Growing up in a Sabbathkeeping church, naturally I heard many sermons about why the Sabbath is to be observed by Christians.
To me, one of the arguments that boosted my confidence in the rightness of our practice was that the apostles observed the Sabbath.
Luke, who penned the book of Acts, records several occasions when the apostles frequented the synagogues on the Sabbath day — after Jesus ascended into heaven.
If the Old Covenant people of God, Israel, kept the Sabbath; and if Jesus, our perfect example, kept the Sabbath; and if the New Covenant people of God, the Church, kept the Sabbath, then who are we to say the Sabbath is not a Christian obligation?
Facts from Acts
It's true that the Acts of the Apostles records instances of Sabbath observance.
In fact, the Bibles in my childhood home were well marked, notably in the book of Acts, where every mention of the Sabbath was meticulously underlined and colored in red pencil. One could flip through the pages and say, “Of course the apostolic Church kept the Sabbath! Look at all the red!”
All references to the Sabbath in this Bible are marked in red — like a stop sign, to signify the Sabbath rest. If people would just read the red, then wouldn't they have to believe that the early New Testament Church kept the Sabbath — and admit it should be observed today?
I thought it was an air-tight argument. If anyone disagreed with the Christian obligation of Saturday Sabbath observance, then they just didn't believe the Bible. They weren't yet “called” to understand this truth, which we associated with “the Truth.”
My understanding of Sabbath observance, however, changed after a more careful, open-minded reading of the Bible.
Yes, the Acts of the Apostles gives authoritative witness to Saturday Sabbath observance at the very beginning of the Church, but let's notice what many overlook.
For your convenience, the passages under discussion are listed below.
The “Sabbath verses”
🛑 Acts 13:13-14:
Now Paul and his companions set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem, but they went on from Perga and came to Antioch in Pisidia. And on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.
🛑 Acts 13:42,44:
As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. ...The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.
🛑 Acts 15:21:
For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.
🛑 Acts 16:13:
And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.
🛑 Acts 17:1-3:
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
🛑 Acts 18:4:
And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Leading questions
A well-versed Sabbathkeeping Christian trying to persuade an average Sundaykeeping churchgoer can dominate him with these passages, accompanied by leading questions that are commonly asked:
- On which day did Paul and his companions come to the synagogue?
- On which day did the people want them to return? And who was it that came back the next Sabbath — only the Jews? Or was it “the whole city,” including Gentiles? Why didn't Paul say, “Hey, Gentiles, no need to wait a whole week. Just come back tomorrow — on Sunday, the Lord's Day”?
- In every city, on which day each week was the Law read?
- On which day did Paul go to the riverside looking for a place of prayer?
- On which day was it Paul's custom to reason from the Scriptures?
The obviously true answer to these question is: the Sabbath, or Saturday.
But that doesn't prove what our interlocutor thinks it proves.
Nevertheless, such an encounter can frustrate a person of simple faith, leaving him short of a good explanation. Most are not prepared to counter such non-traditional views.
This is not unlike the average Christian who might feel overwhelmed or tongue-tied by an articulate Jehovah's Witness citing Bible verses in a well-rehearsed presentation “proving” Jesus is not God.
The response
When faced with the claim that New Testament examples of Sabbathkeeping mean we, too, should be keeping Sabbath, remember these two hot-knife facts that cut through the soft butter of that argument:
🔪 #1: There is not one example in all the Bible of any established Christian church meeting together in observance of the Sabbath.
🔪 #2: Without exception, every time Sabbath meetings are mentioned in the book of Acts, it is in the context of evangelization — preaching the gospel of Jesus to the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles who associated with them.
I can't emphasize Fact 1 enough. It's a shocker to Christian Sabbathkeepers. They usually can't get beyond it, because they refuse to believe it. “What about all those red verses in Acts?” they might ask.
Fact 2 answers their question. While it's easy to understand intellectually, it's very hard to accept psychologically for the one who has defended Sabbathkeeping for years.
Go back and review the scriptures cited above. I trust you to dig deeper and see the truth for yourself in context:
Paul and his companions went on missionary journeys to preach the gospel, going first to the Jews. Where better to start spreading the gospel at that time than the synagogues — to explain how Jesus was Israel's Messiah, how he was the fulfillment of their entire religion?
And what better day than the Sabbath, when the synagogues were full of people (Jews and God-fearing Gentiles) who wanted to hear the Scriptures — those who deserved to understand them in light of the resurrected Christ?
They were following the precedent Jesus set in his instructions to the apostles when he first commissioned them to preach:
These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” (Matthew 10:5-7)
In his epistles, St. Paul emphasizes the importance of reaching the Jews with the gospel. Naturally they would be first, and then the gospel would advance to the rest of the world. It's how the early Church began.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)
This is consistent with how even Jesus chose to reveal himself:
He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.... (John 1:11-12)
“Another day”
When I came to understand these simple facts that I had overlooked for years — namely, that the Jews were evangelized by the first Christians at the synagogues on the Sabbath day, and that there is no biblical example of established Christian churches meeting together for the Sabbath — I was surprised.
But soon I was surprised again. I was surprised by Sunday.
Here, I share What I Didn't Know About Sunday.
The COG Catholic currently blogs at www.cogcatholic.org.
133 comments:
People Reasoning Around
Some people seem to think that it is very displeasing to God whenever anyone tries to obey His commandments, but that it is very pleasing to God whenever anyone deliberately does the exact opposite of whatever He commanded.
Strange thinking.
"It's true that the Acts of the Apostles records instances of SABBATH OBSERVANCE. ........There is not one example in all the Bible of any established Christian church meeting together in OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wow. Are you a lawyer?
Add to these passages the ones that say the church met on the FIRST day of the week, which might have been Saturday evening where they could enjoy a pot luck supper together. Then you have the passages from Paul to not fuss over which day you meet or be judged by those who say the Sabbath and holy days are still in effect. The NT church met on the first day of the week, but that, I believe is a description, not a prescription. Some people could meet on Tuesday or Thursday, if they needed to.
Well yeah, if you want to go talk to a bunch of Jews, where do you go? To temple on a Saturday.
Interesting, but really doesn't say very much at all.
Of course you can argue that they were only going to the synagogues to hunt out a few Jews, but that in itself is no proof they were keeping a different day, you need far more than that.
So I read your linked article 'What I didn't know about Sunday', and what do we find there? Eight times 'the first day of the week' is mentioned - sounds promising, until you look at the details!
Six of the eight are from the four gospels describing what happened at the resurrection of Jesus.
Well of course that is going to be on the first day of the week - why? Because Jesus is setting up a new day to worship? Of course not - its because Jesus was fulfilling the real meaning of the wave sheaf offering, which occurred on the first day of the week following the weekly Sabbath in Unleavened Bread.
In the Old Testament the physical wave sheaf offering every year was on the Sunday morning. Christ was the fulfilment, the real wave sheaf offering. He was the first of the first fruits, being presented to God the Father, as in the Old Testament shadow, on the Sunday morning.
The other two verses show very little. In Acts 20 Paul planned to be in Troas for seven days, and is leaving on the second day of the week, so quite understandably the people met up with him on the first day of the week, seeing he was departing the next day. The meeting went on into the evening right into the night (so this was now the second day of the week, seeing sunset had long past!).
Breaking the bread is pretty clearly a meal - they had been there for hours, and it goes on to say they talked a long while after the meal, until the break of day. So they talked through to daylight Monday morning, and Paul departed.
The whole thing shows this was a rather special time, having Paul there, and they kept him talking right through till he was leaving. So yes, a Sunday, but this was 'special circumstances', they would probably never see Paul again.
The final verse, the collection at Corinth is another pointer to the seventh day. They were planning to collect for the members in Jerusalem. Paul is saying to accumulate the individual collections on a weekly basis until he comes, and not just do a big collection when he arrives. The implication is they put money aside every week individually, until he arrives. It would seem he is saying to do this on the first day of the week to avoid having to deal with money on the seventh day Sabbath
The International Standard Version puts it:-
'After the Sabbath ends, each of you should set aside and save something from your surplus in proportion to what you have, so that no collections will have to be made when I arrive.'
In effect Paul is saying to do this on a regular basis until he can get there, but do it after the Sabbath has ended.
Good post! We must also recognize that Christ's disciples were originally ALL Jewish - observant Jews, and that the very earliest Christians continued to go to the Temple and local synagogues. In other words, the "mother" Church of Christianity (Jerusalem) was very Jewish in background and practice. We should also note, however, that within fifteen years of the Church's founding, the Gentile portion of the Church began to overtake that original small homogeneous group in Judea. Moreover, once again, I don't believe that it was chance/happenstance that the Romans destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD (Jesus had predicted it) - this effectively marked the end of Sabbath and festival observance among Christians (and many other Jewish folks in the area).
