God's seventh-day Sabbath: Its not Sunday.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

The Ten Commandments are not "superstition".

That an angel representing God wrote them on stone tablets with His finger after reciting it out of flames and smoke from the top of a mountain?

The Bible is the Word of G-d, not a book "written by men".

It is a collection of stories about people in ancient times having The Lord tell them something, somehow that we don't really know.

You either believe that G-d had a hand in writing the Bible, or you don't.

We know that there was a tradition that existed in ancient times that believed that. We have no way to actually determine if any of it really was.

If you just view the Bible as a history book, then obviously I would beg to differ, as would most any G-d fearing person.

It serves as a record of what some people believed to be a history, back in the fourth century AD.
Here is a graph of Gallop poll results about what Americans believe about the Bible (the closest to being relevant statistics that I could find),
I would think that if the question was specifically about the OT, there would be a higher percentage in the "fables" column.

If you have a biblical defense of idolatry, paganism, and any of the other errors I mentioned, then I am all ears.

I already did in my earlier post, pointing out how the religion as described in the Old Testament was as "idolatrous" as Christianity. It is also just as pagan, if you understand "pagan" as meaning incorporating local customs.

Uh, no. G-d doesn't say you can follow some rules, but not others.

The Sabbath commandment only specifies one day out of seven to rest, and not which day exactly.

Ignoring G-d's commandments is a perilous journey, and not an advisable plan for personal salvation.

I think that if that was true, then they would have said so in the New Testament.

Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
(English Standard Version)

As a Torah observant Jewish rabbi, and with his parents being Jewish, Christ celebrated the Sabbath as was the religious custom.

You are just guessing on a lot of that. Jesus was not a "rabbi" in the normal sense of the word. Jesus taught a small group of disciples and to them he was their rabbi, what they called him as their "master". Jesus did not observe the Torah, as you suggest, nor did he rest on the Sabbath, which is the main "commandment" part of the Sabbath commandment.

Christ celebrated the Sabbath by teaching others the Torah in a house of prayer ("synagogue"):

That was him at work, not celebrating.

And, yes, Christ was a teacher of the Torah. The New Testament didn't exist at the time.

Jesus did not need a scroll to teach. Jesus was preexistent in the form of god, and was taught by his father, God.

That an angel representing God wrote them on stone tablets with His finger after reciting it out of flames and smoke from the top of a mountain?

G-d gave Moses the Ten Commandments. This is not superstition. This is biblical fact.

Whether you believe in G-d or not, or whether you think G-d was the tooth fairy or a space alien, is totally irrelevant. If you believe in the Bible, then you believe that G-d was the author of the Ten Commandments.

It is a collection of stories about people in ancient times having The Lord tell them something, somehow that we don't really know.

Again, your personal belief is that the Bible is a history book of "stories". G-d fearing believers don't adhere to this secular interpretation.

We know that there was a tradition that existed in ancient times that believed that. We have no way to actually determine if any of it really was.

You either believe that G-d had a hand in writing the Bible or you don't. There is no gray area there. You are either a believer or a disbeliever. And, according to Christ, G-d isn't a big fan of people being lukewarm when it comes to His Word.

Here is a graph of Gallop poll results about what Americans believe about the Bible (the closest to being relevant statistics that I could find)

Very, very few Americans have ever read the Bible from cover to cover, let alone study it with any regularity or consistency. Very few Americans can read or speak Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, or even Greek for that matter, so they would be hard pressed to understand the Bible with much clarity to any degree.

I already did in my earlier post, pointing out how the religion as described in the Old Testament was as "idolatrous" as Christianity. It is also just as pagan, if you understand "pagan" as meaning incorporating local customs.

But, we're not talking about the past. We were talking about the present. And present day Christianity is rife with blatant theological errors that contradict the Bible's instructions for daily living, worship, and prayer.

The Sabbath commandment only specifies one day out of seven to rest, and not which day exactly.

The seventh day is the Sabbath, as detailed in the Bible. G-d rested on the seventh day, not just some random day of the week.

I think that if that was true, then they would have said so in the New Testament.

The consequences for not following the laws of G-d are quite clearly detailed in the warnings first outlined in the Book of Deuteronomy. If the holy followers of G-d fail to adhere to His Word, the consequences outlined are quite dire.

You are just guessing on a lot of that. Jesus was not a "rabbi" in the normal sense of the word. Jesus taught a small group of disciples and to them he was their rabbi, what they called him as their "master". Jesus did not observe the Torah, as you suggest, nor did he rest on the Sabbath, which is the main "commandment" part of the Sabbath commandment.

As I have stated quite clearly before, a rabbi is a teacher of the Torah, which is exactly what Christ taught. Whether you call him "master", "rabbi", or "teacher" is irrelevant. I already gave you several direct quotes from the New Testament where Christ is called "rabbi" by both disciple and non-disciple alike.

And, yes, Christ did observe the Torah. The bogus accusations that He did not observe the Torah came from His false accusers, the Pharisees.

