Why I keep the Sabbath FYI.
- Thread starter gotime
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi gotime,
I am feeling that I should be giving my attention to other things in obedience to the Lord. I'm a bit reluctant but, for now at least, my focus needs to be elsewhere. Perhaps I can return to this later - it's good to have my presuppositions challenged.
I feel I have the "freedom" to comment very briefly on just this bit. What you say here about the oral vs the written law is, not to put too fine a point on it, bunkum. Acts 21 puts this in perspective. Some time after the Jerusalem Council, Paul returned to Jerusalem and met with James and the elders.
"After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, 'You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, and they have been told that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done?'" (vv.19-22a).
The rumour had nothing to do with the oral as opposed to the written law. The Jews were "zealous for the law" and were concerned at what they imagined was happening. James then asked Paul to reassure these people that he himself lived "in observance to the law" (no oral/written distinction), "But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our own judgement that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from what has been strangled and from unchastity" (v. 25).
It is difficult to miss the difference in requirements for each group of believers. What was required of the Gentiles differed greatly from what was part and parcel of being a Jew. Neither Paul nor James gives the slightest hint that they were encouraging full Torah obedience of the Gentiles. To conclude otherwise is to seriously misread the text. It is to fail to "rightly divide the word of truth".
Perhaps the opportunity to expand further and to deal with other points you have made will present itself some time in the future; I don't know. I hope so. What I do know is that I need to not continue with this, or return to this thread, for now.
Look after yourself.
I am feeling that I should be giving my attention to other things in obedience to the Lord. I'm a bit reluctant but, for now at least, my focus needs to be elsewhere. Perhaps I can return to this later - it's good to have my presuppositions challenged.
I feel I have the "freedom" to comment very briefly on just this bit. What you say here about the oral vs the written law is, not to put too fine a point on it, bunkum. Acts 21 puts this in perspective. Some time after the Jerusalem Council, Paul returned to Jerusalem and met with James and the elders.
"After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, 'You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, and they have been told that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done?'" (vv.19-22a).
The rumour had nothing to do with the oral as opposed to the written law. The Jews were "zealous for the law" and were concerned at what they imagined was happening. James then asked Paul to reassure these people that he himself lived "in observance to the law" (no oral/written distinction), "But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our own judgement that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from what has been strangled and from unchastity" (v. 25).
It is difficult to miss the difference in requirements for each group of believers. What was required of the Gentiles differed greatly from what was part and parcel of being a Jew. Neither Paul nor James gives the slightest hint that they were encouraging full Torah obedience of the Gentiles. To conclude otherwise is to seriously misread the text. It is to fail to "rightly divide the word of truth".
Perhaps the opportunity to expand further and to deal with other points you have made will present itself some time in the future; I don't know. I hope so. What I do know is that I need to not continue with this, or return to this thread, for now.
Look after yourself.
Thanx for your reply, while the instances are very similar they are not the same. By the way no one has said that the gentiles were to obey the full Torah.
quick example, this passage is speaking about conversion of many Jews. Acts 15 is talking about Pharisees who considered themselves teachers of the law.
Both are dealing with Jews, but not both are form the same Jewish perspective. If you read the Gospels where Jesus deals with the teachers of the law the big issue that came up constantly was their traditions that were called by Jesus a yoke.
You are right we should rightly divide the word. It begins by understanding the outline or premise to the story your reading. Thus addressing the rest is pointless at this point as the outline has clearly been missed in this response.
Blessings maybe you will see this one day. but your point needs rethinking friend.
quick example, this passage is speaking about conversion of many Jews. Acts 15 is talking about Pharisees who considered themselves teachers of the law.
Both are dealing with Jews, but not both are form the same Jewish perspective. If you read the Gospels where Jesus deals with the teachers of the law the big issue that came up constantly was their traditions that were called by Jesus a yoke.
You are right we should rightly divide the word. It begins by understanding the outline or premise to the story your reading. Thus addressing the rest is pointless at this point as the outline has clearly been missed in this response.
Blessings maybe you will see this one day. but your point needs rethinking friend.
This is the kind of response I was looking for.
