₦airaland Forum

"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned"......Calvin


hahahaha, some are still like Helvidius today albeit "excessively ignorant". Na calvin talk o.

Splinz:
There is, in fact, many. Jesus having kept the Law, of course, the Sabbath inclusive (Matthew 5:17) and left us an example to follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:21), can't be said to have suddenly turned a blind eye to obvious lawlessness of His apostles, the very thing He delivered us from (Titus 2:14). Neither can it be say that an authorization was given by Him to the apostles, citing Matthew 18:18, to change laws and ordinance decreed by divine fiat. Matthew 18:18 must be kept solely on the context of “loosening and binding” that which is in complete harmony with the Law, not one that usurps God's prerogative. This is because, abandoning God's commandments in order to keep yours (Mark 7:8 ) simply amounts to “vain” worships (verse 7) and sin (1 John 3:4).

It may also interest you to know that attempting or “changing of set times and laws”, such as the Sabbath law established right at the very creation of man, blessed and sanctified—set apart from every other day (Genesis 2:3), is associated with Satan and his agents (Daniel 7:25).

Now, having said all these, lets see one of the many accounts that shows that the apostles did in fact, kept the Sabbath.

Paul kept the Sabbath

The account, ACTS 18:1-11 , is remarkable. It reveals that Paul worked during the week and kept the Sabbath—“every” Sabbath: “After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; and found a certain Jew named Aquila…with his wife Priscilla…and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. And he reasoned in the synagogue EVERY SABBATH, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks [Gentiles]…and he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them” (vs. 1-4, 11). Eighteen months is equivalent to 78 weekly Sabbaths on which Paul taught God’s Word!

Verse 6 shows that the Jews became angry and, blaspheming, departed from Paul. This left him teaching Gentiles only—and yet he continued teaching them on the Sabbath! The argument that he met on the Sabbath to satisfy the Jews holds no water.

Paul taught both Jews and Gentiles each Sabbath. And he worked the other six days in accord with “Six days shall you labor, and do all your work.” If Paul was also observing Sunday, he would have been routinely violating the other aspect of the Sabbath command, having but five days to work.

Finally, notice that Acts 17:2 states that Paul, when in Thessalonica, “…as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” This was also a Gentile city.

The pattern is clear. Paul kept the Sabbath, meeting with and teaching brethren everywhere he went. Now consider what he instructed the Gentile Corinthians: “Be you followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (I Cor. 11:1).



I do not know of what you mean by “Judaizing”— a phrase that reeks of loathsomeness and distancing of self from the Jews. If you think that you have a faith that is at variance with the Jews (true Jews), then you may as well re-examine your faith.

This re-examination becomes imperative in light of the fact that “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22) and also that a Christian is a Jew (Romans 2:29). So then, claiming that keeping the Sabbath means “Judaizing” and must be rejected, also means and can be correctly say that you have no salvation. Yes, Jesus was/is a Jew! And if you can't identified with Him as a Jew, then you simply have no part in what belongs to the Jews!

PS: “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9).

Same old wrenching of Scripture unto ones destruction 2pet.3:16. You didn't give the Church the authority in Mat.18:18, so you don't give the condition under which the Church exercise it. When the Church Speaks, she Speaks for and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as well, that's why she could say "It has pleased us and the Holy Spirit...."Acts.15:28. Same words she used in removing the burden of circumcision, same words she used in proclaiming rest on the Lord's day, same words she used in canonizing the set of books you call bible today.

Jesus: Anyone who reads scripture knows that one reason the Jews plotted to kill Jesus was because they said he violates Sabbath,
though they judge him by the letters[b]Jn.5:18[/b]. What is Jesus own view about Sabbath, lets see " The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath" Mk.2:27-28. To which other law did Jesus show much bias towards the spirit of the law than the letter?

Paul: Scripture is very clear, on the first day of the week is when they gather to break bread as Christians, every other visit to the synagogue was to preach to those observing Sabbath. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight" Acts.20:7. The Sabbath isn't just preaching, it involves rest, hence no where in all your quotes did it say that Paul observed the Sabbath, nor told any Christian to do so. If your Sabbath keeping ministers go to the public square on Sundays and preach to people for Seven consecutive weeks, does it mean they are keeping the Sunday worship and breaking your Sabbath rules?

The word Judaizer comes from a Greek verb meaning “to live according to Jewish customs.” The word appears in Galatians 2:14 where Paul describes how he confronted Peter for forcing Gentile Christians to “Judaize.” He clears it all up here in Galatians 2:16: “A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” In Acts.15, Judaizing was Condemned by the Church in her council.

