Page 3 of 3
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:32 pm
by Irn-Bru
tribeofjudah wrote:Bru..."your questions"...what are we, under interrogation here..???
No interrogation here, but it would probably benefit our discussion if you could respond to what I've said. Right now I think we are very much talking past each other.
Sola Scriptura for me. Bible, written by men who were INSPIRED OF GOD. Your idea of the change 30 -40 years...???? I don't see that in Scripture. Again you have not given any Bible Texts, and I can't just take your word for it....sorry my man.
I have given you texts from the bible: in fact, that's the main thing I've been trying to discuss. What if the bible says that God vested the church with authority on spiritual matters? I think that would have a significant impact on this question about which day is the sabbath.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:35 pm
by tribeofjudah
See Bru....I don't really wanna deal in the "what if's" of Scripture.
Instead, I wanna deal with "thus saith the LORD"....like the 10 Commandments.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:04 pm
by ATX_Skins
Religion is fraud.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:50 pm
by Irn-Bru
tribeofjudah wrote:See Bru....I don't really wanna deal in the "what if's" of Scripture.
Instead, I wanna deal with "thus saith the LORD"....like the 10 Commandments.
OK, so how about: "Whatsoever thou [i.e., Peter and the disciples] shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:51 pm
by Irn-Bru
ATX_Skins wrote:Religion is fraud.
As profound as your last contribution to this topic. And seemingly as well thought out. I applaud you, sir.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:54 pm
by ATX_Skins
Irn-Bru wrote:ATX_Skins wrote:Religion is fraud.
As profound as your last contribution to this topic. And seemingly as well thought out. I applaud you, sir.
lol, I got an itch...
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:41 pm
by bayhog
how does it take faith to be an Atheist
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:13 am
by tribeofjudah
bayhog wrote:how does it take faith to be an Atheist
Cuz atheism is a fraud. Have you listened to or read: Pascal's Wager?
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:26 am
by tribeofjudah
Irn-Bru wrote:tribeofjudah wrote:See Bru....I don't really wanna deal in the "what if's" of Scripture.
Instead, I wanna deal with "thus saith the LORD"....like the 10 Commandments.
OK, so how about: "Whatsoever thou [i.e., Peter and the disciples] shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Bru, your insertions....really? Have you read that thou shalt NOT add or subtract to the WORD...???
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
AGAIN ...I say that Peter is petros/cephas, meaning "little pebble or stone"
10 Bible Commentaries on Matthew 16: 18
10Matthew 16:18, said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Jesus used the demonstrative “this” (taute), which grammatically points to Peter’s confession, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God” as the rock. Jesus said, “Thou are Peter (petros), (”masculine” meaning a “stone” ) on this rock (petra, (femine) meaning a huge rock foundation. Jesus said that Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ is the foundation upon which He would build His assembly). Grammatically the statement does not promise that Jesus would build His church (”assembly” -ekklesia) upon Peter but upon Peter’s confession. Grammatically both the noun “Peter” and the noun “rock” would have to be the same gender in order for this sentence to support the idea of the Peter being the “rock.” The word “rock” is femine not masculine and therefore the rock cannot be referring to Peter. Therefore, grammatically the word “rock” is identified with Peter’s statement not Peter himself.
Jesus would not have trusted such a precious possession as His “ekklesia” to the leadership of even one fallible man much less a whole succession of them. Jesus Christ Himself built the institution of the local assembly (church) and He is its Head directing it by His Word (John 1:1). The pope of Rome is called by the Roman Catholic Church “the Vicar of the Son of God” (Vicarius Filii Dei) meaning Jesus Christ’s representative on earth. However, the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit, not a pope, was sent to take the place of Jesus on earth. God the Holy Spirit indwells individual believers when they receive Jesus Christ as their Savior. The Holy Spirit was given to guide us into all truth (John 16:7-15) and the Scriptures were given for teaching, for reproving, for correction, and for instruction (II Timothy 3:16). Christ did not leave His assembled followers to human leadership. Jesus Himself is still the Head of His Church. He speaks to us through His infallible Word, the Holy Scriptures, by His ever present and infallible indwelling Holy Spirit. Men or churches have no authority to add to or to change in any way the clear instructions of the New Testament as to what is an “ekklesia” (local assembly of believers)
This passage does not support the papacy and in fact rebukes the false teachings of the Roman Catholic church and it is dishonest for the Roman church to use it to justify its unbiblical papacy.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:07 am
by Irn-Bru
tribeofjudah wrote:Irn-Bru wrote:tribeofjudah wrote:See Bru....I don't really wanna deal in the "what if's" of Scripture.
Instead, I wanna deal with "thus saith the LORD"....like the 10 Commandments.
OK, so how about: "Whatsoever thou [i.e., Peter and the disciples] shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Bru, your insertions....really?
I added it for context, not to change any meanings. But I am fine leaving it out, too, if that would mean you'd finally respond to the one question I've been asking the last several posts. I suspect you are purposefully avoiding it and looking for reasons to change the subject, or accuse me of committing some grave error in how I'm asking it.
Have you read that thou shalt NOT add or subtract to the WORD...???
Please tell me you appreciate the irony in your saying this and then posting a big long commentary that adds to the word.
Do you know what square brackets mean, by the way? Square brackets are used when you want to make it clear that you are clarifying something
that is not in the original text. I was doing the
opposite of what you were saying I was doing.