However, there's still the question of why the priest Ahimelech was concerned with obeying the Law if he knew he'd be breaking it by giving the bread to David. And I haven't found an answer to my satisfaction on that point. So I'm going to advance a theory here:
The only references I've found to the instructions from God regarding the showbread indicate that there was only one table to be made with a set amount of showbread on it that was offered to God. And this much was required by God's Law. To eat this, it seems, would be against God's Law. However in 1 Chronicles 28:16 it implies that there were already numerous tables (the Hebrew for table is plural here as opposed to the singular for when the table was commanded to be made) for showbread, because David is recorded as offering gold for those tables or at least for their production. What does this mean? There were more tables and more loaves of bread being offered to God than God's Law required.
1 Chronicles 28:16 And by weight he gave gold for the tables of the showbread, for each table, and silver for the tables of silver;
Tables (plural) were not required by God's Law for showbread as far as I can see. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. But if I am not mistaken, then certainly what this must mean is that there was more showbread being offered to God than the requisite amount required by God's Law. So the amount of showbread being offered to God was not required by God's Law and therefore was likely not subject to the exact regulations within God's Law since the act of its production fell outside of the Law. I suggest then that even though this was holy bread, there was a technicality in the Law which allowed David to eat the excess loaves if he were ceremonially pure. And Ahimelech confirmed that he was before he gave him any.
When Jesus repeats the words of God in Matthew 12:7, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," I believe he's relating it to both occasions - to his disciples eating on the Sabbath because they were hungry, and to David eating the holy showbread because he was hungry. In the disciples' case, they were guiltless of breaking the Sabbath. In David's and Ahimelech's case, you could say that they broke God's Law, but you would have to prove it. There are times when God operates through his Law on a technicality to show mercy. In David's case he did not require as many offerings/sacrifices as the priests were offering in the form of the showbread, so he allowed David to eat the excess as long as he were ceremonially pure. I could be wrong, but that's my current interpretation.
But to imply that God made the Law to be obeyed and then spoke through Jesus, condoning Ahimelech's (supposed) breaking of the Law is to imply that 1. God did not have the foresight to include mercy in his Law, 2. his Law did not allow for mercy, and 3. that he broke his own Law or allowed it to be broken by others when it was inconvenient. That's not the God I know. The God I know so values his Law (and us) that he had to offer a sacrifice of his own Son to get us off the hook and keep us from being punished. The god that's being described in this thread is fickle, contradictory, nearsighted, as simple as a man and inept.
As regards my previous assertion that profane could mean common instead of evil, see Jeremiah 31:5 and Psalm 89:39. I'll underline the word (chalal) in the original Hebrew that is the same.
Jeremiah 31:5 (KJV) Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.
Psalm 89:39 (KJV) Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.
However, there's still the question of why the priest Ahimelech was concerned with obeying the Law if he knew he'd be breaking it by giving the bread to David. And I haven't found an answer to my satisfaction on that point. So I'm going to advance a theory here:
The only references I've found to the instructions from God regarding the showbread indicate that there was only one table to be made with a set amount of showbread on it that was offered to God. And this much was required by God's Law. To eat this, it seems, would be against God's Law. However in 1 Chronicles 28:16 it implies that there were already numerous tables (the Hebrew for table is plural here as opposed to the singular for when the table was commanded to be made) for showbread, because David is recorded as offering gold for those tables or at least for their production. What does this mean? There were more tables and more loaves of bread being offered to God than God's Law required.
1 Chronicles 28:16 And by weight he gave gold for the tables of the showbread, for each table, and silver for the tables of silver;
Tables (plural) were not required by God's Law for showbread as far as I can see. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. But if I am not mistaken, then certainly what this must mean is that there was more showbread being offered to God than the requisite amount required by God's Law. So the amount of showbread being offered to God was not required by God's Law and therefore was likely not subject to the exact regulations within God's Law since the act of its production fell outside of the Law. I suggest then that even though this was holy bread, there was a technicality in the Law which allowed David to eat the excess loaves if he were ceremonially pure. And Ahimelech confirmed that he was before he gave him any.