" There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God". Heb.4:9. Indeed a day of rest remaineth,the first day of the week, the Lord's day, for this is in accordance with scripture when it says thus:

"The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone. This is the Lord's doing; It is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord has made; Let us rejoice and be glad in it. O Lord, do save, we beseech You; O Lord, we beseech You, do send prosperity! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord; We have blessed you from the house of the Lord. " Psalm 118:22-26

Splinz:
Wrong. Your church or any other one has no such powers. Circumcision still remaineth and a Christian is also circumcised.

However, its mode of administration was removed/changed from physical to spiritual (Romans 2:29), and the changer of this mode is God Himself who circumcised us through His Spirit.

Or was it your church that gave us the Holy Spirit?

Hahahaha, Judaizers are here. Romans 2:29 only came after the Church had made the pronouncement of Acts 15:28fff. Using your argument, how come you're blind to the fact that the Sabbath obligations of worship and rest is still kept; while the day of observation is changed, Jn.20:1,19,26. The Changer is God himself who made a new day through His Son, Jesus in line with scripture, and the Holy spirit followed with His descent on the Apostles Same day Acts.2:1. The Church proclaimed it, as she did the Circumcision.

Just so you know:

"Furthermore he says to them, "Your new moons and the sabbaths I cannot away with." Do you see whathe means? The present sabbaths are not acceptable tome, but that which I have made, in which I will giverest to all things and make the beginning of an eighthday, that is the beginning of another world. Wherefore we also celebrate with gladness the eighth day in which Jesus also rose from the dead, and was made manifest, and ascended into Heaven". Barnabas 15:8-9

The quote above is from one of those books rejected by the Catholic Church for inclusion among the Canons(Bible). You claim not to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, but you threw away the epistle of Barnabas which was considered inspired in Asia at the time. What Authority did the Catholic Church use in removing the Epistle of Barnabas from the Canons? It was obvious the Church in Syria was using it as Scripture until the Synods in Rome (382AD) and Carthage (393-397AD) rejected it. So how come you only use Catholic accepted books while you deny their authority.

analice107:
No sir, still deep in the scripture.

Happy Resurrection.

Ah with Sunday worship? ...*in DoctorAlien's voice* You must be joking.

Papist:
You are talking Church history to someone whose sect was invented in 19th century America. He will obviously play down the role that the Catholic Church played in canonising Christian scripture because accepting this Catholic authority is damaging to his beliefs. So in a way there is cognitive dissonance going on here.

He started it himself, he is asking for the authority of the Church to declare a day as the day of rest, when he didn't ask their authority to declare some books inspired and others not. Let me like the sower cast my seed upon the earth, some may grow a hundred fold, others may be trampled under feet.

analice107:
No, i go to church on sunday. will be in Church tomorrow, why?

Curiosity...just to know how far you've "deviated" from Scripture.

A happy Lord's day to you.

DoctorAlien:
The catholic church didn't write the Bible. They just collected the books written by inspired men of GOD together. And even if they did not collect them together, the Scriptures would somehow still be available to the people of GOD. So, we didn't accept the books of the Bible because the catholic church prescribed them: we accepted them because we know their authors were inspired by GOD(2 Tim. 3:16).

hahaha, don't make me laugh. various books were used at various places in christendom, one of such books was the Epistle of Barnabas, it was used by christians and quoted by some fathers of faith, but the Catholic Church decided not to include it in the Canons in (393-397AD). Where did the Catholic Church get such powers from?

Let me give you a bit of history. When the canons were being collected, one church father Eusebius (C 324) wrote this: "Let there be placed among the spurious works the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought proper; for as I wrote before, some reject it, and others place it in the canon."

Did you notice the books he mentioned, these are books used in parts of Christendom as Inspired, some people agree to some and others rejected some. Example is the Acts of paul, which contained the "third epistle of Paul to the Corinthians", this book was accepted as canon in the eastern church (church in syria), another is the apocalypse of John (revelations) which some rejected. As a matter of fact, as early as (287AD), Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, believed the book of revelations was written by another person probably Cerinthius. So who gave the Catholic Church the Power to pick and choose, finally come out with what you have now ; then Command that you regard the rest as non canons, and why did you accept their decision? Why did you accept that second timothy that you quoted is canon, but third Corinthians is not?

DoctorAlien:
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"


Syncan, what do you have to say?

Same way Gibbons will still write thus:

Is circumcision a sign demanded by God on His people? I answer yes. Did the church change this and say it wasn't neccesary? I answer Yes. Did Christ change it? I answer No.

DoctorAlien:
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.

Syncan, what do you have to say?

Correct! Council of laodicea (363 AD), was held before council of Carthage (397 AD) which made only these collection of books the ones you call the bible. So if they were wrong at 363 AD, You think they became right at 397 AD ?

However note that, the council only made an official declaration on a practice that has been handed over to them by their fathers of faith, as can be seen in earlier writings.

DoctorAlien:
“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change [Saturday Sabbath to Sunday] was her act... And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things” (H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons).