Anyway . . . you keep bringing up the stone/pebble distinction. As I said above, that's not the part of the narrative I'm asking you about. What I'm asking you to respond to is this passage (this time without brackets!
):
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
So, did Jesus mean what he said?
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:03 pm
by tribeofjudah
Bru, even Catholic Cardinals and Priests don't support your "theory" about Peter.
The whole world is Deceived by the "beast".... (whoever the beast may be in your mind)
Do Catholic authorities acknowledge that there is no command in the bible for santification of Sunday?
They do.
"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72,73.
Roman Catholic Confessions
James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.
"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."
Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.
"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Answer: 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."
John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1 936), vol. 1, P. 51.
Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67.
"Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
"Answer. 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.'
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter.
"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes . Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!
"Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"
The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
"The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."
Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth."
"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the[Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."
Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957), p. 50.
"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
"Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
"Answer. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927),p. 136.
"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday .... Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."
Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, Illinois.
"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."
T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18,1884.
"I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says: 'No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church."
Bru, Peter is not the head of the church nor did he play a role in such changes. That was the work of other men (not inspired by God)
GOD, his son Jesus, and The Holy Spirit are the Head of the Church.
Is this Scripture fitting:
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:14 pm
by Irn-Bru
tribeofjudah wrote:Bru, even Catholic Cardinals and Priests don't support your "theory" about Peter.
What theory about Peter? I've just been telling you that for the sake of the argument I'll grant your point about the word "rock" not referring to him. I don't think it's necessary for the argument I'm making. Because even if Peter is not the rock, we are still left with what Christ says in the very next sentence: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind …"
All of the quotes you just provided from the Catholic Church are priests saying "yes, the Church used its authority to change the day of precept" . . . which is exactly what I've been arguing all along is a possibility provided by this very bible passage.
So you really haven't answered my question then. Christ said, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Do you think he meant it?
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:19 pm
by welch
Do we understand what he meant?
The gospels seem to have been composed two or three generations after the crucifixion. Two or three generations during which people remembered, told and re-told the stories, and eventually those we now call Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John composed the stories into narratives.
During those two or three generations -- for which we have almost no documentation -- a "Jesus movement" formed itself into what later came to be called "the church".
That movement is the beginning of the tradition that defined what is now considered the canon. An argument by "scripture alone" is unconvincing if tradition gives us the scripture. (That's a paraphrase of Erasmus to Luther...I'm not that clever.)
That tradition argued over, sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed about important and trivial issues. Should priests marry? If yes, should bishops marry? What, then, about church property...in a time when everything soun around inheritance of property. Should priests have beards? Should communion / eurachist use leavened or unleavened bread?
Was Jesus God? Part human? A human raised to God-hood? All spirit? If all spirit, did he suffer on the cross? If he was somehow split between flesh and spirit, did he have "one energy"?
What is the holy spirit?
If there is God plus Jesus plus a holy spirit, is Christianity a monotheistic religion or a tri-theistic religion?
Does the church exist only within the borders of the Roman Empire? What about the Emperor?
These were more pressing questions...at least some were...than what day of the week should be the sabbath. I suspect that most people just asked, was the sabbath made for humans or humans made for the sabbath?
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:36 am
by tribeofjudah
Irn-Bru wrote:tribeofjudah wrote:Bru, even Catholic Cardinals and Priests don't support your "theory" about Peter.
What theory about Peter? I've just been telling you that for the sake of the argument I'll grant your point about the word "rock" not referring to him. I don't think it's necessary for the argument I'm making. Because even if Peter is not the rock, we are still left with what Christ says in the very next sentence: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind …"
All of the quotes you just provided from the Catholic Church are priests saying "yes, the Church used its authority to change the day of precept" . . . which is exactly what I've been arguing all along is a possibility provided by this very bible passage.
So you really haven't answered my question then. Christ said, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Do you think he meant it?
Back to the Thread.... Saturday is the true day of rest.
You go your way.....I'll go mine
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:13 am
by Irn-Bru
tribeofjudah wrote:Irn-Bru wrote:tribeofjudah wrote:Bru, even Catholic Cardinals and Priests don't support your "theory" about Peter.
What theory about Peter? I've just been telling you that for the sake of the argument I'll grant your point about the word "rock" not referring to him. I don't think it's necessary for the argument I'm making. Because even if Peter is not the rock, we are still left with what Christ says in the very next sentence: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind …"
All of the quotes you just provided from the Catholic Church are priests saying "yes, the Church used its authority to change the day of precept" . . . which is exactly what I've been arguing all along is a possibility provided by this very bible passage.
So you really haven't answered my question then. Christ said, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Do you think he meant it?
Back to the Thread....
No need to go "back," since we never got off topic.
If Jesus meant what he said, then the change of precept for observing the Sabbath to Sunday isn't necessarily anti-biblical (and could even be the biblical position
).
Saturday is the true day of rest.
You go your way.....I'll go mine
Is there any reason you feel it necessary to shut down the conversation like that? Did you start the thread just to state your opinion without having to defend it or listen to anyone else's point of view? I'm not here to force anyone to talk, but when accusations fly about following the anti-Christ, IMO it's at least worth exploring whether that's true.
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:33 pm
by Cappster
Leave it to Catholics to mess everything up haha