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

reply to post by colbe

Bible Aloners, the Gospel says the first Christians assembled to worship God on the first day of the week to honor the day Jesus arose, Sunday.

But it doesn't say that!
It never says in the New Testament that anyone celebrated Jesus' resurrection.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

The Letter of Barnabas

There is no way to know if this was not added to the text as late as the 11th century.

"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

Now I bought a book back in October, Apostolic Fathers: Volume II. Epistle of Barnabas. Papias and Quadratus. Epistle to Diognetus. The Shepherd of Hermas (Loeb Classical Library No. 25N), by Bart D. Ehrman, because of certain people on the ATS forum posting about this letter and making all kinds of wild claims.
This is a new edition of this book which is updated with new information and translated from a better Greek text.
What you quoted supposedly from this letter is not in this version that I own.

What it does say is that we live in a metaphorical 7nth day where we are being made holy during this "resting" period.
The metaphorical 8th day is in the "next world".

Apparently you got this "information" from a propaganda web site that is basically lying.

edit on 28-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

By whose authority do you speak? Who is Bart Erhman, he doesn't sound like an Apostolic Father? Barnabas is mentioned repeatedly in the Gospel. He is closer to Christ than you or Mr. Ehrman. And...

You accept the Roman Catholic's authority to compile the Bible. You have a Bible. The Bible comes from the Catholic Church.

Jim, you deny that Barnabas said this, wrote his letter? You can't pick and choose because you personally disagree with Barnabas' words.

The Letter of Barnabas

"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

Bible Aloners, the Gospel says the first Christians assembled to worship God on the first day of the week to honor the day Jesus arose, Sunday.

But it doesn't say that!
It never says in the New Testament that anyone celebrated Jesus resurrection.

Yes it does in several places. And Christians have known since 33 A.D. accepting God's oral Word.

The Bible doesn't say we are saved by faith alone or that all of God's revelation is found in the Bible. You accept these two falsehoods, they were most likely first orally shared by Martin Luther with someone in 1517, they're Luthers NOT revealed from God ever.

Teasing you....

Do you see, there is God's oral revelation (tradition) and some of it you accept.


God bless you,

colbe

colbe,

re: "...the Gospel says the first Christians assembled to worship God on the first day of the week to honor the day Jesus arose, Sunday."

As jmdewey60 touched on, nowhere in scripture is anything said about anyone meeting on the first day of the week for the purpose of honoring the resurrection.


re: " The first Christians referred to Sunday as the Lord's Day."

Nowhere in Scripture do any of the first Christians refer to the first day of the week as the "Lord's Day".


re: "John is pretty special, he refers to the Lord's Day in Revelation."

But nowhere in Revelation does John ever identify the first day of the week as the Lord's Day.

reply to post by colbe

Who is Bart Ehrman . . .

He is the editor of the book, plus the one who wrote the introductions to the individual documents, and the translator and most likely the editor of the Greek Text.

You accept the Roman Catholic's authority to compile the Bible.

No, because they didn't, they just approved it later.
I deal with the normal canonical New Testament because it is the standard Christian scripture whether I agree if some of it is authentic or not.

Jim, you deny that Barnabas said this, wrote his letter? You can't pick and choose because you personally disagree with Barnabas' words.

Barnabas in not in the normal canon.

"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

I said already that what you are quoting is not in that letter. That is according to the latest Loeb Library edition which is considered by scholars as the standard authoritative version.

Originally posted by rstrats
colbe,

re: "...the Gospel says the first Christians assembled to worship God on the first day of the week to honor the day Jesus arose, Sunday."

As jmdewey60 touched on, nowhere in scripture is anything said about anyone meeting on the first day of the week for the purpose of honoring the resurrection.


re: " The first Christians referred to Sunday as the Lord's Day."

Nowhere in Scripture do any of the first Christians refer to the first day of the week as the "Lord's Day".


re: "John is pretty special, he refers to the Lord's Day in Revelation."

But nowhere in Revelation does John ever identify the first day of the week as the Lord's Day.

The Apostles would share the change of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day. Looks like you reject the oral passed down from the Apostles and follow Luther who came up with Sola Scriptura in 1517. The written Word was compiled in 382 A.D by the Catholic Church. You already accept the authority God gave Pope Damasus to compile the sacred writings. Come along, believe all of Christ's teachings. You can become Catholic.

The quotes I shared are from the earliest followers, some who knew the Apostles...in the first century.

reply to post by colbe

. . . there is God's oral revelation (tradition) and some of it you accept.

Salvation is by faith alone. That is in the New Testament (not in those exact words), but I do not agree with Luther's interpretation of what that means.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

Who is Bart Ehrman . . .

He is the editor of the book, plus the one who wrote the introductions to the individual documents, and the translator and most likely the editor of the Greek Text.

You accept the Roman Catholic's authority to compile the Bible.

No, because they didn't, they just approved it later.
I deal with the normal canonical New Testament because it is the standard Christian scripture whether I agree if some of it is authentic or not.

Jim, you deny that Barnabas said this, wrote his letter? You can't pick and choose because you personally disagree with Barnabas' words.

Barnabas in not in the normal canon.

edit on 28-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Whose "They" please? The Roman Catholic Church according to you did NOT compile the Canon only "approved it later." Always the vague, never anything concrete. Names and dates especially who did decided which writings were divinely inspired? St. Jerome followed Pope Damasus choices in translating the original wiritings in 383 A.D. Name your fellas and the year.

Protestantism fell away from the faith in the 16th century.

You don't make sense because Barnabas is spoken of over and over again in the Gospel. Explain "normal canon?" There is only one Canon less the 7 books Luther tossed out in 1517 because they glaringly show his new teachings were/are a lie. He wanted to remove the book of James, imagine! Luther didn't like James 2:24.

The disconnect, Protestants reject the faith who gave them their new authority, the Bible.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

. . . there is God's oral revelation (tradition) and some of it you accept.

Salvation is by faith alone. That is in the New Testament (not in those exact words), but I do not agree with Luther's interpretation of what that means.

edit on 28-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

No it isn't, you even admitted it with your (not in those exact words), go read James 2:24 and a ton of other
verses. Faith Alone came from Luther, was never believed by the Apostles so not Christ's teachings.

"Faith Alone" is one the heresies Protestants will not let go of, from it comes other heresies such as OSAS,
the "imputation" heresy, Jesus did it all on the Cross, you are saved.

You are kind to reply, we're still friends, yes?

Protestant ministers have given testimony to the main two reasons they converted to the faith.

They realized Roman Catholicism is the faith asking...by whose authority do I believe what I do? And #2, their reading the quotes of the Early Church Fathers. Ie: I posted a couple of them in this thread and even Barnabas' words, who is spoken of in the Gospel several times.

reply to post by colbe

Name your fellas and the year.

The New Testament as it exists in the normal (protestant) version has been in existence before there was "official" recognition.
An example could be Athanasius who was using the same list of NT books back in 320 AD.

You don't make sense because Barnabas is spoken of over and over again in the Gospel.

I meant the Letter of Barnabas.

reply to post by Lee78


Yes, Saturday is the Sabbath but do to the rest restrictions placed on the Sabbath what other day were they suppose to pick to go to church ?

Who is Bart Ehrman . . .

Jim Dewey: He is the editor of the book, plus the one who wrote the introductions to the individual documents, and the translator and most likely the editor of the Greek



I didn't know who Bart Erhman is so I did a search. By whose authority does Bart speak?

If you accept the Bible, you accept the authority of the RCC who canonized it in the 4th century. Mr. Ehrman is a non-Catholic Christian author circa our time far removed from the first Christians.

Mark Shea (former Protestant, now a Catholic Apologist) was asked about Bart Erhman, concerning his book, Lost Christianities.

A question asked Mark:

I had a question. My brother, who is an atheist, cited Bart Ehrman's book "Lost Christianities", where he supposed proves that New Testament was modified because the original supported heretical views. I'm not very familar with Ehram's work or early Church history. So, what do you make of such claims? Thanks and God bless!

"Bart Ehrman is the sad case of an Evangelical who got enough of an education that he reached the point a friend of mine reached. My friend said he realized “I can be a Protestant or a Christian, but I could not be both anymore.” The mood of skeptical corrosion that ate away at all the rest of the Catholic and apostolic deposit of faith reaches, finally, the sacred book the Church proclaims at her liturgies and the Bible-only Protestant faces a stark choice: he can do like my friend and acknowledge the fundamental blunder of using the Bible as a weapon against the community that wrote, edited, and collated it—or he can do like Ehrman and deconstruct the Bible as well, in the process destroying his faith and collecting his 30 pieces of silver and bravely facing the applause of the MSM."

reply to post by colbe

. . . the "imputation" heresy . . .

I do not believe in the imputation theory as it is taught in non-denominational evangelical churches.
I do not any longer believe in using the word, heresy. That is a Catholic term to dehumanize and murder people who do not commit idolatry of worshiping the Pope.

reply to post by colbe

"Faith Alone" is one the heresies Protestants will not let go of, from it comes other heresies such as OSAS,

So you don't believe in salvation by faith alone? So, you believe you have to do other things to be saved? What other type of things do you have to do to be saved?

I'm off the grid, so that puts me on my phone, unable to get through all the pages so if someone has pointed out this obvious fact please excuse me.
the Jews have their own calendar that's over 5000 years old and they know when the sabbath is.

The Gospel of John was not written in Aramaic, it was written in Greek. So the word used in the original was Logos, which also shows up in the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the Old Testament, and what Jesus would have read, living in gentile territory all his life.

The Jewish followers fled eastwards from Israel to Syria after the destruction of the Second Temple. Some scholars and theologians - and granted this is a considerable debate too lengthy to discuss within this thread - hold the view that the Greek is a translation of an Aramaic original. In fact, the entire Syriac Church - also referred to as the Church of the East - is built on this premise that the Peshi-tta translation came before the Greek.