When Jesus repeats the words of God in Matthew 12:7, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," I believe he's relating it to both occasions - to his disciples eating on the Sabbath because they were hungry, and to David eating the holy showbread because he was hungry. In the disciples' case, they were guiltless of breaking the Sabbath. In David's and Ahimelech's case, you could say that they broke God's Law, but you would have to prove it. There are times when God operates through his Law on a technicality to show mercy. In David's case he did not require as many offerings/sacrifices as the priests were offering in the form of the showbread, so he allowed David to eat the excess as long as he were ceremonially pure. I could be wrong, but that's my current interpretation.
But to imply that God made the Law to be obeyed and then spoke through Jesus, condoning Ahimelech's (supposed) breaking of the Law is to imply that 1. God did not have the foresight to include mercy in his Law, 2. his Law did not allow for mercy, and 3. that he broke his own Law or allowed it to be broken by others when it was inconvenient. That's not the God I know. The God I know so values his Law (and us) that he had to offer a sacrifice of his own Son to get us off the hook and keep us from being punished. The god that's being described in this thread is fickle, contradictory, nearsighted, as simple as a man and inept.
As regards my previous assertion that profane could mean common instead of evil, see Jeremiah 31:5 and Psalm 89:39. I'll underline the word (chalal) in the original Hebrew that is the same.
Jeremiah 31:5 (KJV) Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.
Psalm 89:39 (KJV) Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.
What I'm saying is that the excess showbread was not sanctified by God, because God in his Law only called for a set amount of it that would be placed on one table. But to have tables and tables of it was multiplying sacrifices that were unnecessary.
And for Ahimelech to not give David the excess showbread, which was not sanctioned by God and thereby, in a way, not sanctified (David calls it "in effect common") for the role of being a showbread sacrifice, would be to disregard the requirement of mercy in the Law for the sake of multiplying needless sacrifices. Hence Jesus' repeating of God's word, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice."
Please correct me if I am wrong. I would not like to misrepresent God's Law or teach contrary to God's will.
And for Ahimelech to not give David the excess showbread, which was not sanctioned by God and thereby, in a way, not sanctified (David calls it "in effect common") for the role of being a showbread sacrifice, would be to disregard the requirement of mercy in the Law for the sake of multiplying needless sacrifices. Hence Jesus' repeating of God's word, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice."
Please correct me if I am wrong. I would not like to misrepresent God's Law or teach contrary to God's will.
If you can show me one verse, just one, where Jesus tells us Christians to continue to keep the Sabbath, or just one verse where an Apostle teaches us Christians to continue to keep the Sabbath, then i will believe that we Christians MUST keep the Sabbath also.
Do you know why i already know you can't show one verse where Jesus or any Apostle instructs us Christians to continue to keep the Sabbath, because they NEVER did so. Seems to me, as important as this generation makes Sabbath keeping, it would seem there would be at least one verse, where they Holy Ghost would have instructed an Apostle to mention, as instructions in righteousness, to continue to keep the Sabbath Holy unto the Lord, but not one verse teaches that.
The Israelites were COMMANDED to keep the Sabbath Holy. Anyone who has read the entire Old Testament, will understand and know how important that was, throughout the entire Old Testament, Sabbath Keeping was extremely important, yet you read the New Testament, and it is extremely silent on the matter, as if NOT important, as it was in the Old Testament. Why? Because the 10 commandments was the OLD COVENANT, made between God and the Israelite people.
Exo 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Are we under that covenant? NO, we are under a New Covenant with Jesus Christ, NOT under the covenant which was the 10 commandments made to and for the Israelite people. Believe the Word of God not what men teach.
Here is an undeniable TRUTH.
Jesus does NOT tell us to continue to keep the Sabbath Holy.
Apostles do NOT tell us to continue to keep the Sabbath Holy.
So why does this generation teach that Christians MUST continue to keep the Sabbath Holy? Because they do not know or understand the Truth. But in Truth Adding yet more bondage to the children of God, Do this, Don't do that, keep this, Don't keep that, eat this, but don't eat that, bondage. The Law of Liberty gives us Christians liberty from the Do's and Don'ts.