So, really, in your false accusation that Christ did not follow the Torah, your theological position is the exact same as Christ's enemies.

That was him at work, not celebrating.

No, Christ's day job or "work" was as a carpenter. He celebrated the Sabbath with His fellow Jews as they still do today - By reading and teaching from the Torah.

Jesus did not need a scroll to teach. Jesus was preexistent in the form of god, and was taught by his father, God.

And what did G-d teach Christ? The Torah. He taught it to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah, and many others. You are making circuitous arguments. Every single teaching of Christ comes directly from the Torah.

You act, as do many Christians, that somehow Christ came to do away with the Torah, or to replace the Sabbath as Sunday. This is erroneous, and a rather serious theological and historical error at that. Christ stated that not one "jot or tittle" of the Law - the Torah - will pass until the heaven and Earth are no longer in existence. He was quite serious about observing the Torah, and following His Father's instructions.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

G-d fearing believers don't adhere to this secular interpretation.

Christians are not "God-fearers".

A God-fearer or Godfearer was a class of non-Jewish (gentile) sympathizers to Second Temple Judaism mentioned in the Christian New Testament and other contemporary sources such as synagogue inscriptions in diaspora Hellenistic Judaism. The concept has precedents in the proselytes of the Hebrew Bible.
en.wikipedia.org...

So I am not expressing a "secular" interpretation, it is a Christian in terpretation.
Christians believe in God, spelled Theos in the New Testament, the Father of Jesus.

And, according to Christ, G-d isn't a big fan of people being lukewarm when it comes to His Word.

In Revelation, there is a figure in a fantastic vision that was experienced by the author. That figure was saying something about being "lukewarm", but it doesn't specify what anyone hypothetically was lukewarm about.

And present day Christianity is rife with blatant theological errors that contradict the Bible's instructions for daily living, worship, and prayer.

When you say "the Bible" you apparently mean the Old Testament. Christians believe that Jesus gave the Apostles authority to create law for the church, so there is no purpose for the OT other than as a sort of history about the former religion that Jesus came out of.

The seventh day is the Sabbath, as detailed in the Bible. G-d rested on the seventh day, not just some random day of the week.

Someone at some point, probably in the Persian Empire period, decided to fix the Sabbath on a specific day to standardize the Sabbath for all Jews to keep it on the same day. Then they started counting the days based on what day they decided when the week would end on.

The consequences for not following the laws of G-d are quite clearly detailed in the warnings first outlined in the Book of Deuteronomy. If the holy followers of G-d fail to adhere to His Word, the consequences outlined are quite dire.

The Book of Deuteronomy is one of the books of the Old Testament.

As I have stated quite clearly before, a rabbi is a teacher of the Torah, which is exactly what Christ taught.

The word "rabbi" means master, where it would be natural for the disciples of a person to call that of the person who they are the disciples of.

I already gave you several direct quotes from the New Testament where Christ is called "rabbi" by both disciple and non-disciple alike.

The one person not among his regular disciples who called Jesus "rabbi" was submitting himself as a candidate for discipleship.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

And, yes, Christ did observe the Torah. The bogus accusations that He did not observe the Torah came from His false accusers, the Pharisees.

So, really, in your false accusation that Christ did not follow the Torah, your theological position is the exact same as Christ's enemies.

I've been looking into this subject since you brought it up.
Jesus did not actively teach anyone to disobey the Mosaic Law, but only according to his own interpretation of what it meant, and taking full advantage of any exemption that he could find, including the non-Torah books of what Christians call the Old Testament, and even ones given by the Pharisees themselves.
Now what I mean is overtly disobeying things, in the way of doing something obviously told not to.
It seems to me that it was open season to not do things that the Law said to do, as long as it is not obvious that you are not doing them.
I think it would be better probably, as I see it right now, to not take the same position as the bad Pharisees (since there were good ones too) had taken against Jesus, but to see that it was necessary for Jesus to have been killed wrongly, and not as if he deserved it and that his execution was justified.

No, Christ's day job or "work" was as a carpenter. He celebrated the Sabbath with His fellow Jews as they still do today - By reading and teaching from the Torah.

Sorry but that is just wrong. It never says that he worked as a carpenter but only that he was the son of a carpenter. And he did not work a "day job" once he started his mission to spread the gospel.

And what did G-d teach Christ? The Torah. He taught it to Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah, and many others. You are making circuitous arguments. Every single teaching of Christ comes directly from the Torah.

Jesus, before he was the man, Jesus, was in the form of god, in the bosom of God, his father, knowing the very heart of God. Jesus told the leaders of the temple that they did not know God, but he did because he came from above.

You act, as do many Christians, that somehow Christ came to do away with the Torah, or to replace the Sabbath as Sunday. This is erroneous, and a rather serious theological and historical error at that. Christ stated that not one "jot or tittle" of the Law - the Torah - will pass until the heaven and Earth are no longer in existence. He was quite serious about observing the Torah, and following His Father's instructions.