I won't debate or argue this point further, as it would divert the thread in a wholly different direction. I will only suggest that there are alternative viewpoints to the one you suggest above.

The source of your information is pertinent to the argument. You seem to be a cult member by the way you treat certain things that can only be a matter of opinion as if they were facts.

The source of my arguments have been from Holy Writ, which I have quite patiently articulated in this thread, backed with sources and links as necessary.

The source of your arguments have been your own opinions, with no references whatsoever from biblical sources.

Your baseless and false assertions of "cultism" is only evidence of your inability to articulate any coherency, logic, or sound argument whatsoever. The best you can do is slander and defame.

The evidence suggests otherwise. The promises were conditional. Jesus was the one who eventually met the criteria for receiving the gifts of the promise and through him they were dispersed throughout the world to those who believe in him.

G-d doesn't break His promises, and He never threw away the Torah. When human beings break His rules, that is not a reflection on G-d, and it doesn't mean the rules have somehow changed.

The Ten Commandments are not somehow annulled just because human beings fail to follow them.

It is the New Testament itself that contradicts that, not the work of a later church "perverting" beliefs about Jesus.

The Gentile Church has most certainly perverted the teachings of Christ, in the quite numerous ways I have already mentioned. The New Testament is a renewal of the Torah - not the destruction of it. The destruction of the Torah is not what Christ intended, but it is what the Gentile Church has achieved.

The evidence is clear in our churches today, where Christians profess to believe that the Sabbath is on Sunday, pray to intercessors, engage in idolatry, and more.

Your problem does not come from reading the Bible but listening to self-proclaimed Jews in the midst of your congregation who are working to subvert Christianity.

More baseless accusations. My friend, Christ was a Torah observant Jew. He was raised a Jew. His disciples were all Jews. Christ lived in Israel. His parents were Jews. He grew up in a Jewish culture.

Christ never read from the New Testament. Instead, He and His disciples read from the Torah and the Prophets. Christ and His disciples kept the Sabbath. They followed the Ten Commandments.

Your version of "Christianity" is not what Christ followed - Your version is a watered down, washed up Gentile interpretation of the life of Christ. Studying and praying about Christ is not what Christ did - Instead, Christ followed and prayed to the Father. He kept the Torah. He followed the Ten Commandments. He didn't say rosaries, and He didn't pray to statues.

God means "FALSE" idols not images of the Trinty, of Our Lord, of the saints, of His mother. An image is a reminder of who we love like a photo of a loved one, see....?

Read the First Commandment. G-d doesn't permit idolatry. That means no graven images, no statues, no idols. Period. He didn't say, "Well, I guess praying to a statue or graven image of St. Bridget is okay." G-d is quite clear on this law in Exodus 20:

I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God....

No graven images. The Jews get it. The Muslims do as well. Even the Amish. But somehow, modern day Christians don't understand.

Statues and graven images are out. Father says so.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe

 

Name your fellas and the year.

The New Testament as it exists in the normal (protestant) version has been in existence before there was "official" recognition.

An example could be Athanasius who was using the same list of NT books back in 320 AD.

You don't make sense because Barnabas is spoken of over and over again in the Gospel.

I meant the Letter of Barnabas.

edit on 28-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Everyone notice, jim did not give the name exactly of who canonized Scripture OR the exact year. I didn't ask give "an example" or "could be", I asked who decided the Canon? God's chosen authority on earth, Pope Damasus decided the Canon. This follows God's way, He chooses human spiritual leaders, who is the spiritual earthly leader of Protestantism? I know already, you all are your own pope.

You're confusing people with saying "the same list of NT books" which one are those? The same vague. Who made up that list? You're speaking of a Protestant authority and we are just not aware?

Our Lord wants you to become Roman Catholic.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Christ was a Torah observant Jew. He was raised a Jew. His disciples were all Jews. Christ lived in Israel. His parents were Jews. He grew up in a Jewish culture.

Jesus was a cultural Jew.
He did not live in Israel, since it has not existed since the time of the Assyrian Empire.
His disciples were ethnic Jews.
He would have grown up in a culturally Jewish home but in a gentile territory. There was a Tetrarch descended from the Idumean Herod the Great, over an area that had reverted to the Hellenistic culture after the heyday under John Hyrcanus.

He and His disciples read from the Torah and the Prophets . . .

In order to have ammunition to argue with the Jewish doctors of the Law.

He kept the Torah.

How many animals did he sacrifice and how much money did he change in the temple?

reply to post by CookieMonster09


CookieMonster said:

"No graven images. The Jews get it. The Muslims do as well. Even the Amish. But somehow, modern day Christians don't understand. Statues and graven images are out. Father says so."


Explain then, the Ark of the Covenant? God instructed images of angels placed on it to decorate the Ark

God means no graven images of FALSE gods.

I love the image of Our Lord, the Sacred Heart of Jesus statue.


God bless you CM,