^i^ Responding to OP
You are a witness against your own self by this statement. You plainly say "The old covenant is not simply the 10 commandments its the 10 commandments on stone." You just said the OLD COVENANT is the 10 Commandments on stone, thereby testifying that the 10 commandments are the OLD COVENANT. It is NOT the STONE that makes it the old covenant, reread what i have highlighted above, it is the words that is written on stone is is the OLD COVENANT, it is not the STONE,it is the Words is the Old Covenant. And you just testified, that the old covenant is the 10 commandments written on stone. So that which is written on stone is OLD.
EXACTLY, that is why i said it matters not if it were stone or toilet paper, it is the words written on stone that was considered the OLD COVENANT, which you testified is as well.
You say the new covenant was not new commandments. Tell me, who taught us the New Covenant? Who brought us the New Covenant? It was Jesus right? Yes, do you not know what Jesus, the author of the New Covenant, said?
Joh_13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (Please note, i highlight only the part of the verse, because we are discussing New Commandments, so please do not respond as you have done before, that i highlighted it wrong and should have bolded and underlined "I give unto you" also because i am misleading people. Thx.)
my point is, you say new covenant was not new commandments, yet Jesus who is the author of the New Covenant plainly gives us a New Commandment. Are you suggesting what Jesus teaches us to do is not a part of the New Covenant?
^i^ responding to post 382
So how do u explain the day that was set aside by Rome that you worship on?..have u done your history work? Don't try to hurt others..just stick to the scriptures... Also don't forget that what ever you say, is a testimony to those who come here looking for a better way. So where is your scriptural proof that Sunday was set aside by God for a holy purpose? Did Jesus give scripture when the enemy of souls came and enticed Him or did He tear others down to get His point across?
Knowledge is more than intellectual..its the way we treat others.
Barns,
Read this and let me know what you think. I know its lengthy..but the question that u are asking, is it not worth investigating? Then pray about it.
Was the Sabbath changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day? Well, yes and no. Let’s deal with the “no” first.
God, “with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning” (James 1:17), does not change (Malachi 3:6). The Israelites received two laws from Moses: the law of Moses, that of ordinances and ceremonies; and the Law of God, embodied in the Ten Commandments, which is an expression of God’s character. If God does not change, neither will His Law. “My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips” (Psalm 89:34). “I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it” (Ecclesiastes 3:14). “The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy. They are steadfast for ever and ever, done in faithfulness and uprightness” (Psalm 111:7, 8).
God gave His Law to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. Amid thunder and lightning, a thick cloud covered the mountain, and a trumpet blasted. Smoke billowed up as from a furnace and the whole mountain shook as the trumpet grew louder and louder. Moses led the Israelites out of their camp to meet with God, and every one of them trembled. Then God spoke (Exodus 19:16-19, 20:1). If this Law were to be changed, it would be reasonable to expect God Himself to announce it, and give reasons for its alteration, amid the same amount of ceremony. Yet there is no indication in Scripture of such an announcement.
In the New Testament, the seventh day of the week is called the Sabbath; it is mentioned 58 times. The first day of the week is mentioned eight times. It is simply called the first day of the week, and it is always differentiated from the Sabbath. This in itself is evidence for the continued validity of the seventh-day Sabbath.
The gospel writers record Jesus and the apostles going to the synagogue on Sabbath as their “custom” (Luke 4:16 ). Jesus said, “I have kept My Father’s commandments” (John 15:10). The women who went to anoint His body after his death “rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56). Nearly all of the incidents reported of the apostles’ preaching occurred on the seventh-day Sabbath. Of all the accusations the Jews made against the apostles, never once did they accuse the apostles of breaking the Sabbath.
Some teach that after Christ’s death and resurrection, the Old Testament law was done away with and a new covenant took its place. But Jesus Himself said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Matthew 5:17, 18). The law of Moses, which foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice, was indeed made irrelevant, but Paul maintains that the Law of God is to be kept, though we now be under grace. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31).
How It Happened…
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: sub-tbl-bkg"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: sub-tbl-wide-bkg"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Yet for nearly 2,000 years now, millions of Christians have worshiped on Sunday. So was the Sabbath changed from the seventh to the first day of the week? Let’s look at the “yes” now.
“The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Luke 6:5). Here Jesus staked His claim and forbade anyone to meddle with the Sabbath. Yet He knew there would be those who would claim the power to change God’s Law. Through Daniel he warned of just such a man. Describing a “little horn power” (Daniel 7:8), Daniel says, “He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws” (Daniel 7:25). Paul made a similar prediction: “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God, or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4, 7).
