God's Sabbath, Saturday vs Sunday

Some food for thought...

1. CATHOLIC - Cardinal Gibbons 'Catholic Mirror' Sept. 23 1893;

"God's written Word enjoins His worship to be observed on Saturday, absolutely, repeatedly, and most emphatically, with a most positive threat of death to him who disobeys."


2. CATHOLIC - Stephen Keenan 'A Doctrinal Catechism' p. 174;

Question: "When Protestants do profane work upon Saturday... do they follow the Scripture as their only rule of faith?"
Answer: "On the contrary, they have only the authority of tradition for this practice. In profaning Saturday, they violate one of God's commandments, which He has never clearly abrogated, 'Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath'."

3. CATHOLIC - Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, 3rd ed., p.50;

Question: "Which day 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 [c. 363] transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."

4. CATHOLIC - 'Catholic Press' August 25, 1900;

"Sunday is a Catholic institution, and... can be defended only on Catholic principals...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."

5. METHODIST - Charles Buck 'A Theological Dictionary', "Sabbath";

"Sabbath in the Hebrew language signifies rest, and is the 7th day of the week... and it must be confessed that there is no law in the NT concerning the first day."

6. METHODIST - Clovis Chappel 'Ten Rules For Living', p.61;

"The reason we observe the first day instead of the 7th is based on no positive command. One will search the Scriptures in vain for authority for changing from the 7th day to the first."

7. PRESBYTERIAN - 'Christian at Work' April 19 1883;

"Some have tried to build the observance of Sunday upon Apostolic command, whereas the Apostles gave no command on the matter at all... The truth is, so soon as we appeal to the literal writing of the Bible, the Sabbatarians have the best of the argument."

8. ANGLICAN - Isaac William 'Plain Sermons on the Catechism, vol.1:

"Where are we told in Scripture that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the 7th; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day... the reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the 7th is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined it."

9. EPISCOPAL - Phillip Carrington 'Toronto Daily Star', Oct. 26, 1949;

"The Bible commandment says on the 7th day thou shalt rest. That is Saturday. Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday."

10. BAPTIST - Harold Lindsell (ed), 'Christianity Today', Nov.5, 1976:

"There is nothing in the Scripture that requires us to keep Sunday rather than Saturday as a holy day."

***************************************************************************

Any contributions?

I believe they call this phenomenon 'Shooting oneself in one's foot'.

Chalk one up for the heretics

Nope... I don't bat for the SDA...

"For God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor 14:33)
"Prove all things" (1 Thess 5:21)


Then why so much confusion about the Lord's Sabbath amongst structured religion? Hmmm... It does make one wonder...

http://www.vision.org/jrnl/0104/emptyshell.html


Was the resurrection really on Sunday?Hmmm... It does make one wonder...

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/cbfunit/sunday.htm


Score so far; Heretics - 2 / Religion - nil


Is it me, or is it getting rather warm around this parts....?


Nope... not JW or SDBaptist either.

Should I bring up the idea that the very day of Christ's birth has been moved (as with several other dates of note) to better line up with pagan holidays? Some of this is why I'd like to travel back in time and talk with Christ himself, in the flesh, sometimes. (While he used flesh to walk the land). Sometimes I wonder how much of an issue the language barrier would be...

Yes, the day we celebrate Christmas on December 25th is actually not the accurate birthdate of Christ. The Roman Catholic church originally had the date set for the first or second week of January until it was moved back to the day we know it on in relation to the time of year pagans seen as the birth of a new year, where the shortest day turned over to the longest day...thus, December 25th fit in there somehow. Biblically, however, Christ's day of birth is never given but is hinted at being sometime between late summer and early spring...awful wide gap, eh?
And Aaediwen, I don't think there would be a language barrier for Jesus understood all dialects.

I've thought of that. It would make metaphysical sense if he even understood languages that didn't exist yet. Then there is also the possibility that he only understood and spoke the languages he had need to (in which he would not understand modern day English due to complete lack of need for it). That would still provide the impression that he understood all tounges, and make it close enough to fact not to matter. And you know how writers like to exaggerate stories over time ::grin Specially if there is enough at the time to support it as plausible.

Now, I don't mean to say that God couldn't always speak any language that ever will exist (and hence the son of God would be able to in the event as described of them being one and the same) But if you knew good and well you would have absolutely no use for something extra on a trip, would you bring the extra baggage? Makes sense to me that that ability might not have been manifest in Christ, whereas he would surely be fluent with the language were the second comming to indeed happen today.