“Sunday is our mark of authority… the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact” (Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1, 1923).

Syncan, what do you have to say?

Yes. The Authority of the church with she removed the burden of circumcision on gentiles, is same authority she used in establishing the Lord's day as the day of worship, same authority by which she removed the book of Barnabas from what you now call the bible. Note that the Sunday worship synod was held before the synod that gave the present bible you now hold supreme.

DoctorAlien:
Paul says that the doers of the law shall be justified. Rom. 2:13. How can you say that Paul and the apostles did not keep the Sabbath?

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

You still haven't shown me that the apostles continued with observation of the Sabbath day law. Nor have you shown me the authority they have to change the circumcision law.

DoctorAlien:
Did the apostles keep Sunday in place of Saturday?

Did they apostles keep the law of circumcision?

DoctorAlien:
Oga Peter calls Paul's writings Scriptures. 2 Pet. 3:15-16

So? when the bereans searched scriptures in Acts 17:11, was Paul's writing a part of it?

DoctorAlien:
Did the apostles keep Sunday in place of Saturday?

There is no indication that the apostles continued in the keeping of the Sabbath. They were very conscious of separating their religion from Judaizers. The Epistle to the Galatians was focused upon refuting Judaizing, since many Gentile Christians had fallen prey to the heresy. In Galatians 4:10 Paul rebukes them by saying, “You observe days and months and seasons and years.”

DoctorAlien:
Who's playing around? Peter called Paul's writings Scripture(2 Pet. 3:16). Moreover Gibbons says that from Genesis to Revelation not a single line authorizes the sanctification of Sunday.

What are you saying?

You have neither shown me where he said new testament enforced Saturday worship, nor have you denied that Old testament alone can be called Scriptures.

DoctorAlien:
Continue editing, you hear?

Cardinal Gibbons said that "THE SCRIPTURES" enforce the observance of Saturday.

Do you agree that the catholic church is going against the Scriptures?

Did the Apostles go against Scriptures?

DoctorAlien:
Cardinal Gibbons did not say that only the OT enforces the observance of Saturday. He said "the Scriptures" which include the NT. Do you agree with him?

Stop playing around, he never mentioned New testament. Old testament alone is scripture. true or false?

DoctorAlien:
Cardinal Gibbons said that the Scriptures enforce a religious observance of Saturday. Do you agree with him?

Yes. The old testament, just in the same way as in the circumcision enforced it.

analice107:
I well know that Sir. Eistein resounded what the Bible has already said, and its in motion right being ushered in by the Roman Catholic Church.

What you just posted here is called the One World Religion. And, the Beast will be in the heard of that religion and the Pope as his prophet.

Pray you live to witness it, it shall be an interesting time.

analice107, do you observe the Sabbath (Saturday) day too? Just asking.

DoctorAlien:
Syncan, but you agree with Cardinal Gibbons that no single line from Genesis to Revelations authorizes the sanctification of Sunday?

If you seek a precise authorization of Sunday as a day of worship, you may as well seek for the precise authorization to the apostles to change the circumcision law. There are Implied verses and actions of christ which as time goes on, the Church free from Judaism, decided to keep just as they removed the law on circumcision.

DoctorAlien:
Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Fathers, 92nd ed., p. 89, freely admits, “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 [the Catholic Church] never sanctify.”

Syncan, what do you have to say?

First, this is what the Cardinal said "Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from any unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? 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." James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers(1917 edition)pg.72-73 (16th edition)pg.111 (88th edition) pg. 89.

Here the cardinal was basically trying to make a point about Christianity as different from Judaism, with a show of the Power giving to the Church by Christ, hence the Church truncated God's command on Circumcision and never sanctioned it for all, It remained binding thus because whatever the church consider bound here is considered bound in heaven Matt.18:18 . Christians obey God's directive to rest, but now on the Lord's day, for Christians are not bound by specific days of the old law. "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Colossians 2:16-17,

So you quoted the cardinal out of contest to infer what you like.

Papist:
I am a Catholic myself. Saturday is the Catholic Sabbath but the obligatory day of worship is Sunday because it is the Lord's Day.

I am a Catholic, and I endorse this post too.

DoctorAlien:
Check the fourth post on the first page of the thread.

Now I have read it. The apostles preached on Saturday because that was the status quo, when they were to see the majority of the people in the place of worship or free of work. However, for the community of believers which was growing steadily, they gather together to break bread as Christ has commanded "On the first day of the week" Acts20:7

The sabbath day continue to remain for Judaizers, but the Lord made a new day for his people, in line with scriptures.

DoctorAlien:
Does Jn. 20:1 say that Sunday is sacred? Follow that link and read the article, because I'm sure you didn't read it.

Below is your opening Post, where the link dey?