Paul warned that this blasphemy was already at work, and that it would come not from an outside influence, but from within the church (2 Thessalonians 2:7, Acts 20:28-30). Sure enough, not long after Paul’s day, apostasy appeared in the church.
About 100 years before Christianity, Egyptian Mithraists introduced the festival of Sunday, dedicated to worshiping the sun, into the Roman Empire. Later, as Christianity grew, church leaders wished to increase the numbers of the church. In order to make the gospel more attractive to non-Christians, pagan customs were incorporated into the church’s ceremonies. The custom of Sunday worship was welcomed by Christians who desired to differentiate themselves from the Jews, whom they hated because of the Jews’ rejection of the Savior. The first day of the week began to be recognized as both a religious and civil holiday. By the end of the second century, Christians considered it sinful to work on Sunday.
The Roman emperor Constantine, a former sun-worshiper, professed conversion to Christianity, though his subsequent actions suggest the “conversion” was more of a political move than a genuine heart change. Constantine named himself Bishop of the Catholic Church and enacted the first civil law regarding Sunday observance in A.D. 321.
Instead of the humble lives of persecution and self-sacrifice led by the apostles, church leaders now exalted themselves to the place of God. “This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world” (1 John 4:3).
The Catechism
Recall the ceremony with which God made known His Law, containing the blessing of the seventh-day Sabbath, by which all humanity is to be judged. Contrast this with the unannounced, unnoticed anticlimax with which the church gradually adopted Sunday at the command of “Christian” emperors and Roman bishops. And these freely admit that they made the change from Sabbath to Sunday.
In the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, we read:
God instructed Moses to construct the earthly sanctuary, all its furniture, and the ark according to “the pattern” he was shown. (Exodus 25:9, 40) The ark was called the “ark of the covenant” (Numbers 10:33, Deuteronomy 10:8, Hebrews 9:4), and the “ark of the testimony” (Exodus 25:22), because in it Moses placed the tablets of stone on which God wrote His Law. (Exodus 25:16, 31:18) John, in Revelation 11:19, describes the scene before him when “the temple of God was opened in Heaven.” John saw the ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary. David wrote, “Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89). It is safe to assume that God’s Law remains, contained within the ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary.
When God says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:10), that ends all controversy. We cannot change God’s Word for our own convenience. “But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15).
– Emily Thomsen – See more at: What day is the Sabbath and does it matter? | Sabbath Truth
“The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Luke 6:5). Here Jesus staked His claim and forbade anyone to meddle with the Sabbath. Yet He knew there would be those who would claim the power to change God’s Law. Through Daniel he warned of just such a man. Describing a “little horn power” (Daniel 7:8), Daniel says, “He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws” (Daniel 7:25). Paul made a similar prediction: “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God, or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4, 7).
Paul warned that this blasphemy was already at work, and that it would come not from an outside influence, but from within the church (2 Thessalonians 2:7, Acts 20:28-30). Sure enough, not long after Paul’s day, apostasy appeared in the church.
About 100 years before Christianity, Egyptian Mithraists introduced the festival of Sunday, dedicated to worshiping the sun, into the Roman Empire. Later, as Christianity grew, church leaders wished to increase the numbers of the church. In order to make the gospel more attractive to non-Christians, pagan customs were incorporated into the church’s ceremonies. The custom of Sunday worship was welcomed by Christians who desired to differentiate themselves from the Jews, whom they hated because of the Jews’ rejection of the Savior. The first day of the week began to be recognized as both a religious and civil holiday. By the end of the second century, Christians considered it sinful to work on Sunday.
The Roman emperor Constantine, a former sun-worshiper, professed conversion to Christianity, though his subsequent actions suggest the “conversion” was more of a political move than a genuine heart change. Constantine named himself Bishop of the Catholic Church and enacted the first civil law regarding Sunday observance in A.D. 321.
On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrate and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however, persons engaged in agricultural work may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain growing or for vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. —Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. III, chap. 75.