Honestly, I can't say one way or the other, and I'm certainly not saying that Jesus is any lesser than he has been seen. Just saying that it makes sense that God might have seen it common sense not to give Christ abillities for which he would never have any use. (like skill with C programming during his first trip 2000 years ago for example)

You're right about Xmas... by the way has anybody noticed Jeremiah 10:2-4?

It's only right, as far as I'm concerned, that we should question and challenge the doctrines and dogma advocated by organized religion. Doesn't it seem bizarre that the Scriptures teach one thing, and mainstream religion teaches something else??
Whether they be Papal, Protestant, JW, Mormon, Methodist, or these TV type personal ministries or whatever. We shouldn't just accept things at face value.

My issue is not with the congregations. Folk can choose whatever path they wish - it's none of my business. But I do hope that they are presented with the opportunity to look outside the square of structured religion and to think for themselves without any influence from the pulpit.

My contentions and challenge is presented to the religious hierarchy who dish out the doctrine and dogma that appears to be alarmingly out of context with the teachings of the very diety they claim to represent.

The Scriptures admonish us to prove all things (1 Thess 5:21). This verse is complementary with (Matt 24:4-5,11,23-24) (John 5:39) (Acts 17:10,11) (1 John 4:1). That's good advice in my book. So if some religious leader preaches to me with guff that's in conflict with the Scriptures, well, they are wasting their time.

What amuses me is how organized religion shoots itself in the foot by admitting that what they advocate has no Scriptural authority (as touched on in my opening post). They simply don't have God's authority. Their own words reveal their hypocrisy.

Another example is found in this article, which looks at Xmas;

http://www.vision.org/trdl/2000/trdl001221b.html


"The Christianity of the New Testament simply does not exist."
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Danish philosopher.


I'm surprised andi hasn't made an entrance to this thread.

I was half expecting him to come charging in with fixed bayonets!

=) That's a great analogy there, Aaediwen...and a true one! English would have never served a purpose but would come in handy for today's uses (compatible with Helpdesk troubleshooting or cell phone communication). It's also very interesting what Jesus ate while he was here such as bread, wine, etc. which are all symbolic in meaning and usage. I wonder what he would have thought of the Atkins diet?

Kiwi, your posts are very thought-provoking! I'm enjoying visiting the links you've posted.
You seem to be coming to some conclusions I've arrived at myself in recent years; I've come out from behind the skirt of my own denomination and realized that it truly is the Scripture that holds the answers.

I was wondering, why did you quote Kierkegaard at the end of your post? What was he referring to, the claims of Jesus Christ?

It was just a quote that I felt fitted in with the nature of this thread's discussion. His roots were in Lutheran piety, if my memory serves me right, and this quote comes from his 'Attack Upon Christendom', in which he challenges the hypocracy of organized religion in general, specifically the Lutheran establishment. I haven't found any evidence that he lived by God's every literal Word, which the Scripture repeatedly emphasizes on (Deut 8:3, Matt & Luke 4:4 - you know, I kinda get the feeling that God was trying to make a point here ), however, Kierkegaard did have the insight to realise that something had gone awry in professing Christendom, since the days Christ.

My regular stop for information is http://www.vision.org, hosted by folk who are known simply as the church of God. It may be just coincidence that the NT church were also known by the exact same name (eg Acts 20:28 & 1 Cor 1:2), but when both peoples share a character and creed that appears strikingly similar, it does make you wonder. Christ tells us that His church would always prevail (Matt 16:18), so they've got to be somewhere on this planet. Seek and you shall find (Matt 7:7). Hopefully, further queries and research will confirm my hunch.

I still wanna do a thorough investigation on the background of this folk, and see if I can uncover any discrepancies that I should be aware of, especially regarding the leadership, cos it's these dudes who can, and will, lead you up the proverbial crooked garden path, if you don't check things out properly.

A recommended site is http://www.blueletterbible.org which carries a good selection of online concordances, lexicons, commentaries etc. Definitely a worthwhile research asset.

Another little example of organized religion tripping itself up;

http://www.vision.org/jrnl/9901/ideas.html



Still no sign of andy...

Blimey, the Vatican must be on shakier ground than I thought!

***Stand TO!!***

***Fix Bayonets!!***

The older folks here know that I don't post much on Thursdays or Fridays. Those are my days off. I have SLOW dial-up at home and I usually wait until I go back to work with DSL to start a-postin'. Plus, my wife insists that I do crazy things like spend time with her and my kids instead of sitting glued to a LCD monitor. Silly girl.

Have no fear, the Vatican's defender is here , just catching up on what has transpired since Wednesday.