The church (ekklesia) at Antioch, called Christians, assembling a whole year with Saul and Barnabas, met on the sabbath - Acts 11:26; 13:14.
Re: Response #1 - Outside of Pentecost in Acts 2 and Acts 20 noted by Questerek, there's also no firm example "in all the Bible of any established Christian church meeting together" to observe Sunday. So it's essentially an argument from Scriptural silence.
First there's "Is the mystery of the ages to obey the law of Moses" by Miller Jones and now we have this next article by COG Catholic attacking Sabbath keeping. Am I surprised? Well, Trumpets, Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles are 3 to 4 weeks away, so I thought these would be closer to the holy day dates. Envious non-successful Christians are always stirred up as the holy days approach.
Ah yes, that tired and worn-out nonsense that Satan is angry that the church is keeping the holy days and is stirred up to persecute us. Baloney.
It's kind of funny that you say that, Anon 11:00:48. It's literally on COG schedules>/i> to produce TV shows, podcasts, and articles in the spring and winter months to attack Easter and Christmas (the celebration of the Resurrection and the Incarnation -- without which there is no Christianity). That's what sounds satanic to me.
Why attack Saturday Sabbath keepers? Why does it matter to you so much? Is this all to do with Catholicism?
Just more Catholic twisting and sleight of hand. Is there a passage anywhere in the bible that says the Church met on Sunday for worship services?
Questeruk debunked your assertions.
I can remember growing up the pastor would occasionally say "early christians began meeting on the first day of the week" in his sermon. Actually, once they abandoned God's instructions they ceased to be christians and went off on their own way.
"“It should be clear that sending migrants away, denying migrants the capacity to work, to not welcome migrants, it is a sin. It is grave,” Francis said, according to CBS."
Says the man with a massive wall around his country.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/pope-francis-weighs-trump-harris-race-damning-words/
The RCC is evil. It misleads people, sits on enormous wealth while people they claim to care about are starving, and twists and perverts the gospel.
Excellent comment Questeruk 438:07.
It is also evident to me that Acts 20:6-11 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 are one time events centered around the travels and itinerary of the Apostle Paul. They are NOT examples of Christian practices carried forward in perpetuity!
Anon 3:28:02:
I don't consider sharing my experiences as "attacking" Sabbathkeepers.
I trust that many (though certainly not all) COG orgs and individuals are not "attacking" Sundaykeepers, but are simply trying to show what they believe Scriptures are saying. The COGWA preacher I mentioned said you can't be a Christian and not keep the Sabbath -- I take him to be sincere about his belief. I, too, am sincere about mine. This is called dialogue.
Earlier this year I was accused of attacking and "disrespecting" COGers. Since that time, I've been collecting notes of COG sermons and articles that explicitly attack and disrespect Catholics (in particular -- along with mainstream Protestants). That double standard doesn't seem to bother COGers; they just don't like when their own views are challenged. A one-way street. Those kinds of COGers sound like political liberals who accuse everyone who disagrees with them as being "haters."
I'm trying to be fair and share my experiences without animosity, just like Christians should share their faith with Jews or Muslims or atheists without "attacking" them.
Difinitive Scriptures: Collossians 14: 16-17 :'16 16 Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. ALSO Romans 14:5
Romans 14:5 5 One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
Good stuff, Darren. I've known you and your family my whole life. Can personally vouch for your backstory. Glad you're free from that.
Usually just one or two scriptures answer these type of discussions. e.g the Sabbath was made FOR man - and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). And Christ is Lord of the Sabbath and we should 'Call the Sabbath a delight'' (Isaiah 58:13). If it was given to the human race as a 'delight' and a rest day in the past - do we not today need even more of a rest from this crazy world? Tell me if you think my reasoning is wrong.
Let me echo Miller Jones. He contributed a very perceptive comment but it does not seem to have created even a small speed bump – a pause for consideration - in the ongoing discussion.
What if the New Testament was packed with examples of the early Christian church meeting and worshipping on the Sabbath? What if there 387 such clear occurrences? And what if there were no occurrences of the early Christian church observing any other day? Would that make the Armstrongist view of the Sabbath correct? No, it would not.
There is nothing wrong with observing Sabbath. The early Christian Jews in Jerusalem no doubt observed the Sabbath. They probably even went to the Temple for Sabbath services. Culturally, they were accustomed to resting on the Sabbath, like the people of Espana have a siesta in the afternoon.
Simple Sabbath observance is not what Armstrongism asserts. It asserts that you must keep the entire Law of Moses (according to Hoeh and Meredith, including the statutes and judgments) because it is written on your heart under the New Testament and is a requirement for salvation and it just happens to include the seventh day Sabbath. If your teenaged daughter has acne, when she approaches other people, she must shout “Unclean!” This is one of the Laws of Moses and it is at parity with the Sabbath. Transgression of it means the loss of salvation.
Do you begin to get a clue?
The Christian understanding is that you can keep the Sabbath as much as you want, like the Jerusalem church, you just cannot make it a requirement for salvation. Jesus in your life is the only requirement for salvation. Those of you who are justified (an essential pre-condition for salvation)by the works of the Law of Moses, whether it is circumcision or the Sabbath or whatever, are severed from Christ (not a member of the Ekklesia) and have fallen from grace (do not have salvation) according to Paul in Galatians .
Scout
It probably is a delight if it is not adminstrated and enforced by cruel authoritarian assholes. The problem is, most of us will never know, because our minds have already been poisoned by them. It's difficult to recover from that type of damage.
I know Jewish people from the Chabad movement for whom Shabbos is the high point of the entire week. There have been times when I have wished that I could have their attitudes.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Questeruk --
You wrote:
...Jesus was fulfilling the real meaning of the wave sheaf
offering, which occurred on the first day of the week following the
weekly Sabbath in Unleavened Bread.
Yes! A beautiful example of Jesus fulfilling the Law!
You wrote:
In Acts 20 Paul planned to be in Troas for seven days, and is leaving on the second day of the week, so quite understandably the people met up with him on the first day of the week, seeing he was departing the next day. The meeting went on into the evening right into the night (so this was now the second day of the week, seeing sunset had long past!).
So you're saying it was not a coincidence, but that it was planned to be on the "first day of the week." Agreed.
You wrote:
Breaking the bread is pretty clearly a meal - they had been there for hours, and it goes on to say they talked a long while after the meal, until the break of day.
Yes, they talked a long time. But what makes "breaking the bread" pretty clearly a common meal?
Did they really get that hungry at night and need to eat right after a resurrection miracle? Is it a coincidence that this resurrection (of Eutychus) is also tied to the "first day of the week," and also involves the breaking of bread -- like Jesus did on the "first day of the week" when he made himself known to the men on the road to Emmaus in the "breaking of the bread"?
Where else does Luke use that term to mean a regular ol' meal?
You wrote:
The final verse, the collection at Corinth is another pointer to the seventh day. They were planning to collect for the members in Jerusalem. Paul is saying to accumulate the individual collections on a weekly basis until he comes, and not just do a big collection when he arrives. The implication is they put money aside
every week individually, until he arrives. It would seem he is saying to do this on the first day of the week to avoid having to deal with money on the seventh day Sabbath.
If that's the case, then why would Paul tell them when to collect. Why would it matter whether it's the "first day of the week" or a Tuesday or a Thursday -- as long as it wasn't on the Sabbath?
Besides -- now think about this -- why would anyone discourage taking up a charitable collection of money on the Sabbath? Is that worse to do than pulling a sheep out of the ditch? "So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath," said Jesus (Matthew 12:12). Collections for needy brethren are good. (It's nothing at all like the business of greedy money changers in the Temple!)
And isn't taking offerings to fund COG budgets the common practice on annual Sabbath days? It would be hypocritical for a COG organization to make your argument.
Yes indeed. Christ fulfilled the law to the letter and was the wave sheaf offering on Sunday 5th of April 33 AD. Many try to dismiss the Sabbath as the day of rest but their arguments are weak. God created a specific day to rest and commanded mankind to followsuit but you will always find people who attempt to explain away what God established as law.
You have 'other writings' written over the years openly calling Saturday Sabbath keepers as Satanist's.
Have you forgotten about that one?
So Scout, what you are saying is, if you had a communicable disease and people came around you, you wouldn't warn them to stay away? The context you put some things in is ridiculous.
As far as transgression and sin relate to salvation, I'm assuming even Darren would attest that "sola fide" is not the complete answer, but obeying Jesus is also an important part, because there are things that can keep you out of the Kingdom, that salvation can be lost if one continues in mortal sin and refuses to repent.
Does Darren believe the sacraments are a requirement for salvation? It would be interesting to get an answer.
Sabbath keeping is more than a rest day and a delight. It's a means of staying close to God and His way. For many baby animals, not being physically close to their parents is a death sentence. Likewise without the benefits of Sabbath keeping, Christians eventually go from obeying God rather than man to obeying man rather than God. Which is the mark of the beast.
No Sabbath keeping equals no eternal life.
The article claims that New Testament Christians did not observe the Sabbath and that Sunday worship became the norm. However, this overlooks key biblical evidence. Jesus Himself observed the Sabbath (Luke 4:16), and His followers continued this practice (Acts 17:2). The shift to Sunday worship only emerged centuries later due to Roman influence. The Sabbath, instituted at creation (Genesis 2:2-3), is a command for all of humanity, not just Israel, and reflects God’s ongoing desire for His people to rest and worship.
1. **Sabbath Observance in the New Testament**: While the article claims that early Christian churches did not observe the Sabbath, this is a misinterpretation. Jesus clearly upheld the Sabbath by teaching in synagogues on that day, and the apostles continued this practice (e.g., Acts 17:2). The notion that the Sabbath was abolished or replaced by Sunday worship lacks direct New Testament evidence.
2. **Theological Importance**: The Sabbath is a fundamental part of God's design for creation. In Genesis 2:2-3, God blessed the seventh day and made it holy. This rest was not just a Jewish custom but a universal command for all humanity. Jesus' statement that "the Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27) indicates its broader, enduring relevance.
3. **Historical Changes**: The shift to Sunday worship reflects a later historical development. Roman influence, especially under Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, led to the institutionalization of Sunday worship as a compromise with pagan practices. However, this was a departure from the original practice of Sabbath-keeping seen in the New Testament and early Christian communities.
4. **Spiritual Reflection**: Observing the Sabbath remains a vital spiritual practice for Christians today. It is an opportunity to align with God's rhythm of work and rest, honoring His creation and reflecting on His deliverance. By keeping the Sabbath, believers participate in God's sanctification process, experiencing a foretaste of eternal rest in His kingdom.
In conclusion, the Sabbath is a biblically mandated practice that goes beyond any single covenant, standing as a testament to God’s desire for rest and relationship with His people. It should not be dismissed as obsolete or replaced by traditions that arose later in Christian history. Instead, it serves as a profound and necessary rhythm for worship and spiritual growth.
The law of Moses, which includes the sabbath, is a ministry that brings death, not life. Read II Cor. 3:5-18. The letter, (the law of Moses) brings death, not life. It's the new covenant that gives eternal life, not the old.
The big fat lie: "the Acts of the Apostles gives authoritative witness to Saturday Sabbath observance at the very beginning of the Church". Nowhere in scripture are the named days mentioned, only numbered. Sabbath being intermission, to cease, to rest. No one is even working 6 days and resting one, everyone working 5 and resting two on the weak end. Scripturally, there is only one weekend in a month at the end 29/1 (1/8/15/22/29/1). As David said, Tomorrow is the Sabbath 29, Let me go and hide till the third day, That was two days of rest 29/1 on the third he was free to do as pleased. 29/1/2 =3 d
How exactly is Saturday a sign between us and him?
Is saturn visible above you? Does it give you phases to teach you to count your days?
BP8 wrote, "So Scout, what you are saying is, if you had a communicable disease and people came around you, you wouldn't warn them to stay away? "
This is not what the Law of Moses said. You are interpreting it and giving it different meaning. The answer is Yes, I would warn someone of a communicable disease.
What the Law of Moses says is that if you have any blemish on your skin (It is unknown what is being referred to. It is not leprosy.) then you need to yell "Unclean!" on the approach to other people. This is what is written on stone, paper and on your heart. If you claim to keep the Law of Moses, then you will do exactly as it says. Your interpretation changed this law to make it something different from what the Law of Moses says.
We might ask, "If you believe in keeping the Law of Moses, do you respect the Law of Moses enough not to alter it? Armstrongists fail this test.
Scout
Ex 23 lists 3 festivals (Hebrew chag); Lev 23 lists fixed times (Hebrew moed):
Nisan 14-20, a festival, 14 and 20 convocations, feasts commanded 14,15,20
Pentecost, a festival, a Sunday, 50th day inclusive from Sunday after Nisan 14
Tishri 15-21, a festival, 15 a sabbathon
(All times are God's times, not only Jewish times)
Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, 7th day sabbath
Tishri 1, a sabbathon, a memorial of noise with or without trumpets (not specified)
Tishri 10, a sabbath, no work
Tishri 22, a sabbathon, no servile work
Not all 'armstrongisim' as you call sabbath keeping Christians is the same.
Scout at 1159 says,
"If you claim to keep the law of Moses, then you will do exactly what it says, without altering it".
So according to this reasoning, when Paul was appealing to the Corinthians (ch.9) for assistance, quoting from the law of Moses and using it as his authority, and altering the meaning to suit his own need, he was wrong for doing so?
I think we all know the answer!
Is becoming a practicing Catholic the answer to any hurt or suffering that's occurred from being in WCG?
I am the only non Catholic member of one side of my family. I've been in more Catholic churches over the years for family Weddings, funerals and communions than I can remember. I've lit candles and sat on the pews since a small child. Are Catholics happy with their lot? Do real Catholics even like the current Pope and the previous Pope? How about the rest of the secret of Fatima being released? Have you been to that area?
Is turning from Saturday Sabbath keeping to Catholic Sunday keeping the answer? Is it?
Anonymous at Sunday, September 15, 2024 at 10:40:23 AM PDT
To be precise, COG Catholic has correctly pointed out that early Christians used the Sabbath to witness to others about Jesus. You are also incorrect in your assertion that Sunday observance began centuries later. This is a false historical narrative put forward by Sabbath-keeping Christians, and it is NOT consistent with the best historical evidence available to us. You are, however, correct in your assertion that the Sabbath harkens back to the creation narrative in Genesis, and that the concept of a Sabbath-rest for all of humankind was part of the original design - just NOT in the way that you have imagined it.
The book of Exodus makes very clear that the Israelites did NOT have any knowledge of the weekly Sabbath prior to the events recorded in that book. The sixteenth chapter of that book makes plain that God used the collection of manna (the bread from heaven) to introduce the Sabbath to them. Later, it was incorporated into the terms of God's covenant with THEM (Exodus 20, 31:13-17, Deuteronomy 5).
In the New Testament, we learn that the Sabbath (like all of the provisions of Torah) pointed to Jesus of Nazareth - that he was the Sabbath-rest made for all of humankind. Jesus taught that the Israelites had abused the Sabbath and failed to comprehend its true significance. He taught that it was within God's will to do "his" work on that day (loving, serving, and healing others). Jesus said: "Come to me, all ye who labour and are burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28, DBY) Finally, in the epistle to the HEBREWS, we read: "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his." (Hebrews 4:8-10)
Historically, Sabbath observance among Christians ended in the First Century and did NOT reemerge until much later (during the Protestant Reformation). The first organized effort to observe the Seventh Day by Christians occurred over 1,500 years later among a group of Baptists in England during the late 16th Century and early 17th Century (Now known as Seventh Day Baptists). What happened in the Fourth Century was a recognition of the then current situation within the Roman Empire. Constantine merely formalized what had become the practice of most of his subjects (both Christian and pagan) - that is worship on Sunday. For Christians, their attachment to this particular day of the calendar arose from their celebration of Christ's resurrection, and their desire to distinguish themselves from their Jewish brethren. As I already mentioned, we know that Sabbath and Festival observance had completely disappeared among Christians by the close of the First Century (as the writings of Ignatius and Justin Martyr make clear).
Read Romans 7. And, a covenant is an agreement about law, not the law itself.
BP8 2:24 wrote, “So according to this reasoning, when Paul was appealing to the Corinthians (ch.9) for assistance, quoting from the law of Moses and using it as his authority, and altering the meaning to suit his own need, he was wrong for doing so?”
What you have cited about Paul supports the New Testament view of the Law of Moses – it has ethical value but the letter is obsolete. (Paul famously states that "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.") So, Paul took the liberty to use the spiritual meaning of this law about muzzling the ox. But this is what Herman Hoeh says about changing the Law:
“God will not alter his spiritual laws. The spiritual laws describe the very character of God … “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today, and for ever” … the spiritual laws could not change.” (This includes the Decalogue, statutes, judgements and ordinances – defined within this same article.)
Rod Meredith wrote:
“Remember, (Mat. 5:17-20) that even the least commandment is still very much in force!”
So, the liberty Paul took as a Christian does not exist in your world as an Armstrongist. (A suggestion. If you see a principle in the Bible and it does not match your Armstrongist theology, then you have a problem to resolve.)
Scout
Note: On the other hand, I believe the Armstrongist ministry reserves the right to loosen and bind any divine mandate. This principle renders the entire Law of Moses as moot. GTA advanced the doctrine that loosing and binding only applied in those areas where the Bible had not spoken. I believe HWA denounced his sons view on this. As I recall it had to do with the fact that GTA did not specifically say that loosing and binding decisions had to pass though HWA. I don't know where the doctrine stands now within the divergent Armstrongist denominations.
Some excellent and informative comments made on the topic in hand.
As someone who observes the 7th day as the Sabbath I would like to acknowledge also the many outstanding Christians down through the ages who have made remarkable contributions for the betterment of society, be it in medicine and health, the arts, science, politics , welfare etc etc who kept Sunday as their day of worship and were motivated by their faith in Jesus to improve the lot of their fellow mankind. Who never heard of HWA or the cog movement. We always need to tread lightly with these subjects, as to which day is the day. For there are weightier matters to always consider.
After rereading my last comment, I realized that my language at the end was a bit intemperate. It is inaccurate to state that Sabbath and festival observance had COMPLETELY disappeared among Christians by the close of the First Century. It is more precise to say that it had almost disappeared by the close of the First Century.
Loosing and binding can only apply to details such as holy day dates. You can't have members and groups rolling up at different dates. Contrary to what "date dissidents" claim, the topic is complex and debatable. So a church body, after exercising its duty of care, can set firm dates which God will bind in heaven.
Mark 2:27: The Pharisees accused the disciples of breaking the Sabbath by plucking heads of grain. When Jesus concluded his reply with, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath." This means we were not made for Sabbathkeeping, but the Sabbath was for our benefit. So simply plucking some heads of grain when hungry was nothing over which to freak out. Also, Jesus' authority is greater than that of the Sabbath anyway -- he is its Lord -- he is not in subjection to a day he himself created.
Isaiah 58:13: The prophet exhorted Israel to be righteous and the observe the Sabbath as God commanded them. It's a leap to say he gave the Saturday Sabbath "to the human race." Through the apostles and the Body of Christ, Christians still have a day for rest, one in which we delight. It's the "first day of the week."
Anon 10:40:23:
I addressed most of these points in the post. But about your point #3: Are you saying Sunday was not observed by Christians before Constantine in the fourth century? If so, why do you believe that?
See, for example, what Ignatius -- the martyred bishop of Antioch -- wrote in A.D. 110:
"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death — whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master — how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?" (Chapter 8 of his epistle to the Magnesians).
BP8,
You are correct that, as a Catholic, I do not believe in "sola fide," and I believe we must obey Jesus. Sins can be mortal, and if we don't repent of them, they cause us to lose salvation.
Are sacraments required for salvation? The short answer is yes, beginning with baptism. This does not mean God cannot save us apart from the sacraments, but they are the ordinary means of salvation that we can bank on.
So while the thief on the cross presumably never received water baptism, that doesn't mean Jesus was unable to save him; but neither does it make water baptism optional for us. If Jesus offers us salvation through baptism, and we reject baptism, then we reject salvation.
From MYSTERY OF THE AGES by Herbert W. Armstrong (copyright 1985), pages 284-285:
In about A.D. 365 the Catholic Council of Laodicea wrote in one of its most famous canons: “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather, honouring the Lord's Day. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.” This was a virtual sentence to torture and/or death. The false church did not herself put true believers to death, but caused them to be put to death (Rev. 13:15). This decree of A.D. 365 definitely shows that there were true Christians observing the Sabbath.
RSK said “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”
Then stop doing it, RSK.
The Wrong Sabbath Day in the Americas
Unless the earth is flat, 2-dimensional, observance of a seventh-day Sabbath requires that somewhere on the globe there be an International Dateline, which indicates the time when a new day starts. Presently, the dateline is in the Pacific Ocean. But, where would it have been on the first day of Creation?
Here’s a plain fact. To observe a Seventh Day Sabbath, on the dates and in the required manner of Sabbatarian Churches in the Americas, the earth must be flat, not a sphere.
After the Sabbath was created, has anyone or any culture or any religion had the authority to change it? Or, since its creation has the Seventh-Day Sabbath remained in force across the entire world in continual, uninterrupted weekly (exact seven-day) sequences?
Clearly, if the Sabbath Day continued without change or interruption, unchanged by any humans, from its creation, then in 1491 and the years before, the Sabbath would have originated and continued with humans when they first came from Asia into the New World, the Americas.
But, in 1492 Columbus and his men brought to the New World the weekly sequence of days being ancestrally observed in the Old World, since the Creation and the Garden of Eden.
Likewise, Sabbath keepers from Europe have always brought with them and observed the weekly Sabbaths in uninterrupted sequence from Europe. Hence, there is a major Sabbath-keeping conflict. The world isn’t flat. The Sabbath was in the Americas before Europeans were.
If the Sabbath, since its origin with humans in the Garden of Eden, continued with humans as they dispersed across the entire World without change or interruption, clearly, Biblically, the International Dateline must then be in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean; not the Pacific Ocean.
Before 1492, humans living in the Americas, for thousands of years, for Biblical accuracy would have been obligated to keep or observe each week the Sabbath in continuous, exact seven-day intervals their ancestors would have carried with them when they migrated from Asia to the Americas.
So, historically and scripturally, the Biblical International Dateline must be in the Atlantic Ocean, not the Pacific. Consequently, each week’s Sabbath in the New World begins authentically at sundown on each present week’s Thursday evening; not at sundown on Friday evening.
Since 1492, Europeans trying to keep the Sabbath in the New World have utterly disregarded the Biblical International Dateline, which clearly must be in the Atlantic. For all of these centuries American Sabbath-keepers have utterly failed; have not actually kept the geographically-true Sabbath in the Americas. They’ve been off by a day; a day late — as though the world were flat and had no International Dateline.
If Sabbath-keeping is a prerequisite and condition for salvation, thousands of American Sabbath-keepers have gone to their graves without salvation. In the New World, a day late each week. The world isn’t flat. It requires an International Dateline, which, historically and scripturally must be in the Atlantic, not the Pacific. Authentically, today in the Americas, each weekly Sabbath begins at sundown each Thursday. It’s been that way since the first humans came from the Old World to the New World, long before 1492. Merely for convenience, no one can change that historical fact or obligation.
Satan has deceived much of mankind, so there are sincere Christians who believe that Sunday is the Sabbath day. God in His mercy will not hold this against them. However if such a person is made aware that the Sabbath is on Saturday, they have to choose the right day. Otherwise they are obeying man rather than God, which is the mark of the beast.
What were the Catholics to do? The sabbaths had already been done-away (Colossians 2:16-17), so why not choose the common day of rest in the Roman empire which also fulfills the one day of seven principal. This worked fine 1700 years until the 7th day Baptists and egg-white objected.
I grew up with the WCG weekly disparaging far better Christians (e.g. those in my extended family) who didn't attend on Saturday while those that did were regularly drinking like fish later that evening.
Informing Versus Attacking
The Worldwide Church of God taught the Plain Truth about Sunday, X-mass, Easter, Halloween, etc. It would often do this at appropriate times. This was not “attacking” but rather merely informing people.
The Roman Catholic church, in contrast, taught lies about the Sabbath, Annual Holy Days, etc. It would cause the Roman Empire to actually physically attack, torture, and kill people for observing the Sabbath and not observing Sunday. This seems to be satanic.
There is a BIG difference between informing people of biblical truth and physically attacking and killing people for not going along with unbiblical, man-made, pagan-based, demon-inspired customs like Sunday-keeping.
Which shows that the True Church was still around, holding fast to the truth once delivered by the Apostles.
Why would the Sabbath be done away with if everyone was then going to want/need another weekly day to meet on anyway?
Why switch over from the biblical Sabbath to the pagan Sunday?
Anonymous 6:01
HWA's citation of the Council of Laodicea is hardly evidence of anything. All we know is that it is directed towards Christians who rested on the Sabbath. Further, they were Judaizers.
This could be a description of any number of different heretical sects. For instance, the Gnostics attempted to keep the Law of Moses. One cannot just leap from the Council of Laodicea to the concl/ausion that true Christians keep the Sabbath. Much research has to be done to establish this.
Scout
God might have implemented the Sabbath with the creation of the angels. God resting on the seventh day of creation and making it holy might have been a reaffirmation of the date.
Was it the common day of rest throughout the Roman Empire?
Now see, that actually makes a degree of sense - HWA's "The Resurrection was not on Sunday" fury always struck me as odd in one quarter... having such a massive event as the resurrection on the Sabbath just seemed off to me somehow. It doesn't seem like the most restful activity.
Now granted, depending on how you frame it, maybe someone has an aphorism that makes it make sense to them, I don't know. Maybe I'm reading too much into the notion. It just didn't seem to fit the story.
So if I delve into total speculation here... is it possible that as the religion spread through the Gentiles, the uniquely Jewish meaning of the wavesheaf offering was lost on them entirely?
Sure 6:10 - one of these days you'll say something useful, but I'm not holding my breath.
" It would cause the Roman Empire to actually physically attack, torture, and kill people for observing the Sabbath and not observing Sunday."
Not being a major student of Roman history, when exactly did this happen and to who?
So to summarize...... There are no Christians among jews....? Nck
Perhaps the 7th day Adventists in my family who were sent to Theresienstadt in 1942 because they were jews.... Perhaps not...
Well, Anon 1030, you are wrong. You have accepted the false teachings of Herbert Armstrong.
@12:42 "Why switch over from the biblical Sabbath to the pagan Sunday?"
Why not? The apostle to the gentiles had already abolished the Jewish Sabbath (Col 2:16)
RSK - As I understand it HWA said that Jesus was indeed resurrected just before sunset on the Sabbath ( that is three days after a Wednesday crucifixion), but at that point he had not left the earth to be presented to His father in heaven.
In fact he makes that point in John 20, speaking to Mary Magdalene, that he had 'not yet ascended to my Father'. So He had been resurrected, but had not yet performed the wave sheaf fulfilment, which happened at the correct time on that Sunday morning.
The timing would be based on three days and three nights after his being placed in the tomb.
“And it shall come to pass
That from one new moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD.
“And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
(Isaiah 66:23-24, NKJV)
It looks like the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Evilutionists, and everyone else will have to get with the program and observe God's Sabbaths at some point, or else be put out of their misery.
"...Ignatius -- the martyred bishop of Antioch -- wrote in A.D. 110:..."
If he is actively preaching against God's instructions he is not a bishop of God's Church. Anicetus of Rome was guilty of the same thing, abandoning the observance of the Passover in favor of Easter. Virtually everyone held up by the RCC as a "church father" taught against God. They ignore the teachings of the Apostles in favor of the doctrines of men.
"So while the thief on the cross presumably never received water baptism, that doesn't mean Jesus was unable to save him;..."
The thief on the cross was not saved. He will be resurrected following the millennium along with countless others. Catholicism twists and perverts everything.
You are, in fact, lying 1032; and I suspect you generally only think in binary terms. Do you know that the Lord's commandments are not simply what you consider to be "The Law"?
Also, the exact opposite of saturday observance is not Sunday observance. For Christians to observe the Law of Christ is not the exact opposite of the Children of Israel observing the Law (of course, Israel failed at keeping the Law...just like you).
It seems so disingenuous for anyone associated with Armstrongism to talk about being attacked as sabbath keepers when the very hook that Armstrong used was to claim Sunday keepers are deceived and/or rebellious and are not really Christian.
It's sad to see those who do not want anybody including God to tell them what to do on certain days of the week and year to make statements like "specific commandment to honor one's father and mother.......is no longer necessary" and "The letter has been vacated......", twisting the scriptures to their own destruction, particularly Col 2:16-17 where Paul says only those in the church should do the judging, not that the sabbath has been abolished.
Since once again we are on the topic of the law, I have a question for any professing Evangelicals and Politicians who might be tuned in to our discussion: Do the ninth commandment and the Golden Rule apply to the Haitians within our gates???
"It's sad to see those who do not want anybody including God to tell them what to do on certain days of the week and year"
You are bearing false witness. Christians continually check their behavior in order to please God. But, yet you continue to say this.
Armstrong and his ministers also continued to say that. Ironic, as God does not want you to bear false witness ANY day of the week.
Anonymous 12:39
Far more important, do the ninth commandment and the Golden Rule apply to Donald Trump. If so, someone neeeds to tell him. I have seen no evidence of either commandment in his behavior.
Scout
Anonymous 9:23
I am struck by the unalloyed irony of your sound bite. You condemn the scripture twisters and in the same sentence assert yourself a twisted version of Colossians 2:16-17.
Scout
Anonymous 10:40 wrote, "The Sabbath, instituted at creation (Genesis 2:2-3), is a command for all of humanity, not just Israel, and reflects God’s ongoing desire for His people to rest and worship."
If you had not included the phrase "a command" I would agree with your statement. You neglected to mention that the word Sabbath does not occcur in the Genesis neither is there a command given to anyone to observe the seventh day in Genesis.
The Creation statement about the seventh day did set the stage for Israel to receive the Sabbath just as ancient Israel's Sabbath, a shadow of Jesus, set the stage for Christians to rest from sin in Christ - Christ who is our Sabbath.
Scout
Week by week, month by month- Isaiah is just referring to the passage of time.
Rev 21:
23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.
Kinda hard to figure out the month or day of the week there.
Those are great things to talk about, but I was just showing that Sunday was observed early on by Christians -- long, long before Constantine.
Ignatius was far from "under Roman influence," for he was martyred by the Roman authorities for his Christian witness.
Most folks here are probably aware of this, but for those that might not have heard of it:
https://romeschallenge.com/
All of you Sunday keepers had better follow Darren's lead.
You probably remember Lloyd's article some 25+ years ago on the Roman Catholic Church. I think it was titled "America's Greatest Sin" or something like that. I'd love to find a copy of it.
Found it!
https://www.cgi.org/americas-greatest-sin
I believe I see a path emerging in which the persecution HWA forecast for his church members for sabbath keeping is a distinct possibility. It's just not going to come from the source (Catholic Church) which HWA had cited.
Many have wondered how such a ridiculous figure with such absurd ideas as J. D. Vance could exist. He is part of the Christian Nationalist movement, a growing subset of the US population, which wants the United States to declare itself as a Christian nation, and to begin modifying the law of the land and the Constitution to reflect this in every way. The people who drafted Project 2025 are part of this group. It is difficult to see these folks as embracing people who deny the Trinity, and keep a Saturday sabbath. Obviously all of us who would be challenging these people should they enforce their wish list would be in trouble. However, those who challenge them on a religious basis would most likely be amongst the first to attract their attention.
It is very important to pay attention to what our politicians actually say what they intend to do. We are not living in times when normal American paradigms or traditions can be expected to continue.
Just to briefly answer The COG Catholic
Jesus fulfilling the wave sheaf offering. Nice that you agree, but I do understand the implication you put to it, which I may not!
Acts 20 - we agree again! But for very different reasons. Yes it clearly was planned for the first day of the week. but the reason it was planned for that day was that Paul was leaving the next day.
Verse 7 shows they were coming together for a meal ( No doubt in honour of Paul, prior to him leaving the next morning), and to hear him speak. Had he been leaving on the fifth day of the week, you wouldn't be surprised if they had a meal and heard him speak on the fourth day afternoon/evening would you?
Did they really get hungry at night you ask. They were there from the Sunday afternoon, through to at least dawn Monday morning - so yes, I know I would get hungry. Most of the activity, including the resurrection of the person that fell out of the window, was after dark, so actually on the second day of the week, not the first day of the week, which you were suggesting!
The collection at Corinth. Paul's main point is not to leave the collecting until he gets there, better to do it on a regular basis before he gets there, and build things up for him to collect.
He is suggesting doing it after the Sabbath, but that is different to pulling a sheep out of a ditch on the Sabbath - the sheep would be an emergency that has just happened, a regular collection is something planned in advance, with the suggestion that individuals calculate how much they can afford to donate each week. In such a planned event, why not avoid the Sabbath, and wait till after sunset?
Anon 5:13:32:
Most folks here are probably aware of this, but for those that might not have heard of it:
https://romeschallenge.com/
All of you Sunday keepers had better follow Darren's lead.
Ah, yes. “Rome’s Challenge” is good, but the Protestant denomination calling itself Seventh-Day Adventism — along its Protestant progeny, which includes the Protestant COG denominations — misunderstands Cardinal Gibbons.
I will be happy to address this as time permits. I look forward to it — because it’s good. He writes similar things in his excellent book which I’m still reading, Faith of Our Fathers.
I meant to do this earlier after I saw it discussed by HWA’s great-grandson Michael a year or two back. It's on my blog to-do list now. Thanks.
I had not read 'Rome's Challenge' before.
He did a better job than I did to destroy your arguments for switching to Sunday by using the scriptures, and showing that using the Bible as your source you should be keeping a Saturday Sabbath.
But obviously he was keeping a Sunday Sabbath himself, and the reason is fairly apparent even in these articles. However his Biblical logic is generally on track!
You are a silly pearl clutcher, anon740.
All of these disagreements were predicted in scripture…
Arguing over days of worship, food, meanings of words and the proper application of Jewish law.
All of this proves the Bible is true. The writings of false prophets are deluded lies of varying degrees.
For the record anon 12:27:52 above was actually me. I never post anonymously, but was using a different terminal and did so accidently. So just identifying myself
The people responsible for canonizing the New testament were not sabbath keepers. Given their understanding of the issues of the early church, they did not believe the New Testament contradicted their beliefs. But, I suppose Armstrong knew better 1600-1700 years later.
Last night I reread "Rome's Challenge," having found an old scanned and archived PDF version of the "original" booklet entitled The Christian Sabbath.
I would like to withdraw my endorsement of it, because now I am highly suspicious of its authenticity.
I last read it over 20 years ago, and at the time I did so while focusing on the issue of "sola Scriptura" (the false, unworkable, novel Protestant theory of "Bible alone"). Back then, my simplistic summary of it would have been, "See, if all you have to go by is the Bible, then all you Protestants might as well be keeping the Sabbath, because the Bible does not spell out a transference to Sunday with a 'thus sayeth the Lord!'"
But now I am more well-read and better understand Catholic thought, and this piece looks terribly, terribly suspicious -- not authentic.
At first I assumed the unnamed writer was going to exaggerated lengths to "steel man" the SDA arguments -- which is to say, to present SDA arguments in the strongest terms possible, rather than present easier to knock down "straw man" arguments. Indeed this would be the honest and best approach.
But then he never explains the strong answers to the arguments. I have never seen a genuine Catholic teacher leave such an egregiously false impression that its own beliefs were irreconcilably opposed to Holy Scripture. That's not how Catholic apologetic documents have ever been written. No one leaves the "devil's advocate" position unanswered.
The piece contradicts catechisms and other actually official Catholic treatments of the subject matter, let alone common sense.
For example, the authoritative Catechism of the Council of Trent (a.k.a., the "Roman Catechism") says,
"The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day. St. John in the Apocalypse makes mention of the Lord's day; and the Apostle commands collections to be made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the interpretation of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's day. From all this we learn that even then the Lord's day was kept holy in the Church."
Yet the so-called "Rome's Challenge," promoted by SDAs, insists that the "Lord's Day" always means the eschatalogical "day of the Lord," and that "The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her Divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday" -- leaving the very false impression that this "change" occured a few hundred years after the New Testament was written. That is a horribly false explanation.
Sure, the Church eventually transferred the Sabbath Commandment to Sunday for Christians -- but it was the apostles themselves that did it!
It's not unlike circumcision. We have no record of Jesus saying circumcision was no longer to be observed, and there's no clear "cut" (pardon the pun) Old Testament scripture predicting the cessation of the command to circumcise.
But after much controversy, it was the Church leaders that came together in Council (Acts 15) and put its binding stamp of approval on the Christian understanding of circumcision and the law of Moses. So in that sense, one could say that the Church "changed" circumcision (a law of God), but we would never dare imply the Church defiantly rejected God's command to circumcise. There's more context to it than that.
For anyone interested, I found an interesting accusation against "Rome's Challenge" at https://youtu.be/ibpe26Q26dU
Anyway, since there is no shame in admitting when one is wrong, I want to apologize for my quick defense of "Rome's Challenge." What I said about it earlier was wrong.
I may still one day write about it more comprehensively.
@ Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 12:27:52 PM PDT
Yes he's saying that if you are going to keep Sunday you had better convert to Catholicism, otherwise you are without excuse. Sunday is the domain of Rome. You cannot reject Rome while following her doctrines. It makes you a hypocrite. That's probably why the poster said Sunday keepers should follow Darren's lead.
""The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day. St. John in the Apocalypse makes mention of the Lord's day; and the Apostle commands collections to be made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the interpretation of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's day. From all this we learn that even then the Lord's day was kept holy in the Church.""
The Apostles never consecrated the first day of the week. If they had done such a thing it would have been recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. It would have been a MAJOR change that would have required a lot of explanation from them.
Collections on the first day of the week is clearly collecting produce and goods, not on the Sabbath, but on Sunday so that when Paul came by he could load up quickly and be on his way.
And in context, the "Lord's Day" is clearly the Day of the Lord, the return of Jesus Christ. It clearly is not any particular day of the week.
And as for circumcision, the Apostles were recognizing what God had done, which was pour out His Holy Spirit on the uncircumcised gentiles. So clearly circumcision was not a requirement, per God's own revelation. They did not "do away with the circumcision requirement", they simply recognized what God had done. Circumcision was particular to the covenant with Abraham. It has nothing to do with salvation.
And by the way, Rome's Challenge was put out by the Roman Catholic Church, in it's own publication. Catholic doctrine is constantly changing. It's no wonder you find it to contradict today's thought processes in the RCC.
Yes just look at all of the changes happening under Francis. I expect openly homosexual priests will become the norm at the rate they're going.
After reading through all of the comments and linked material I've concluded that anyone with a modicum of common sense would stay far away from the Catholic Church if they believe the bible to be the word of God.
Anon 08:04:
After looking over this entire site, where would you say the Bible-believing person blessed with an abundance of common sense is drawn?
You said earlier in this thread that you believe you must obey Jesus yet you staunchly defend Catholicism. It's like saying I must travel to the East while going West. Catholic arguments are so smooth and subtle, gently misleading the hearer. They sound just like the serpent talking to Eve.
Rome's Challenge is a real eye-opener. Add to that the changes being pushed by your current Pope and we can see in real time how the teachings of the Catholic Church change.
God says that He does not change. Therefore people should stay far away from Catholicism.
Jesus asked whey they called Him Lord but didn't do what He said to do. People with any common sense should be drawn to their bible and do what Jesus said to do. And He made it clear that keeping the 7th day Sabbath is what He wants us to do. He did it Himself and we are told to walk as He walked.
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/09/yes-our-need-for-rest-is-even-greater.html
Interesting conversation happening here. All one really needs to do is backtrack through history and you will come to the point where a breakaway group formed. They began abandoning God's law and adopting the pagan rites that surrounded them. Anicetus, bishop of Rome, was mentioned and he is a very good example of that. He ceased to observe the Passover choosing instead to adopt Easter, a pagan fertility rite, in the "worship" of our Creator.
Later came the adoption of the trinity, a variation of the 3 Roman gods being worshipped by the people of the time.
The list is endless.
Yes, Catholicism has nothing whatsoever to do with God.
Ronco at 6:56 PM,
It looks like the people who do not obey God's Sabbath commandment during the coming millenium (a 1,000 year period) will not make it into the even later time of the new earth that you mentioned.
Actually, they were. The people that try to take the credit for the Canon were not.
Anons:
“…anyone with a modicum of common sense would stay far away from the Catholic Church…”
“[Catholics] sound just like the serpent talking to Eve.”
“Rome's Challenge is a real eye-opener.”
“…changes being pushed by your current Pope…”
“Catholicism has nothing whatsoever to do with God.”
LOL! Sounds good, but how do you answer these equally good “arguments”?
…anyone with a modicum of common sense would stay far away from the Armstrong COGs…
COGs sound just like the serpent talking to Eve.
The book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is a real eye-opener.
…changes being pushed by your current Pastor General…
Armstrongism has nothing whatsoever to do with God.
Oh Darren, Darren, Darren, you've resorted to the tactics of Saul Alinsky, which means you have no logical counter argument. It means you lost.
I don't see how those qualify as good arguments. They are merely assertions with nothing to back them up. The arguments against Catholicism are presented with facts to substantiate them.
Unfortunately, it is the Sabbatarians who have presented the weakest arguments in this thread! Sunday observance, in honor of our Lord's resurrection on that day, began before an ekklesia in Rome existed. All four Gospels associate Christ's resurrection with Sunday, and the argument that Christ was not resurrected on that day is without merit. Moreover, there is NO EVIDENCE that it began as a replacement for the Sabbath!
Christ said that he would be three days and three nights in the earth. As someone has already pointed out, that means his dead body - his corpse. The time does NOT start until he was actually laid in the tomb. I encourage everyone to reread the various accounts. In them, it is made clear that they had to hurry and barely had time to place his body in the tomb before sundown (Joseph of Arimathea did not want to violate the Sabbath). Hence, Christ had to have been resurrected after sundown, after the Sabbath had ended. And, as every good Armstrongite should know, in the Jewish reckoning of time, the next day begins at sundown - that means SUNDAY began Saturday sundown!
Now, while the Roman Catholic Church can rightly claim to be among the earliest efforts by humans to organize the ekklesia, their claims to have inaugurated Sunday or to have changed Passover to Easter are NOT supported by actual history. The truth is that the Bishop of Rome did not exert much influence outside of its bishopric until the reign of Leo I (the Great) in the Fifth Century! Moreover, the first "pope" to exercising anything like the modern authority of that office was Pope Gregory I, who reigned over one hundred years after Leo! So, we can see that the ekklesia had settled the basic tenets of its theology long before anything like the present Roman Catholic Church existed.
The Sabbath, as with the sacrifices and rituals and festivals, pointed to Christ. Christ is God's true rest - the real Sabbath. It is in him that we rest from our own works and rely on HIS righteousness to make us right with God. It is ONLY through him that we can stand before God clean and whole! Finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Sabbath is a ritual that was made an integral part of God's covenant WITH ISRAEL! It was an action that was repeated every week for religious reasons and was observed sometimes in the manner prescribed by God. In other words, the very definition of a ritual!
"Unfortunately, it is the Sabbatarians who have presented the weakest arguments in this thread! "
It seems to be a common thing among those that deny the Law of God to make untrue statements and present them as fact.
"...it is made clear that they had to hurry and barely had time to place his body in the tomb before sundown (Joseph of Arimathea did not want to violate the Sabbath). " (that Sabbath being the first day of unleavened bread)
You contradict yourself. Here you say Christ's body was laid to rest just before sundown (which would result in a resurrection just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath) then go on to say He was resurrected after sunset on the first day of the week.
The resurrection was DISCOVERED on the first day of the week, before sunrise, and the tomb was already empty.
You have your own pre-conceived ideas and try to read them into the scriptures. It doesn't work.
"The truth is that the Bishop of Rome did not exert much influence outside of its bishopric..."
Oh but it did. Not by force, but by example. Others would notice what they were doing and would copy it, especially since they were basically pagan at heart. Abandoning the Passover in favor of Easter showed that they were not truly converted member of The Church. The people wanted to keep their Easter celebrations and Anicetus was too weak to stop it, so he went along with it. It could be said that that group in Rome went on to become the organization known as the Roman Catholic Church, although it took hundreds of years to consolidate. The True Church existed along side the "Catholic Church", as it does today.
Believe what you want, Lonnie. Repeating a lie over and over will not make it true. You might succeed in tricking some people into following your lead, but you won't trick God's people.
Christ is our rest? Why do people keep saying that? It makes no sense at all.
We broke God's law so Jesus came in human form to keep the law, suffer and die so we won't have to obey the law we were already disobeying. That is insanity.
In both Hebrew and Greek "days" and "nights" could refer in the context to 12 hours, or a few minutes, or the calendar day for "day" - cf Mark 14:30, or to daylight or darkness. Jesus could have been buried a few minutes during the darkness Friday afternoon, which left about 3 PM, to and including a few minutes of full darkness Saturday night and have been buried "3 days and 3 nights".
Jesus referenced Jonah which shows that He meant 3 full days and 3 full nights. You keep playing loose with the truth to try making the narrative fit your own desires.
There is a Greek idiom where "day" can mean part of the day. There is no such idiom in Hebrew.
You constantly contradict the scriptures but those with understanding see through your deception.
Go back and read the paper by Lloyd Cary that someone linked to earlier in this thread. It really puts this discussion to bed.
9/21 @ 9:45,
You have erected a straw man. I have NEVER attacked God's Law. I revere God's Law as expressed by Jesus of Nazareth. Regarding the resurrection, it is you who are trying to defend Herbert Armstrong's nonsense about it. It is you who are contradicting the Biblical narrative about Sabbath observance. To God's People, I would think that it would be very obvious that the resurrection could NOT have taken place before the Sabbath had ended. Even so, fortunately for you, our salvation is found in Christ, NOT in what you know or think you know! I do agree with you, though, that repeating a lie over and over again will NOT make it true!
Apparently, it involved a little too much effort for some folks to copy and paste the link which I provided. Hence, I'll supply the post for your benefit:
YES, Our Need for A Rest Is Even Greater Today Than It Was in the Past!
The following comment was made in response to an article by COG Catholic posted over at Banned by HWA:
Anonymous said...
Usually just one or two scriptures answer these type of discussions. e.g. the Sabbath was made FOR man - and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). And Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, and we should 'Call the Sabbath a delight'' (Isaiah 58:13). If it was given to the human race as a 'delight' and a rest day in the past - do we not today need even more of a rest from this crazy world? Tell me if you think my reasoning is wrong.
Saturday, September 14, 2024 at 11:06:00 AM PDT
My answer to this anonymous commentator's question is contained in the title of this post. Yes, we need even more of a rest from this crazy world today than folks in the past did, and that rest is found in the ONE whom the physical seventh day Sabbath pointed to: Jesus Christ! Indeed, he once said: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls." (Matthew 11:28-29, NLT) And another anonymous commentator once said: "For all who have entered into God’s rest have rested from their labors, just as God did after creating the world. So let us do our best to enter that rest." (Hebrews 4:10-11, NLT) We have this invitation to accept the true rest and peace of God. It is found in accepting and obeying Jesus Christ, our Savior!
Jonah would have to be swallowed AND spat out by the fish at exactly sunset or sunrise to be 72 hours/3 days and nights in the fish. Hmmmmmm.....
2Sam 3:35 KJV: And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was yet day, David sware, saying, So do God to me and more also, if I taste bread, or ought else, till the sun be down. "Day" is daylight, part of a 12 hour day.
One final thing, there is only one ekklesia which consists of everyone who has accepted Christ's offering on their behalf and in whom currently dwells the Holy Spirit of God. In this sense, ALL of the human organizations which claim to be God's Church are promulgating a falsehood. The false church/true church narrative is yet another one of Herbie's false narratives. Now, individually speaking, we could say that anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ is not really part of his ekklesia!
Anonymous:
We're obviously at a communications impasse. Either you are some other anonymous stated the 5 non-argument assertions which I quoted, and then I illustrated how unhelpful that was by replying with equally unhelpful assertions in the other direction.
Either you're trolling and gaslighting or you didn't catch what I was doing.
If you or anyone else wants to continue a discussion with me, please feel free to reach me on SimpleX.
SimpleX is a messenger for mobile or desktop. With SimpleX, I'll have no idea who you are unless you tell me. The web site is www.simplex.chat. Download it from there and add me as a contact through the link below. Or, just click the link below to be sent to the download page and I'll automatically be added to your contact list.
It will be easier to keep up with you that way, and distinguish you from other anonymous folks.
https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-7&smp=smp%3A%2F%2FSkIkI6EPd2D63F4xFKfHk7I1UGZVNn6k1QWZ5rcyr6w%3D%40smp9.simplex.im%2FK0H6to-qdtvAnt_07RZUriA9nNdlauSW%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-3%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAFP_X7T8XWNGKR0kVRytI3oL0F8n4v22PsI4HfmEBUS4%253D%26srv%3Djssqzccmrcws6bhmn77vgmhfjmhwlyr3u7puw4erkyoosywgl67slqqd.onion
That last sentence is true. And remember, the spirit of Christ will never lead one to violate the law of God. (or redefine it, as you have been trying to do)
...."accepting and obeying"....by observing the physical (shock: you are still physical) 7th day sabbath.
FWIW, I don't think anyone's mind will be changed but it is fascinating reading the exchanges. From where I sit the pro-sabbath arguments carry the day. It doesn't make sense to surgically remove one commandment and leave the other nine intact. Let every man be convinced in his own mind.
The only folks advocating deleting particular commandments are the Sabbatarians. They only pretend to obey the commandments they like and chuck the rest. Jesus fulfilled ALL of the Law and made the Old Covenant obsolete. Hence, ALL ten of the Ten are superfluous, unnecessary. If we truly love God and each other, we won't be stealing, murdering, lying, being unfaithful, dishonoring parents, etc. Nevertheless, YES, let everyone be guided by his/her own conscience.
Yes this has been a very enlightening and entertaining thread. Kudos to the moderator for letting the different points of view be published. It is interesting to see the thought processes of people.
Not meaning to prolong this thread but I can't help but notice Miller Jones last comment saying all ten of the commandments are superfluous and unnecessary but if we truly love God and each other we will follow them. So which is it? And does that include the Sabbath commandment?
"etc": having other gods, idols, taking God's name in vain, working on and not keeping the sabbath day holy.
All 10 will be in writing, on the books, not stricken from the record under the New Covenant.
10:41 Then you better start cracking! What about the holy days, clean and unclean, etc.?
8:20 We have reached an impasse. Since the Ten are based on the Two fundamental principles of God's Eternal and Universal Law, we would expect Christians to be acting in a way that is consistent with any of them which dealt with moral behavior.
Is there a reason you don't just say that Christians live by the 10 commandments? It seems to me you put a lot of effort into trying to convince everyone that they are done away with. Superfluous and unnecessary are the terms you used.
I would respectfully push back by saying if the Ten Commandments are superfluous and unnecessary because of the commands to love God and each other, then that would have been just as true in the day of Moses -- when the Decalogue was first presented.
I'm not prepared to say that about the two tablets of stone when they were still warm and freshly Fingered.
We all know Jesus quoted Leviticus 19:18 when he said "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." The Decalogue is and was a practical (though not exhaustive) summary of how to love God and neighbor.
Oh the holy days will be there too under the new covenant - cf Zech 14:16, [Acts 20:6,16 days existed after Christ's death], and, please don't eat tiger shrimp.
Well Lonnie, it looks like you've painted yourself into a corner, again. Out of the mouths of babes.....
COG Catholic,
The Ten Commandments (along with ALL of the other provisions of Torah) were the written terms of God's covenant with ISRAEL. They were relevant and necessary for the children of Israel. By trying to retain the portions of this written code and applying them to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, Catholics have ceded the Scriptural advantage to Sabbatarian Christians (Scripture does NOT authorize a change in the Sabbath commandment, and it does NOT give any individual Christian, or the ekklesia more generally speaking, the authority to change it!
The NEW Covenant makes the OLD one obsolete! Jesus revealed that the foundation of God's Law is LOVE - the Two Great Commandments found in Torah. It is these two principles which are written on the hearts of Christians. Hence, the written code is no longer necessary. God's people are governed by those two principles, and they cover ALL behavior for ALL people for ALL times. Nevertheless, a Sabbath rest remains for Christians - we rest from our own works in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ!
Is Leviticus 19:18, which Jesus quoted, also “obsolete”?
Or is it simply part of the Law that was never meant to be restricted to an old covenant with the nation of Israel?
I think we agree that, as a whole, the Mosaic Law is absolutely abrogated. But obviously it includes eternal principles for everyone — those before and after the time of Moses. That should come as no surprise.
For example, it has never been, and will never be, OK to worship any god beside the true God. Surely we all understand that. It’s not that we live by that truth because God said so through Moses, but because it’s simply true no matter our nationality. One should expect that God would include such universal truths and commands as part of any covenant with anyone.
"The Ten Commandments (along with ALL of the other provisions of Torah) were the written terms of God's covenant with ISRAEL."
God's covenant (agreement, contract) is about the law, it is not the law itself. God's covenant with Israel was for physical blessings for physical obedience to the law.
The New Covenant, is a new and better agreement about the same law. It promises spiritual blessings (rewards) for spiritual obedience. No longer is keeping the letter of the law sufficient. We know keep the spirit of the law.
One could totally trash someone's name to the point that no one would do business with them, but as long as you didn't physically kill him you hadn't broken the commandment against murder. Now, hatred can be the same as physical murder, because the spirit of the law would be broken.
So, no, the law and the covenant are not the same thing.
Ancient Israel kept the law because they had to whether or not they wanted to.
We keep the law because we want to, to show our love for God.
There is a big difference.
This thread has highlighted a level of confusion that's hard to fathom, except that we know Satan is behind it.
"Scripture does NOT authorize a change in the Sabbath commandment, and it does NOT give any individual Christian, or the ekklesia more generally speaking, the authority to change it!"
Ok Lonnie! We are in agreement on something!
So what is your excuse for lobbying so hard against Sabbath keeping?
COG Catholic,
Jesus specifically singled out the Two Great Commandments from Torah as being the foundation of God's Law. Jesus did that, not me, not any other commentator or organization. ALL of the formulas which have been developed for embracing some of the provisions of Torah and rejecting others are the result of HUMAN reasoning! The eternal principles are those TWO Commandments. Moreover, how could one worship another God if you truly LOVE THE GOD with your whole being?
9/23 @ 8:57,
The Law is an integral part of God's Covenant with Israel. Indeed, it is the foundation of that covenant - If the children of Israel obeyed those commandments, then they would be able to participate in the blessings promised to their ancestors. The New Covenant is based on Jesus Christ and his commandments, NOT on the iteration of God's Law known as the Law of Moses! Once again, the spirit of God's Law is summarized and encompassed in those Two Great Commandments. Christians don't hate or murder because both of those behaviors are inconsistent with the command to love your neighbor as yourself or as Christ has loved us! No, my friend, I feel none of the cognitive dissonance or confusion inherent in the Armstrongist view of the Law or salvation through Jesus Christ.
9/23 @ 9:48,
I am glad we are in agreement on this post. I have NEVER lobbied against Sabbath observance (I still observe it, and I've publicly listed my reasons for doing so). However, I have lobbied on behalf of the truth that keeping the physical Sabbath does NOT earn you anything. In other words, it is clear that Sabbath observance is NOT a requirement for the saints under the New Covenant. That is very different from being against Sabbath keeping. In past commentary on this subject, I have made very clear that Christians are free to gather on the Sabbath or the Lord's Day - to follow the dictates of their own consciences on the matter. In other words, Sabbath observance is NOT the mark of a "true" Christian.
So you support everyone doing what is right in their own eyes? Sabbath, or Sunday, which ever they choose?
COG Catholic,
Jesus specifically singled out the Two Great Commandments from Torah as being the foundation of God's Law. Jesus did that, not me, not any other commentator or organization. ALL of the formulas which have been developed for embracing some of the provisions of Torah and rejecting others are the result of HUMAN reasoning! The eternal principles are those TWO Commandments. Moreover, how could one worship another God if you truly LOVE THE GOD with your whole being?
---
If Jesus did that -- and if he is our example -- then I suppose we're safe to see things the way he did, following his same path of reason, correct?
Now, if Jesus said these two things:
1. "There are Two Great Commandments from Torah we should keep," and
2. "You should not embrace even some of the provisions of the Torah,"
then that would be a clear contradiction. Those two statements cannot both be true in the same way and at the same time. We can be confident he is a God of reason, not self-contradiction.
When you say the "eternal principles are those TWO Commandments," how is that different from what I've been saying -- that the Law contains obvious universal, moral laws (i.e., eternal principles) for all of us to obey? Or are you saying there are only TWO of them (which is surely not the case)?
Here is what doesn't make sense: Because Jesus says we should love God with our whole heart, you agree it's a SIN to have other gods before the true God, but you seem opposed to admitting we should obey the First Commandment -- which says to have no other gods before Him.
That doesn't compute. I mean this respectfully, as always, but it sounds like an irrational Protestant fear of being a labeled a "legalist." Recognizing that there are components of the Old Covenant that everyone should observe or obey is not legalism; it's just plain sense.
---
(By the way, if a particular instance of "human reasoning" is correct, then it is "right reason." Reason can be right or wrong, perfect or flawed, but not "human." "Human" does not always equal "wrong," because Jesus himself was fully human as he reasoned.)
You seem to be trying to separate the law from the foundation. The foundation of God's law is love. God says that if we love Him we will keep the commandments. They go together. You cannot love God and teach that the commandments are past.
COG Catholic,
The respect is mutual, but we are obviously not going to convince each other of the merits of our respective points of view. Hence, this will be my final post in this thread. After all, it's your post - so, you get the last word.
Unfortunately, in the two points which you made in your comment, you have created a bit of a straw man. The Two Great Commandments which JESUS pulled out of Torah are the ones which HE CHOSE to characterize as comprehending the WHOLE. Hence, Jesus, Paul, James, and John are the men who designated those Two Commandments as the foundation of the Law of Christ, NOT me. Catholics designate the Ten as being the foundation of God's Law and claim the authority to modify one of them (the Sabbath).
Finally, as we should all be able to agree that Christ's authority is preeminent in matters of Law, I fail to see why his choices of what to extract from Torah are inferior to what others have chosen to extract. Are you saying that Christ's decision to designate those two commandments from Torah is inconsistent with him having fulfilled ALL of the provisions of Torah and making the Old Covenant and its tenets obsolete? And I fail to see how having any god before THE GOD could be interpreted as being consistent with the commandment to love God with your whole being. You seem unable to acknowledge the fact that the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ have the same foundation.
That is how I read his position. This thread has really exposed Lonnie for what he is. Confused.
Post a Comment