the
time to expound a principle of mercy.
Jesus is actually discussing the law as a whole here - my reasoning is
twofold. First, the Pharisees were always trying to find him breaking the
law - the Sabbath, hand-washing, and so forth - and so this is just one of
the several instances where Jesus gives us insight into the true nature and
purpose of the law. Second, Jesus actually gives another example of
law-breaking unrelated to the Sabbath - David was so hungry he ate a certain
bread that could not be eaten by anyone other than the high priest. This has
nothing to do with the Sabbath, yet Jesus uses this example to prove that
the law exists to serve man, not man to serve the law. Based on this, I feel
that Jesus is not promoting the Sabbath at all here, and this passage
actually does not deal with the Sabbath's implications for Christians. All
that Jesus is doing is showing, using two contemporary examples, how the law
is meant to be used. So he is not making a statement at all about who the
Sabbath was given to - Israel versus mankind. The Bible has already spoken
on that - the Sabbath was for Israel. What Jesus is saying - as I see it -
is not about mankind's relationship with the Sabbath, but the relationship
between PEOPLE and the Sabbath - did people have to serve the Sabbath or did
the Sabbath exist to serve the people Jesus was speaking to? And this is
just one of several examples used to show the nature of the law.
What of the statements that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath? Adventists want
the text so say that because Jesus is "Lord even of the Sabbath", it means
that it is his special day. But just go back and read the entire passage -
it actually is saying that Jesus is ABOVE the law, that it is HE who
determines when a law is applicable, and when it is legalistic. Basically,
the text is saying NOT that Jesus' special day is the Sabbath, but that
Jesus is Lord OVER the Sabbath JUST as he is Lord over every other aspect of
nature, the law, and the universe, and he controls it completely.
Circumcision too was made for man, and not man for circumcision.