So, I gather that the gist of what's going on here is that KG is furthering yet another attempt to slide a sola scriptura Protestant assertion in here without question as to the method of how that assertion was arrived at. Rather than delve into whether the Sabbath should be on Saturday or Sunday (or any other day, for that matter), let's look at the underlying assumptions of his conclusion first.

KG is taking as implicit that every teaching in Christian theology must be taken from Holy Scripture. Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum. Show me where in the Bible it says that this is true. This is a Reformation theological invention, primarily owing to the invention of moveable type. The concept simply did not exist for about 1500 years prior to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and that lot. As Cardinal Newman once said, the idea that God would allow fifteen hundred years to pass prior to revealing that the Bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians is an "intolerable paradox." Since printed Bibles were not available widely until the 16th century, what were all of the people for the 1500 years prior to that time supposed to do? Rot in hell because they didn't have Bibles? No, because God doesn't ask us to do what we cannot. The technology simply wasn't extant for all of those people to have access to scriptural books.

Besides that, how do we know which books of the New Testament are actually inspired, and which aren't? The commonly accepted 27 books of the New Testament were accepted as inspired by the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Reformation. Hmmmmm? The Catholic Church did something right? That can't be right! That means that Protestants are accepting as Canon something that was delineated by the Catholic Church! What a revolting development that is.

Besides, the concept of sola scriptura is unworkable from a practical point of view. If it is a concept inspired by the Holy Spirit, why are there over 25,000 Protestant denominations extant, no two of which agree on exactly what the Bible says? What has resulted is doctrinal chaos, defined by self-styled exegetes who interpret God's word to suit themselves.

So, since the concept of sola scriptura is nonsense and un-Biblical to boot, where does that leave us? Well, Holy Scripture does provide us with some of what is necessary for salvation. However, Sacred Tradition also provides us with God-given assistance in our salvation. What, you ask. Well, for starters, it was Tradition that established the Canon of the New Testament. Remember?

Now, to the actual "day" of the Sabbath. Well, Biblically, I like Acts 20:7. It spells out that the Eucharist is celebrated on the first day of the week. And, of course, by the year 300AD, Tradition had settled the day of the Christian Sabbath. The Council of Elvira in 300AD stated, "If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excummunicated for a short time that he may be corrected." That takes the Sunday argument back 1200+ years before the Protestants waded onto the historical scene. Hmmm. Let's see. Personalized exegetic interpretation of biblical verses or Scriptural reference to Sunday Eucharist and at least 1700 years of Sacred Tradition. Yeah. I'll go with that.

***Unfix Bayonets!!***

Just my tuppence.

Andy

Wow!

Hello, Andy: Siusaidh Blues here - a relative newbie to this discussion board, and REALLY new to this area! I enjoyed your post a lot; very thought provoking. Your statement about trying to find in the Bible where it says only 'holy scripture' is where Christian teaching can come from is quite true but I haven't seen it phrased quite that way before!

I'm a little Protestant-raised chick, but don't think for a moment that I have anything less than the utmost admiration for the Roman Catholic Church! Time spent studying its beliefs has made me see that we are looking to relate to and know the same Creator.

Actually, I hope you're not going to scowl at me like some RC's have in the past... they've insinuated that protestants are virtual heretics. Do you agree?

Hey, SB, I was raised a Southern Baptist. It took several years of spiritual wandering before I found my home in the Catholic Church. I don't sneer or look down at anyone. I believe what I believe and I defend it, but everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

And, no. You are not a heretic. In fact, you can't be a heretic. If you are referring to my jibes at Kiwi Gael, they are in jest. Technically speaking, you could only be a heretic if you are a Catholic, and then dispute the teachings of the Church. If you were raised as a Protestant, there is no way you are a heretic. The Church refers to you as a seperated brother. Maybe one day, we can all get together as one Church. Here's hoping!

Just my tuppence.

Andy

My turn on the soapbox...

SB, I was raised Independent Baptist, and I converted to Catholic about 4 years ago. I definately don't see protestants as Heretics. Quite the opposite. A draw back I see with the Catholic church is that the people seem to lack that "Personal Relationship" with Christ. They seem to get into the rut of saying the same things over and over again, and just reciting prayers rather than praying from the heart. So, I think protestants have an advantage on Catholics, because they've been taught that the personal relationship with Christ is the most important thing. Far more important than traditions. I like to think I have the best of both worlds. I have the beliefs and good habits I was raised with, as well as the structure that the Catholic Church provides.

Shelly

Are you familiar with the Charismatic Catholic movement? My parents were involved with that. Definitely not my cuppa tea, but it sounds a little like something you would enjoy.