Note that Constantine’s law did not even mention Sabbath but referred to the mandated rest day as a “the venerable day of the sun.” And how kind he was to allow people to observe it as it was convenient. Contrast this with God’s command to observe the Sabbath “even during the plowing season and harvest” (Exodus 34:21)! Perhaps the church leaders noticed this laxity as well, for just four years later, in A.D. 325, Pope Sylvester officially named Sunday “the Lord’s Day,” and in A.D. 338, Eusebius, the court bishop of Constantine, wrote, “All things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath (the seventh day of the week) we (Constantine, Eusebius, and other bishops) have transferred to the Lord’s Day (the first day of the week) as more appropriately belonging to it.”
Instead of the humble lives of persecution and self-sacrifice led by the apostles, church leaders now exalted themselves to the place of God. “This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world” (1 John 4:3).
The Catechism
Recall the ceremony with which God made known His Law, containing the blessing of the seventh-day Sabbath, by which all humanity is to be judged. Contrast this with the unannounced, unnoticed anticlimax with which the church gradually adopted Sunday at the command of “Christian” emperors and Roman bishops. And these freely admit that they made the change from Sabbath to Sunday.
In the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, we read:
Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (AD 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday….
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her!
—Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., (1946), p. 50.
In Catholic Christian Instructed,A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (AD 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday….
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her!
—Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., (1946), p. 50.
Q. Has the [Catholic] church power to make any alterations in the commandments of God?
A. …Instead of the seventh day, and other festivals appointed by the old law, the church has prescribed the Sundays and holy days to be set apart for God’s worship; and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.
—The Catholic Christian Instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifices, Ceremonies, and Observances of the Church By Way of Question and Answer, RT Rev. Dr. Challoner, p. 204.
In An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine, A. …Instead of the seventh day, and other festivals appointed by the old law, the church has prescribed the Sundays and holy days to be set apart for God’s worship; and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.
—The Catholic Christian Instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifices, Ceremonies, and Observances of the Church By Way of Question and Answer, RT Rev. Dr. Challoner, p. 204.
Q. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
A. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
Q. How prove you that?
A. Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest [of the feasts] by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.
–Rev. Henry Tuberville, D.D. (R.C.), (1833), page 58.
In A Doctrinal Catechism,A. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
Q. How prove you that?
A. Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest [of the feasts] by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.
–Rev. Henry Tuberville, D.D. (R.C.), (1833), page 58.
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.
–Rev. Stephen Keenan, (1851), p. 174.
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent,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.
–Rev. Stephen Keenan, (1851), p. 174.
The Church of God has thought it well to transfer the celebration and observance of the Sabbath to Sunday!
–p 402, second revised edition (English), 1937. (First published in 1566)
In the Augsburg Confession,–p 402, second revised edition (English), 1937. (First published in 1566)
They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord’s day, contrary to the decalogue, as it appears; neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, they say, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of the ten commandments.
—Art. 28.
God warned that a blasphemous power would “seek to change times and laws,” and the Catholic Church openly admits doing it, even boasts about it. In a sermon at the Council of Trent in 1562, the Archbishop of Reggia, Caspar del Fossa, claimed that the Catholic Church’s whole authority is based upon the fact that they changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Does this not fulfill the prophecies of Daniel and Paul?—Art. 28.
“For centuries millions of Christians have gathered to worship God on the first day of the week. Graciously He has accepted this worship. He has poured out His blessings upon Christian people as they have sought to serve Him. However, as one searches the Scriptures, he is forced to recognize that Sunday is not a day of God’s appointment… It has no foundation in Scripture, but has arisen entirely as a result of custom,” says Frank H. Yost, Ph.D. in The Early Christian Sabbath.
Let us ask the question again: Was the Sabbath changed from the seventh day of the week to the first? The Bible is clear: “And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy” (Genesis 2:3). “Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20:11). If God intended for another day to become the Sabbath, He must have removed the blessing from the seventh day and placed it on the day which was to replace it. But when God bestows a blessing, it is forever. “…You, O Lord, have blessed it, and it will be blessed forever” (1 Chronicles 17:27). “I have received a command to bless; He has blessed, and I cannot change it” (Numbers 23:20). Your birthday, a memorial of your birth, can’t be changed, though you may celebrate it on a different day. Neither can the Sabbath, a memorial of creation (Exodus 20:11), be changed, though some may celebrate it on a different day.