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
(2011 NIV)
This is answered by Paul,
Romans 10:4
Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
(2011 NIV)

Christians are not "God-fearers".

That's a weakness, not an accolade. Scripture is quite clear that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord, Proverbs 19:23:

The fear of the LORD tendeth to life; and he that hath it shall abide satisfied, he shall not be visited with evil.

Deut. 10:12:

And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul;

In Revelation, there is a figure in a fantastic vision that was experienced by the author. That figure was saying something about being "lukewarm", but it doesn't specify what anyone hypothetically was lukewarm about.

Christ was not a fan of "lukewarm" believers. Matthew 12:30:

He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

When you say "the Bible" you apparently mean the Old Testament. Christians believe that Jesus gave the Apostles authority to create law for the church, so there is no purpose for the OT other than as a sort of history about the former religion that Jesus came out of.

You differentiate, as do most in the Gentile Church, a difference between the Old and New Testaments. G-d's laws in the Old Testament don't somehow change or get altered in the New Testament. Christ came to renew, not to replace.

In the Torah of the "Old Testament", G-d lays down His laws quite clearly. The Old Testament is not a "history" book - It is where G-d gives His Laws and Commandments, and demonstrates His sovereignty, especially in His saving of the Jewish people from Egyptian slavery.

Someone at some point, probably in the Persian Empire period, decided to fix the Sabbath on a specific day to standardize the Sabbath for all Jews to keep it on the same day. Then they started counting the days based on what day they decided when the week would end on.

It still doesn't change G-d's commandment to keep the seventh day of the week holy. Just because man tinkered with the calendar, doesn't change G-d's rules.

And, really, the Jewish calendar is quite accurate, even more so now than perhaps ever before. In fact, the Jewish people have their religious observances narrowed down to the very hour of the day, and not just the days of the week.

While there might be disagreements of a minor nature as to the Jewish calendar, or disagreements about changes that have been made historically, it still does not negate G-d's rules.

The Book of Deuteronomy is one of the books of the Old Testament.

Yes. The New Testament did not exist at the time Christ lived. Christians today tend to believe that you can ignore all of G-d's commandments in the Torah, and somehow Christ will absolve them. That's not what Christ said, and it is a distortion of Christ's teachings to ignore G-d's rules.

Some of us actually believe you have to follow the whole book, not just those portions that appeal to you.

The word "rabbi" means master, where it would be natural for the disciples of a person to call that of the person who they are the disciples of.

A rabbi is a teacher of the Torah. Christ was a teacher of the Torah. You do the math.

I think it would be better probably, as I see it right now, to not take the same position as the bad Pharisees (since there were good ones too) had taken against Jesus, but to see that it was necessary for Jesus to have been killed wrongly, and not as if he deserved it and that his execution was justified.

You're getting closer. The Pharisees had perverted the Torah, and made it burdensome. The Jews refer to these extra burdens as "putting a fence around the Torah" -- that is, tightening the rules and making them more strict so as to avoid transgressions against the Torah. Christ came to do away with these man-made traditions, and restore the Torah to its original meaning and context.

Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Until the heavens and earth disappear....That hasn't happened yet. And "everything" hasn't been accomplished yet. Christ still has His Second Coming.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

The Old Testament is not a "history" book - It is where G-d gives His Laws and Commandments, and demonstrates His sovereignty, especially in His saving of the Jewish people from Egyptian slavery.

That's a story, sorry, but that is what it is, just a story, apparently completely made up as a sort of Parable.
There is no evidence that there was ever a such thing as an ancient Israel.

Christians today tend to believe that you can ignore all of G-d's commandments in the Torah, and somehow Christ will absolve them.

Nope, no absolution necessary. That whole system burnt to the ground with Jesus sitting up in a cloud over Jerusalem watching it happen.

Some of us actually believe you have to follow the whole book, not just those portions that appeal to you.

I just ran into one of that ilk, today on Facebook, proclaiming the slogan, "I think we should advocate for the FULL UNADULTERATED WORD OF GOD". When asked to explain what that means, she said "I am making no further comments". She seems to think, and says so on her profile, that "there is only black or white".

The Pharisees had perverted the Torah, and made it burdensome.

That is a fallacy people make up to make it look like Jesus had a problem, not with the law but only with the lawyers.
They make the Torah tolerable.
The Torah was a recreation of the pre-exile temple cult, as it was remembered before the Babylonians leveled it all. It was not really written to be able to live under, and more just a way of preserving old traditions.
The Pharisees were necessary to make interpretations that people could actually live by.

Until the heavens and earth disappear....That hasn't happened yet. And "everything" hasn't been accomplished yet. Christ still has His Second Coming.

The "heavens" thing may be an allusion to Jeremiah, where it says it is as easy for the heavens to stop their cycles as for The Lord to turn His back on Israel. That happened, as I mentioned, when the temple was turned to smoldering ruin. At that point. the old system had reached the completion of whatever its purpose was.
That was Jesus' "second coming" the visitation of justice.
That is the message behind all the parables and other odd sayings in the gospels, the justification for the discarding of the Jewish temple cult system for a new spiritual system under a better representative of God's character.

That's a story, sorry, but that is what it is, just a story, apparently completely made up as a sort of Parable. There is no evidence that there was ever a such thing as an ancient Israel.

Stories. After all, the Old Testament is a compilation of hundreds of stories spanning many centuries. So Noah, Abraham, Moses, King Saul, King David, King Solomon were all make-believe? Doubtful. Ancient Israel was a reality, not a myth. There is plenty of evidence, but archaeologically, in Scripture, and in historical accounts.

Nope, no absolution necessary. That whole system burnt to the ground with Jesus sitting up in a cloud over Jerusalem watching it happen.

So, according to your theory, you need not seek personal salvation from either actions, nor from absolution from Christ. Everyone gets a free ticket to salvation, regardless of what they do or what they believe? Huh?

The Torah was a recreation of the pre-exile temple cult, as it was remembered before the Babylonians leveled it all. It was not really written to be able to live under, and more just a way of preserving old traditions. The Pharisees were necessary to make interpretations that people could actually live by.

Once again, you are contradicting Scripture. Deuteronomy makes it quite clear that fulfilling the commands issued in the Torah is very much possible, Deut. 30:10-14:

....if thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

You don't have to look to heaven, and you don't have to rely on someone far away. The Torah is close, in a believer's mouth and heart, and may be accomplished.

What is not able to be accomplished is man-made tradition that is too difficult to follow. Man-made rules, man-made traditions are what can never be achieved.

And Christ was quite intolerable of the Pharisees in their attempt to pervert the Law with their man-made regulations that were quite a burden to the people, Luke 11:46:

But he said: Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear, and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers.

It is not the Torah that is intolerable. It was additional man-made rules and regulations that were not from the Torah that were so intolerable.

That was Jesus' "second coming" the visitation of justice.

He'll be back.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Ancient Israel was a reality, not a myth.

Really a myth.

There is plenty of evidence, but archaeologically,

Not.

in Scripture,

Duh.

and in historical accounts.

Hmm?

So, according to your theory, you need not seek personal salvation from either actions, nor from absolution from Christ. Everyone gets a free ticket to salvation, regardless of what they do or what they believe? Huh?

Not as far as Old Testament laws go. There may be some overlap with New Testament law which is incidental. Those, you would still have to be mindful of.

It is not the Torah that is intolerable. It was additional man-made rules and regulations that were not from the Torah that were so intolerable.

Any in particular that you can think of that you could cite?

He'll be back.

That is a theory that is not supportable and based on some people's lack of appreciation for what Jesus did and is doing now. Some people would like it if Jesus would have a nightly TV show that we could all watch.

Really a myth.

Ancient Israel was not a myth. If you have evidence to support such an outrageous and preposterous claim, please feel free to share so we can again debunk even more of your baseless claims.

Not.

The Temple Mount is just a figment of our imagination, right? Jerusalem is just a fictitious city? Do tell.

Hmm?

Start with the historian, Josephus. I guess he was imaginary as well, right?

Not as far as Old Testament laws go. There may be some overlap with New Testament law which is incidental. Those, you would still have to be mindful of.

There are no new laws in the New Testament that are not reflected in the Old. In fact, the Old Testament laws are much more detailed.

Any in particular that you can think of that you could cite?

Sure. You could start by try to decipher the Shulchan Aruch, the most authoritative legal code of Jewish Law, and you'll get a taste of the kinds of arcane and man-made laws Christ opposed. This kind of nonsensical legalism continues to this very day, with halachic authorities arguing over the most arcane minutiae and ignoring the finer and spiritual points of the Law.

That is a theory that is not supportable and based on some people's lack of appreciation for what Jesus did and is doing now. Some people would like it if Jesus would have a nightly TV show that we could all watch.

Again, you are ignoring Holy Writ, which quite clearly depicts the Second Coming. Acts 1:11:

“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Luke 21:27:

At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Ancient Israel was not a myth. If you have evidence to support such an outrageous and preposterous claim, please feel free to share so we can again debunk even more of your baseless claims.

You're asking me to prove a negative.

The Temple Mount is just a figment of our imagination, right? Jerusalem is just a fictitious city? Do tell.

We know now with science that it was build in the Middle Ages by the crusaders.

Start with the historian, Josephus. I guess he was imaginary as well, right?

He was using mainly the Old Testament for his source, and writing at nearly 100 AD.

There are no new laws in the New Testament that are not reflected in the Old. In fact, the Old Testament laws are much more detailed.

Do you mean like the dietary laws? Where do you find similar "laws" in let's say, the letters of Paul?

Shulchan Aruch

That was not written until 1563, so I don't see how relevant that is to the first century situation.

Acts 1:11

That is a mistranslation where it was really saying that Jesus was not just going up to the sky, but was going to keep going, in that same way, all the way to heaven.

Luke 21:27

The word there translated "see" does not mean to literally see, but to understand. In this case, what I mentioned earlier, Jesus watching from a cloud while vengeance is taken on Jerusalem, the city that kills the Prophets.

You're asking me to prove a negative.

No, I am asking you to provide any shred of reliable and authentic evidence for your nothing short of ridiculous claim. Apparently, you have none, which isn't all that surprising.

We know now with science that it was build in the Middle Ages by the crusaders.

Good grief. This is now getting comical. I suppose you believe King Herod was a tooth fairy.

He was using mainly the Old Testament for his source, and writing at nearly 100 AD.

You questioned whether any historians gave credence to ancient Israel. I gave you Josephus as an example. He was an eyewitness any number of the historical events in and around Jerusalem at the time.

Do you mean like the dietary laws? Where do you find similar "laws" in let's say, the letters of Paul?

Good grief. Why don't you cite an alleged "new law" in the New Testament, as you so claim? We will then look for its counterpart in the Old Testament. (Not the reverse - Not all of the Old Testament laws are in the New. The New Testament is much shorter in length than the Old.)

That was not written until 1563, so I don't see how relevant that is to the first century situation.

Good grief. Read the New Testament where Christ criticizes the Pharisees. The Code of Jewish Law is simply a compilation of all of these arcane, man made laws placed under a single umbrella. The date is irrelevant, as these man-made traditions are as old as Moses. You asked for an example, I gave you one.

That is a mistranslation where it was really saying that Jesus was not just going up to the sky, but was going to keep going, in that same way, all the way to heaven.

....an alleged mistranslation which again has no relevance whatsoever to the Second Coming.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

No, I am asking you to provide any shred of reliable and authentic evidence for your nothing short of ridiculous claim. Apparently, you have none, which isn't all that surprising.

I'm saying that this is something that I know from my studies, that there is no evidence for an ancient Israel.
If you think there is, then you can bring it up. My evidence can only be you inability to produce any evidence that there was.

I suppose you believe King Herod was a tooth fairy.

He was a real person but a lot about him is myth. Today there was a show on PBS about Jerusalem that I had to turn off because it was just propaganda, saying Herod built this wall because it had a certain kind of stone. Oh? Whatever, as if the science of stone cutting was lost in Roman times! The so-called Wailing Wall was made in crusader times, after the temple had already been destroyed.

He was an eyewitness any number of the historical events in and around Jerusalem at the time.

Josephus wrote two main books, The Wars of the Jews, and The Antiquities of the Jews, where he goes all the way back through Genesis.
What I mean by Ancient Israel, is Ancient Israel, which even by the stories in the Old Testament, has not existed since the time of the Assyrian Empire. Obviously there was a province of Judea within Palestine.

Good grief. Why don't you cite an alleged "new law" in the New Testament, as you so claim? We will then look for its counterpart in the Old Testament. (Not the reverse - Not all of the Old Testament laws are in the New. The New Testament is much shorter in length than the Old.)

The only new ones are "Believe in Jesus" "Repent" "Be Baptized" and "Do Not Fornicate, and Do Not Get Divorced".

The date is irrelevant, as these man-made traditions are as old as Moses.

I have my doubts that these are relevant to the situation that Jesus was dealing with.
My argument is that the Torah says 'don't step out of the door of your tent on the Sabbath'.
The Pharisees said 'don't walk more than so many paces on the Sabbath'.
How is the Pharisee's rule "harder"?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

. . . you try to deny Pope Damasus decided the Canon which your KJV Bible contains . . .

Who cares what a Pope said, when the thing already existed before he made a pronouncement on it.
He did not create it.

Athanasius is a recognized Catholic saint . . .

So are Mary and Joseph but they were not Catholics.

I just posted a link with Athanasius' quotes and beliefs. Read them.

I have several books by Athanasius that I have read. I have all the writings of the Apostolic fathers and the early saints. That is something I started reading thirty years ago, along with early church history and the canons of the church.

. . . why declare He decided the Canon?

I don't. He is an example that is well documented and easy to understand, of someone who had the list of the New Testament books at an early date.

You don't believe the quote came from Barnabas.

I have in my hand the recognised standard, and authoritative, version of the Epistle of Barnabas, and that blurb that you got from a propaganda web site is not in it.

The Lord's Day and Sunday worship is written in the Didache (70 A.D.) and I shared Ignatius and Justin Martyr, read their quotes . . .

I haven't gotten to those after being discouraged from it by the bogus nature of this list of references you came up with, based on the one that I did check.
Years ago I did go through every one of those Lord's Day references and why I spent so much money thirty years ago buying all those books, and none of them ever panned out as making a direct connection between the "Lord's Day", and Sunday.
You believe in a myth, as far as I am concerned. And also as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to it. Just don't expect for me to believe it too.

edit on 29-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

A six year old child's retort is "who cares what a Pope said"...great rebuttal. Athanasius believed/believes in the Eucharist. You keep repeating he decided the Canon of Scripture so why do you reject the Eucharist?

Your, I, I, I, I.

How is PO going to get you into Heaven jim? Athansius included books NOT in your Bible. You accept the
the Catholic Bible less Martin Luther's rejections. Athanasisus and Luther have NO God given authority. You
best preach Athanasius' entire list since you are following him. Explain why they are not in the Canon.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

. . . you try to deny Pope Damasus decided the Canon which your KJV Bible contains . . .

Who cares what a Pope said, when the thing already existed before he made a pronouncement on it.
He did not create it.

Athanasius is a recognized Catholic saint . . .

So are Mary and Joseph but they were not Catholics.

I just posted a link with Athanasius' quotes and beliefs. Read them.

I have several books by Athanasius that I have read. I have all the writings of the Apostolic fathers and the early saints. That is something I started reading thirty years ago, along with early church history and the canons of the church.

. . . why declare He decided the Canon?

I don't. He is an example that is well documented and easy to understand, of someone who had the list of the New Testament books at an early date.

You don't believe the quote came from Barnabas.

I have in my hand the recognised standard, and authoritative, version of the Epistle of Barnabas, and that blurb that you got from a propaganda web site is not in it.

The Lord's Day and Sunday worship is written in the Didache (70 A.D.) and I shared Ignatius and Justin Martyr, read their quotes . . .

I haven't gotten to those after being discouraged from it by the bogus nature of this list of references you came up with, based on the one that I did check.
Years ago I did go through every one of those Lord's Day references and why I spent so much money thirty years ago buying all those books, and none of them ever panned out as making a direct connection between the "Lord's Day", and Sunday.
You believe in a myth, as far as I am concerned. And also as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to it. Just don't expect for me to believe it too.

edit on 29-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

By what authority do you declare Mary and Joseph are not Catholic?

What of the science tested miracles today and witness to Catholic's prayers answered by Mary and Joseph for 2000 years? Right, all those testimonies and the science tested miracles are lies. Some testimony is/was mental prayer, prayed and answered by God. The same as you praying for a loved one to God.

What was the earliest Church built to honor Mary or Joseph? Centuries before the Protestant revolt.

This is one lamo thread, no offense. Most all of Christianity went to Holy Mass or a Church service yesterday, SUNDAY. They gathered in assembly to worship God. The highest form of worship is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Remember, for the days ahead.

reply to post by colbe

You keep repeating he decided the Canon of Scripture so why do you reject the Eucharist?

I keep saying that he had a list that is exactly the same as the normal New Testament that Protestants use today.
That does not mean he inverted that list.
My point was that it existed before any council or Pope ever made any determination on a canon.
So the Bible was not made by the Catholic Church.
The Eucharist, I think now, was probably based on something Jesus invented, but it was made into something else later to make it out that priests could somehow offer Jesus to God.

Most all of Christianity went to Holy Mass or a Church service yesterday, SUNDAY. They gathered in assembly to worship God.

Catholics can go to Mass any day of the week. I live almost next door to a Catholic church, so I know.
I don't care if people go to church on Sunday, it bothers me not a bit, and never has. I just do not want someone to tell me that I have to, too.
The Church created Sunday worship as an anti-sabbath to distance themselves from the Jews who killed God.
Sunday as a sabbath was invented by the Puritans.
I know this stuff because I am a Seventh Day Adventist who goes to church on Saturday, so I need to know why, and why other people don't.

By what authority do you declare Mary and Joseph are not Catholic?

None. I just don't see how they could have since the Catholic Church wasn't invented until 400 years later.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

. . . you try to deny Pope Damasus decided the Canon which your KJV Bible contains . . .

Who cares what a Pope said, when the thing already existed before he made a pronouncement on it.
He did not create it.

Athanasius is a recognized Catholic saint . . .

So are Mary and Joseph but they were not Catholics.

I just posted a link with Athanasius' quotes and beliefs. Read them.

I have several books by Athanasius that I have read. I have ALL the writings of the Apostolic fathers and the early saints. That is something I started reading thirty years ago, along with early church history and the canons of the church.

. . . why declare He decided the Canon?

I don't. He is an example that is well documented and easy to understand, of someone who had the list of the New Testament books at an early date.

You don't believe the quote came from Barnabas.

I have in my hand the recognised standard, and authoritative, version of the Epistle of Barnabas, and that blurb that you got from a propaganda web site is not in it.

The Lord's Day and Sunday worship is written in the Didache (70 A.D.) and I shared Ignatius and Justin Martyr, read their quotes . . .

I haven't gotten to those after being discouraged from it by the bogus nature of this list of references you came up with, based on the one that I did check.
Years ago I did go through every one of those Lord's Day references and why I spent so much money thirty years ago buying all those books, and none of them ever panned out as making a direct connection between the "Lord's Day", and Sunday.
You believe in a myth, as far as I am concerned. And also as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to it. Just don't expect for me to believe it too.

edit on 29-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Notice...The general reply again, no specifics.

If you had read one book on the Apostolic Fathers you would be Roman Catholic now. "ALL" is an awful lot jim. The Apostolic Fathers, ALL of them believed in the Eucharist.

Post a quote from any one of "all" your books to show an Apostolic Father rejecting the Eucharist.

Please name the "saints" who deny Roman Catholicism? The Orthodox looked to the authority of Rome until the Schism in 1054. They can't be your buddies before or after, they believe in Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Protestantism does not study the life of or name saints. Catholicism does. Protestantism (not every single group/sect), ignores the saints and rejects the saint's intercession to God for those who ask their help.

The "canon" of Holy Scripture is singular. It has not changed since Pope Damasus decided it. Reject Martin Luther and his heresies, Luther's gall, he threw out seven books of the Canon! The Dead Sea Scrolls, a modern confirmation, proving Damasus' choices were correct.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Christ stated that not one "jot or tittle" of the Law - the Torah - will pass until the heaven and Earth are no longer in existence. He was quite serious about observing the Torah, and following His Father's instructions.

But it does not state "until the heaven and earth are no longer in existence "

parerchomai: to pass by, to come to
Original Word: παρέρχομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: parerchomai
Phonetic Spelling: (par-er'-khom-ahee)
Short Definition: I pass by
Definition: I pass by, pass away, pass out of sight; I am rendered void, become vain, neglect, disregard.

Who is called heavens and earth in the following passage? Israel
"Hear, 0 heavens, and give ear, 0 earth: for the LORD hath spoken, and I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me." Isaiah 1:2
and
In Haggai 2:21-22 God said, "I will shake the heavens and the earth; And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen."

If the dissolving of heaven and earth were to be taken literally in all the passages of the Old Testament where such language is used, it would necessarily mean that the heavens and earth were to be destroyed several times. The language therefore has to be figurative. So why do you view Jesus' words as literal when referring to this passage?

 "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" Matthew 5:18

Not one jot or tittle shall pass until
1. Until heaven and earth passes
2. Until all is fulfilled

Now, Jesus declared it is fulfilled. In which case, it behooves us to understand and seek whether or not the heavens and earth passed at any point. If you are looking at the literal earth and literal heaven, then no. If you see it as figurative, as many many places in the Old Testament, then yes.

Jesus Christ never referred to the mosaic law as "my law", in fact it was always called "the law of Moses" or "your law". What is asked of Christians is that we obey HIS commandments.

Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as hung on a tree. Go back to Genesis 2/3/4 and look at the trees in the garden and why this matters. Paul gives one statement that if realised, would lead many to in the right direction.

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

The law gives us the knowledge of good .....and evil. Thou shalt not MURDER. Thou shalt not STEAL. Thou shalt not COVET. Thou shalt not commit ADULTERY.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil still has the same consequence: Dying, thou shalt die.

What did Christ tell us with regards to murder? That even hatred for one's brother is murder. In which case what command has been issued to Christians? To love your brothers. Why? Love does no harm, love does not murder. That command Do Not Murder is for the disobedient, those without love for their brothers in their heart. Hatred murders, but Do Not Murder has no power to change or remove that hatred. At every opportunity those leaders in Judea sought a way to kill Christ, to circumvent the command Do Not Murder - legally. Jesus died to that law through the law - and was clearly portrayed as hung on a tree. On either side of him were thieves, one of which was to see him in Paradise. What and where is paradise? Why thieves? Why in a garden? Why a tree?

The law given to discern between good and evil. It was given to a carnal nation who could never follow it as it is spiritual and spiritually discerned. And the consequence was the same; to show us our nakedness and dying, thou shalt die. Christ, as the tree of life, offers the opposite: LIFE. That life comes through death. The law is in effect until faith comes. The law and prophets were until John, faith and truth came through Jesus Christ. Faith came to Judea but most wanted none of it. And today, this movement to ensnare Christians back under any part of the Mosaic law like seventh day sabbath keeping often has the same results as Israel - they start looking to it as their source of righteousness thus entirely forgetting the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. They then do no differently than in the days of Judea - judging and condemning the innocent. Christ IS my rest, but yet sabbath keepers judge me and condemn me for not keeping "Saturday" as my sabbath. How sad is that? The seventh day has no morning or evening; it is therefore eternal. That is what we are to understand. Christ said for all those wearied and burdened to come to him and he would give them rest. That's the rest I seek, not some "Saturday" sabbath keeping.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

. . . you try to deny Pope Damasus decided the Canon which your KJV Bible contains . . .

Who cares what a Pope said, when the thing already existed before he made a pronouncement on it.
He did not create it.

Athanasius is a recognized Catholic saint . . .

So are Mary and Joseph but they were not Catholics.

I just posted a link with Athanasius' quotes and beliefs. Read them.

I have several books by Athanasius that I have read. I have all the writings of the Apostolic fathers and the early saints. That is something I started reading thirty years ago, along with early church history and the canons of the church.

. . . why declare He decided the Canon?

I don't. He is an example that is well documented and easy to understand, of someone who had the list of the New Testament books at an early date.

You don't believe the quote came from Barnabas.

I have in my hand the recognised standard, and authoritative, version of the Epistle of Barnabas, and that blurb that you got from a propaganda web site is not in it.

The Lord's Day and Sunday worship is written in the Didache (70 A.D.) and I shared Ignatius and Justin Martyr, read their quotes . . .

I haven't gotten to those after being discouraged from it by the bogus nature of this list of references you came up with, based on the one that I did check.
Years ago I did go through every one of those Lord's Day references and why I spent so much money thirty years ago buying all those books, and none of them ever panned out as making a direct connection between the "Lord's Day", and Sunday.
You believe in a myth, as far as I am concerned. And also as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to it. Just don't expect for me to believe it too.

edit on 29-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Athanasius DID NOT decide the Canon, please tell everyone who did? As if no one would know before you, a person living in the 21st century. Several replies, in them, you have rejected that it was Pope Damasus.

If you get it wrong from the start, how can you declare the Bible your authority?

This is the biggest fat disconnect of Protestantism. They take a Catholic book and call it their new authority.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

. . . you try to deny Pope Damasus decided the Canon which your KJV Bible contains . . .

Who cares what a Pope said, when the thing already existed before he made a pronouncement on it.
He did not create it.

Athanasius is a recognized Catholic saint . . .

So are Mary and Joseph but they were not Catholics.

I just posted a link with Athanasius' quotes and beliefs. Read them.

I have several books by Athanasius that I have read. I have all the writings of the Apostolic fathers and the early saints. That is something I started reading thirty years ago, along with early church history and the canons of the church.

. . . why declare He decided the Canon?

I don't. He is an example that is well documented and easy to understand, of someone who had the list of the New Testament books at an early date.

You don't believe the quote came from Barnabas.

I have in my hand the recognised standard, and authoritative, version of the Epistle of Barnabas, and that blurb that you got from a propaganda web site is not in it.

The Lord's Day and Sunday worship is written in the Didache (70 A.D.) and I shared Ignatius and Justin Martyr, read their quotes . . .

I haven't gotten to those after being discouraged from it by the bogus nature of this list of references you came up with, based on the one that I did check.
Years ago I did go through every one of those Lord's Day references and why I spent so much money thirty years ago buying all those books, and none of them ever panned out as making a direct connection between the "Lord's Day", and Sunday.
You believe in a myth, as far as I am concerned. And also as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to it. Just don't expect for me to believe it too.

edit on 29-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Vague statement again...

Author and copyright date? I looked up your last author, he rejects the faith so makes up new. How did a Protestant fella from our time come up with a different story than the early Church Fathers? Easy....

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

. . . you try to deny Pope Damasus decided the Canon which your KJV Bible contains . . .

Who cares what a Pope said, when the thing already existed before he made a pronouncement on it.
He did not create it.

Athanasius is a recognized Catholic saint . . .

So are Mary and Joseph but they were not Catholics.

I just posted a link with Athanasius' quotes and beliefs. Read them.

I have several books by Athanasius that I have read. I have all the writings of the Apostolic fathers and the early saints. That is something I started reading thirty years ago, along with early church history and the canons of the church.

. . . why declare He decided the Canon?

I don't. He is an example that is well documented and easy to understand, of someone who had the list of the New Testament books at an early date.

You don't believe the quote came from Barnabas.

I have in my hand the recognised standard, and authoritative, version of the Epistle of Barnabas, and that blurb that you got from a propaganda web site is not in it.

The Lord's Day and Sunday worship is written in the Didache (70 A.D.) and I shared Ignatius and Justin Martyr, read their quotes . . .

I haven't gotten to those after being discouraged from it by the bogus nature of this list of references you came up with, based on the one that I did check. Years ago I did go through every one of those Lord's Day references and why I spent so much money thirty years ago buying all those books, and none of them ever panned out as making a direct connection between the "Lord's Day", and Sunday. You believe in a myth, as far as I am concerned. And also as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to it. Just don't expect for me to believe it too.

edit on 29-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I didn't "come up with" it as you say.

The Lord's Day is Sunday, it is no longer the Sabbath or celebrated on Saturday. This is the New Covenant.

Take the Apostles word for it. They would pass down when the first Christians assembled to worship God and the Apostles would make sure the faithful knew why the Sabbath was changed. You never shared what was John talking about in Rev 1:10 (the Lord's Day)?

"Myth"...oh my gosh, I would laugh if it wasn't so serious friend.

Do you not see where Christians go on Sunday? Today and throughout twenty centuries of history, it was/is known in the oral (tradition) and written Word, the where and why.