DoctorAlien:
The most honest way I know to approach this subject is to take a look at absolutely everything that the Bible says about the first day of the week. There are only eight texts in the New Testament that refer to Sunday, and by carefully studying these verses we can be certain that all the evidence for consideration is before us. If there is any biblical authority for keeping the first day of the week, it will have to be found in one of these verses.

Yes it is sacred. The Lord rose on this day (the first day of the week) Jn. 20:1.

luckyCO:
Sorry I missed responding to this:

If you check 1 John 2:1 you will dicover that John was writing to his little children in faith,meaning that they have already believed.

Now let us reconcile that scirpture with romans 3:23-26
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

You will understand that the All there John was writing to are those that believe in Jesus Christ.

1 John 2:2 "And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the world."

jnrbayano:


Try some more bro

You try

luckyCO:
No they are not same.

It is like saying righteousness(Christ's) and Holiness(Yours) are the same. So Christ has given us His righteousness, then we need to live a holy life. That is why bible said without holiness no eye will see God.

What is the blood for?
The blood is for the cleansing of sin. Every year high priest takes the blood of animal and offer for sin. But that animal blood only covers sin but does not take away sin that is why you have to do that every year or as often.

But the better blood has come, the blood of Jesus the righteous one who has no sin and he cleanse our sin once. That is why catholic church teach that baptism has seal on your soul that you don't need to repeat.

Yes it is talking about the blood, one you come under the blood, your sins are forgiven. It is not enough that he died, you have to believe, repent and be baptized( Ezekiel 36:24-25) and he will give you His Holy Spirit and cause you to do what please him(Ezekiel 36:26-28).

Aside forgiveness of sin none of these is possible.

@ bold, I give up. If according to your "revelations": Christ died for all; but shed his blood for some and not all, then no need for further discussion.

luckyCO:
[b]Yes He died for us all [/b]but his blood will not cleanse your sin if you are not under the blood.
How would you be under the blood, repent, baptize such that your sins will be forgiven(act 2:38)?

It is instruction given by Christ, God said blood of bull doest satisfy him, now Christ offered his own body as a propitiation to those that believe

Believe/repentant here is key to your forgiveness of sins else you are damned why because your sins are not forgiven and those who pray with their sins not forgiven are like filthy rag.

If you mean Christ died for all is also Christ have saved/redeemed all, then no need for judgement as God said he a consuming fire.
if you said Christ died for all means forgiveness why do you then have confession before communion and restrict that to only catholic who believe.

It means salvation has condition, only those that believe,they are only those that should share in his body.
If I start explaining the meaning on sharing the body Christ you will still challenge me because that has a very significant spiritual dimension and the greatest ritual on the surface of the earth.

That is why you have to discern this His body before you eat else you get death.

You said "he died for us all", doesn't it mean "he shed his blood for us all"?

luckyCO:
Yes that is why remission of sins must not be for all but those that repent, believe and are baptized.
That is why bible said it, that it is shed for you and for many that believe after you such that their sins will forgiven.
It was from that understanding that catholic draw that analogy.

However you cant eat what you dont know nor understand else you might be giving what is holy to dogs.

What is not discerning the body of Christ? It is when your sins are not forgiven and you carry un-forgiveness, murder,rape, fornication etc to go and be part of Christ body. It is that that brings damnation.

It is not everybody that will believe and be baptized, but as many as believe and are baptized shall be saved. That means their sins shall be forgiven and they will brought to be part of God's household. So anytime they want to commit or committed, God will chastise them to bring them to line such that devil will not accuse them.

"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 2Cor.5:15


Stop confusing yourself, Christ died for all.

luckyCO:
Bible is specifically talking about those that have recognized that blood of Jesus was shed for them and are seeking for salvation after repentance whose whose sins are forgiven (act 2:38), that is why before you receive holy communion you go for confession to affirm you believe and sins forgiven(according to catholic) , hence that is why after holy communion( in public places like crusade ground etc) catechist will announce that the mass is for all but the holy communion is for only those that believe and are practicing catholic...

Is that clear now?

This is Jesus words in Matt. 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now I repeat my question to you: was the blood of Christ shed for all mankind or are there some He didn't shed it for?

luckyCO:
I said praise God with you because we believe the same if you really know the meaning of what you have professed. If you do you wont counter my statements instead you advance it if you have more experience than me in the Holy Ghost.

When you talk about FOLD OF CHRIST,ONE,HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, this simply means bride of Christ, if you understand these you cannot have a signboard somewhere depending it as church Christ is building but in the altars of your heart.

The church there is the assembly of those whose heart has been the altars of God (1 cor 6:19).

You know the altar you see in your catholic church or else where is simply where people can stay such that others can see him hence podium anything outside that is shrine. The altar is in your heart where God prepared by the Holy Ghost to dwell.

Sorry. The fold has one faith, One Lord, One Baptism, It is not All Join.