God instructed Moses to construct the earthly sanctuary, all its furniture, and the ark according to “the pattern” he was shown. (Exodus 25:9, 40) The ark was called the “ark of the covenant” (Numbers 10:33, Deuteronomy 10:8, Hebrews 9:4), and the “ark of the testimony” (Exodus 25:22), because in it Moses placed the tablets of stone on which God wrote His Law. (Exodus 25:16, 31:18) John, in Revelation 11:19, describes the scene before him when “the temple of God was opened in Heaven.” John saw the ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary. David wrote, “Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89). It is safe to assume that God’s Law remains, contained within the ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary.
When God says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:10), that ends all controversy. We cannot change God’s Word for our own convenience. “But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15).
– Emily Thomsen – See more at: What day is the Sabbath and does it matter? | Sabbath Truth
B
This is a day that I get to rest, and to dream. I sit in my chair, and recline. As I do, our Father comes to me with scripture. Than he goes, I show you where your life resembles my Holy word. This shows you how I AM true, and I AM the one you listen to, above all. Casting down the things you say that you hate, shedding tears, and struggling for what you have seen. Yet, strive to love your enemy, because I told you so, even when it was hard to bare. I have learned that every person, and every situation, has declared you speaking. To me it brings such a peaceful time, and I love the way we review things, you are the Master Teacher. None other has his strength, none other could teach in such a different loving way, but I see how through every person you make your teaching known! He has called me out in sins, with remorse in my heart I repented. He has protected me when I could no longer stand. Many of times I declared I was a dead person, and many of times he said "No, thou shall live!" Thank you my Great Lord, you've made my deepest desire, besides being home with him for eternity, I patiently for all to come true...Living in truth! Thank you our Heavenly Father for giving me oil in my vessel, this is the greatest riches to me!
S
See my profile for an explanation of why I don't keep the Sabbath as a former Sabbathkeeper:
1. It's part of the Old Covenant which is no longer applicable to New Covenant Christians.
2. Many Sabbathkeepers claim it is a requirement, condition, or necessary fruit of salvation and some even go so far as
to claim that non-observers are unsaved. I don't want to hang out or fellowship with such people.
3. I repented of being a judgmental Pharisee who considers others to be unbelievers.
4. The focus of Sabbathkeeping organizations is not generally on Jesus Christ and salvation by grace through faith in Him.
All that being said, I don't have issues with those who keep the Sabbath or annual festivals without such attitudes. I know some Sabbathkeepers who don't. I know others who accuse me of being a reprobate due to non-observance.
My remark concerning them is that they need to stop wearing diapers and sucking on pacifiers. Galatians 3 says that the Law was given to lead the Jews to Christ, and that once Christ came, the Law isn't in effect. The Gentiles bypassed preschool and went straight to the higher grades.
Those who claim the Sabbath is a requirement or condition or necessary fruit of salvation are like adults who want to stay in preschool and don't want to move on to more mature Christianity. See my profile for more explanations
1. It's part of the Old Covenant which is no longer applicable to New Covenant Christians.
2. Many Sabbathkeepers claim it is a requirement, condition, or necessary fruit of salvation and some even go so far as
to claim that non-observers are unsaved. I don't want to hang out or fellowship with such people.
3. I repented of being a judgmental Pharisee who considers others to be unbelievers.
4. The focus of Sabbathkeeping organizations is not generally on Jesus Christ and salvation by grace through faith in Him.
All that being said, I don't have issues with those who keep the Sabbath or annual festivals without such attitudes. I know some Sabbathkeepers who don't. I know others who accuse me of being a reprobate due to non-observance.
My remark concerning them is that they need to stop wearing diapers and sucking on pacifiers. Galatians 3 says that the Law was given to lead the Jews to Christ, and that once Christ came, the Law isn't in effect. The Gentiles bypassed preschool and went straight to the higher grades.
Those who claim the Sabbath is a requirement or condition or necessary fruit of salvation are like adults who want to stay in preschool and don't want to move on to more mature Christianity. See my profile for more explanations
Last edited: