-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why have Christians forgotten the fourth Commandment?
- Thread starter d.n.irvin
- Start date
mikmik
Member
Yes, they do. They claim a lot of strange things. But the real first Pope was Paul.
Ben
Actually, Acts 8 records the beginning of the Catholic church, and the origins of its first pope, Simon Magus, whom the Catholics falsly identify as Simon Peter.
mik
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
+++++++++++++++++
It's true that the Catholic Chruch was a continuation from original Christianity. But it actually did not start officially until the Fourth Century with Constantine and the Fathers of the Church who ilncremented the Church with the Gentile world.
Ben :shout
mikmik
Member
Right, I know that Constantine had a whole lot to do with the structure of beliefs in the church today. But if it actually started there in Acts 8, with Simon the Sorcerer, then that was birth of false Christianity, correct? Are we going to get a finger shaking for talking about that here? lol
Okay, let me tie in the Sabbath. I believe that this was the approximate time that the Sabbath actually changed, officially. The Catholic church has long admitted to changing the Sabbath to the first day of the week by church authority, and they have even gone as far as stating that no where in the Bible can evidence be found to support a Sunday Sabbath, that they believe they had the right to do it, and that tied in to the infallibility of the pope who could change it,, so was that Constatine then, officially??
mik
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hang on in there! Who said that nowhere in the NT can evidence be found for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first? The Church? They were probably bluffing for the exercising of religious power. This power belongs to Paul and not to any subsequent Pope or Church Father.
The Church effected the change no doubt, but the consent had been given by the first "Pope". Paul, that is, when he left the issue of a day, any day to keep at the dispoosal of the believer, by saying that it doesn't matter which day we choose to keep, because for the Lord it will be done. And even if we don't want to keep any
at all, it makes no difference for the Lord. That's in Romans 14:5,6. Anyway, he
included the Sabbath among the Jewish things which were shadows of things to
come. (Col. 2:16,17)
Ben
mikmik
Member
It was quite a lengthy study and write up by Cardinal Gibbons. The Christian Sabbath (Catholic Mirror - Wikisource)
Here is what they had to say about the Sabbath and the new Testament...
...Examining the New Testament from cover to cover, critically, we find the Sabbath referred to sixty-one times. We find, too, that the Saviour invariably selected the Sabbath (Saturday) to teach in the synagogues and work miracles. The four Gospels refer to the Sabbath (Saturday) fifty-one times.
In one instance the Redeemer refers to Himself as "the Lord of the Sabbath," as mentioned by Matthew and Luke, but during the whole record of His life, whilst invariably keeping and utilizing the day (Saturday), He never once hinted at a desire to change it. His apostles and personal friends afford to us a striking instance of their scrupulous observance of it after His death, and, whilst His body was yet in tomb, St. Luke, 23d chap. 56 verse informs us: "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested on the sabbath day according to the commandment." "but on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came, bringing the spices they had prepared." The "spices" and "ointments" had been prepared Good Friday evening, because "the Sabbath drew near." 54 Verse. This action on the part of the personal friends of the Saviour, proves beyond contradiction that after His death they kept "holy" the Saturday, and regarded the Sunday as any other day of the week. Can anything, therefore, be more conclusive than the apostles and the holy women never knew any Sabbath but Saturday, up to the day of Christ's death?
We now approach the investigation of this interesting question for the next thirty years, as narrated by the evangelist, St. Luke, in his Acts of the Apostles. Surely some vestige of the canceling act can be discovered in the practice of the Apostles during that protracted period.
But, alas! we are once more doomed to disappointment. Nine times do we find the Sabbath referred to in the "Acts," but it is the Saturday (the old Sabbath). Should our readers desire the proof, we refer them to chapter and verse in each instance. Acts 13c., 14v.; again, same chapter, 27v., again, 42v.; again, 44v. [Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44] Once more, 15c., 31v. [Acts16:13] Again, 17c., 2v.; [Acts 17:2] again 18c., 4v. [Acts 18:4] "And he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and Greeks." thus the Sabbath (Saturday) from Genesis to Revelation!!! Thus, it is impossible to find in the New Testament the slightest interference by the Saviour or his Apostles with the original Sabbath, but on the contrary, an entire acquiescence in the original arrangement; nay a plenary endorsement by Him, whilst living; and an unvaried, active participation in the keeping of that day and no other by the apostles, for thirty years after His death, as the Acts of the Apostles has abundantly testified to us.
Hence the conclusion is inevitable; viz., that of those who follow the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists have exclusive weight of evidence on their side...
This is from those that DON'T keep the Sabbath,, my oh my!
mik
InGodWeTrust
Member
You can argue about a long list of Christian laws but they grow from the one, to love others. So what if Jesus boiled it down to two, Love God, love your Neighbor?
Carnal laws are what are spoken of by Paul, that we are free of. Think about what that word means. Normally Christian pastors will talk about "the flesh" as in our flesh. Another way of looking at it is that it means flesh as in the flesh of animals.
We do not have to keep the old laws concerning killing animals as sacrifice or cutting our own flesh, as in circumcision. Those old laws are part of a system of justification involving sacrifices that did not make us justified in a manner of speaking of the kind of work inside us.
To make a direct comparison between the two systems, on one hand there is a law being broken and the solution is to follow the other law concerning sacrifices: on the other hand you break the law and through Christ who justifies us we are free to go about subjugating that nature inside us that made us break the law. The Spirit that can be in us because we were first justified, can work to bring us into conformity to the law.
Both systems are based on the same Moral Law but one had a carnal law (the law of sin and death), and one has the law of Christ (the law of Spirit and life).
Last edited:
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no problem with Jesus. I know he observed the Shabbat on the seventh day.
But Paul didn't. That's what I mean. To Paul it made no difference which day one chooses to keep as long as he or she does to the Lord.
Ben
mikmik
Member
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no problem with Jesus. I know he observed the Shabbat on the seventh day.
But Paul didn't. That's what I mean. To Paul it made no difference which day one chooses to keep as long as he or she does to the Lord.
Ben
If their pope was in the Bible and could somehow be interpreted to be canceling the Sabbath, wouldn't they cling to that? Paul wasn't the first pope. (I feel like,, if we were in a room together, this would be the part where I'd yell out 'Was not!'.. and stomp my foot on the ground and stick out my tongue at you!!)
mik
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Take it easy mikmik! That's not the end of the world. Of course, Paul was not the first Pope in the sense that we have the Pope today. But if you dare to tell me that Peter was the first Pope, then we will be back at square one sticking our tongues at each other. Paul is much closer to the Papacy than Peter. Here's a syllogism: The Pope is a Christian, Paul was the first Christian, therefore Paul was the first Pope. Peter was never a Christian. Peter was a Nazarene. And the realation between Nazarenes and Christians was always bellicose.
Ben
mikmik
Member
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Take it easy mikmik! That's not the end of the world. Of course, Paul was not the first Pope in the sense that we have the Pope today. But if you dare to tell me that Peter was the first Pope, then we will be back at square one sticking our tongues at each other. Paul is much closer to the Papacy than Peter. Here's a syllogism: The Pope is a Christian, Paul was the first Christian, therefore Paul was the first Pope. Peter was never a Christian. Peter was a Nazarene. And the realation between Nazarenes and Christians was always bellicose.
Ben
No no.. I said "Actually, Acts 8 records the beginning of the Catholic church, and the origins of its first pope, Simon Magus, whom the Catholics falsly identify as Simon Peter." I don't believe for a minute that it was Peter or Paul, but Simon Magus (Simon the Scorcerer).
And no more rolling the eyes at me.. I'll take the little 'are you crazy' heads instead.. those little dudes really speak to me.. But not to worry, when I take my happy pills, they stop!!
mik
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No mikmik, according to my researches on the subject of the Catholic Church it officially started in the Fourth Century. Although they do claim Peter (the Apostle)
as their first Pope. A wish thinking, or effort to make of Peter a Christian, when in truth, he never had anything to do with Christianity.
Ben :sorry1:
mikmik
Member
Ben, I'm trying to agree with you here. I agree that Peter was not the first pope and in fact had nothing to do with starting the Catholic church.
You said that you keep the Sabbath, and I asked before but I don't think that you answered,, do you keep any of the annual Sabbaths,, Holy Days? If that is private info, just tell me NOYB.. I'll get over it.
mik
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
++++++++++++++===
No, it's not private. I do celebrate the Jewish holidays. You can call them sabbaths; no matter. I even fast twice a year: On the ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur. But I still don't understand why you need to know theses things.
Ben
Last edited:
AK4
Well-Known Member
++++++++++++++===
No, it's not private. I do celebrate the Jewish holidays. You can call them sabbaths; no matter. I even fast twice a year: On the ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur. But I still don't understand why you need to know theses things.
Ben
It explains your positions. What does suprise me about you is that although you only pick and choose which verses and books of the NT you believe at least you believe some of it.
mikmik
Member
++++++++++++++===
No, it's not private. I do celebrate the Jewish holidays. You can call them sabbaths; no matter. I even fast twice a year: On the ninth of Av and on Yom Kippur. But I still don't understand why you need to know theses things.
Ben
Just trying to get a feel for where you are coming from is all. I too have been a bit confused by how much of the NT you accept, yet don't accept. My fast is coming, next month just before Feast of Tabernacles. That is the only one involved with the Sabbaths, but we do have an extra fasting day from time to time for church needs, or personal reasons. Day of Atonement is pretty much so the only Sabbath that I don't really delight in! I actually have a huge amount of respect for the Jewish faith, parially because I do believe that my faith has the same roots, and parially because I feel like Jews have been through so much, yet have managed to hold on to so much of who they are, and what is important. I don't feel like, over all, Christianity faired so well.
mik
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Now see? I thought the Da Vinci code was the only good conspiracy read! Here I have been given all sorts of conspiracies based on even LESS than the Da Vinci code. Whodathunk?
When I study the scriptures, and I accept all of them for what they are, I do so with the emphasis on how they apply to ME. In other words, I take an active roll in trying to grow into the Grace of God. Some however, seem to delight in needless controversy that has nothing to do with becoming more Christ like. Sad, that.
It is obvious to me that there are three basic camps within Christianity when it comes to this question.
Those who keep the Ten Commandments with NO exception.
Those who keep the Ten Commandments with exceptions based on tradition.
Those who accept the Freedom we have in Jesus and see all such laws as a shadow of things to come.
Yes, there are those who want to keep even MORE of the law, but they really fall outside of the scope of the OP (as well as the teachings of scripture).
When I study the scriptures, and I accept all of them for what they are, I do so with the emphasis on how they apply to ME. In other words, I take an active roll in trying to grow into the Grace of God. Some however, seem to delight in needless controversy that has nothing to do with becoming more Christ like. Sad, that.
It is obvious to me that there are three basic camps within Christianity when it comes to this question.
Those who keep the Ten Commandments with NO exception.
Those who keep the Ten Commandments with exceptions based on tradition.
Those who accept the Freedom we have in Jesus and see all such laws as a shadow of things to come.
Yes, there are those who want to keep even MORE of the law, but they really fall outside of the scope of the OP (as well as the teachings of scripture).
AK4
Well-Known Member
LOL you're right whodathunk? Before Ben started coming with all these allegations about Paul, I never heard of it. Whodathunk it? I never heard some extremely pick and choose which scriptures to believe as much as him. But to each they're own.
mikmik
Member
"Those who accept the Freedom we have in Jesus and see all such laws as a shadow of things to come."
I keep seeing this term, a shadow of things to come, thrown around alot. Almost like the term somehow supports not keeping the commandments, and somehow especially the Sabbaths. I would really like to hear someone's explaination of what they think that term means and why it supports their view on not keeping the Sabbaths, weekly and annual.
mik
I keep seeing this term, a shadow of things to come, thrown around alot. Almost like the term somehow supports not keeping the commandments, and somehow especially the Sabbaths. I would really like to hear someone's explaination of what they think that term means and why it supports their view on not keeping the Sabbaths, weekly and annual.
mik