Posted: 9/21/2014 11:50:05 AM EDT
|
Yet another thread lock. Tsk, tsk. Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Discuss. |
|
I think not. 1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? "Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]). |
|
I believe you're right that I Cor. is about Communion. The translation in Acts should probably have been first of weeks, first day of weeks, or first of sevens. They had just observed Unleavened bread in verse 6, and this would be the first day of the Feast of Weeks, Pentecost, Shavuot.
The day of the Lord only refers to The Second Coming. |
|
No, the 'day of the Lord' is Sunday. The first day of the week' is when Jesus rose, so that's the day Christians began to break bread each week to "do this in memory of him".
And so, having the power to bind and lose - just as Peter determined that all food was clean and that Gentiles could be baptized without first going through the Jewish law - so too, the holy day of obligation was moved from Saturday (Sabbath) to Sunday. If the Church of God, given the keys of authority and power to bind and lose could not so change the day of worship, then what sort of keys are they? But I get it. It's post hoc ergo property hoc necessity for groups 1800 years distant from that choice to some how pooh pooh the entire thing and declare we ought to keep on keeping on the Sabbath even while agreeing that we need not keep the rest of the Jewish Law's prescriptions. In this discussion, Catholics will point to a) scripture b) the context of scripture (what's said and what's not said), c) the earliest non-scriptural historical documents of both Christians and non-Christians. d) the earliest Church councils and fathers of the Church's writings. Take all those into account and the decision to move from Saturday to Sunday looks pretty air tight. To dispute that the early Church had such authority is also to dispute the very authority to declare which books are 'scripture' in the first place. So to 'defeat' the Catholic view on things is actually to overthrow all of Christianity itself (while not intending to). |
|
Quoted: No, the 'day of the Lord' is Sunday. The first day of the week' is when Jesus rose, so that's the day Christians began to break bread each week to "do this in memory of him". And so, having the power to bind and lose - just as Peter determined that all food was clean and that Gentiles could be baptized without first going through the Jewish law - so too, the holy day of obligation was moved from Saturday (Sabbath) to Sunday. If the Church of God, given the keys of authority and power to bind and lose could not so change the day of worship, then what sort of keys are they? But I get it. It's post hoc ergo property hoc necessity for groups 1800 years distant from that choice to some how pooh pooh the entire thing and declare we ought to keep on keeping on the Sabbath even while agreeing that we need not keep the rest of the Jewish Law's prescriptions. In this discussion, Catholics will point to a) scripture b) the context of scripture (what's said and what's not said), c) the earliest non-scriptural historical documents of both Christians and non-Christians. d) the earliest Church councils and fathers of the Church's writings. Take all those into account and the decision to move from Saturday to Sunday looks pretty air tight. To dispute that the early Church had such authority is also to dispute the very authority to declare which books are 'scripture' in the first place. So to 'defeat' the Catholic view on things is actually to overthrow all of Christianity itself (while not intending to). |
|
Quoted:
No, the 'day of the Lord' is Sunday. The first day of the week' is when Jesus rose, so that's the day Christians began to break bread each week to "do this in memory of him". And so, having the power to bind and lose - just as Peter determined that all food was clean and that Gentiles could be baptized without first going through the Jewish law - so too, the holy day of obligation was moved from Saturday (Sabbath) to Sunday. If the Church of God, given the keys of authority and power to bind and lose could not so change the day of worship, then what sort of keys are they? But I get it. It's post hoc ergo property hoc necessity for groups 1800 years distant from that choice to some how pooh pooh the entire thing and declare we ought to keep on keeping on the Sabbath even while agreeing that we need not keep the rest of the Jewish Law's prescriptions. In this discussion, Catholics will point to a) scripture b) the context of scripture (what's said and what's not said), c) the earliest non-scriptural historical documents of both Christians and non-Christians. d) the earliest Church councils and fathers of the Church's writings. Take all those into account and the decision to move from Saturday to Sunday looks pretty air tight. To dispute that the early Church had such authority is also to dispute the very authority to declare which books are 'scripture' in the first place. So to 'defeat' the Catholic view on things is actually to overthrow all of Christianity itself (while not intending to). No, you don't get it. Our Father is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He doesn't change. His ways are right and just and true. Man can not change ordinances, even if he thinks he can. Research the word "Sabbath" and you will see that it is to be kept forever, even to a thousand generations. It is not Jewish law, its the Father's law. Look it up. While you're at it go look up about Peter saying all food is clean, and you will see that he wasn't even talking about food, but about associating with gentiles. You just said that Catholics will point to the context of Scripture. Even if he was speaking of food, food is described in Leviticus, and pig is not food. As far as the church councils, I believe that was the beginning of the great falling away. Christianity of today is nothing like what our Lord and Savior, or His Disciples, taught and lived. It's right there in black and white, that the Disciples kept the Father's feasts even after the death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah. |
|
Quoted:
The one useful thing I've picked up from these threads is the distinction between Jack Chick inspired anti-Catholicism and Seventh Day Adventist inspired anti-Catholicism. Before I always conflated the two. So it serves some purpose. I'd like to hear more on this. I've never heard of Jack Chick, and know nothing about the Seventh Day Adventist. |
|
Quoted:
To what denomination do you ascribe. No denomination for me. I just try to follow the Bible, literally. I am a wild branch, grafted in to the House of Israel, and follow the teaching of Yeshua as best as I can. I do meet with like minded people regularly for Bible study. |
|
If you guys have the chance, google up some CD series called 'Epic' - it's a history lesson plan to go over the history of Catholicism from 33AD to the Present by decade.
It is fantastic and eye opening to see how often the Church has been persecuted almost to eclipse, almost to extinction and how often it survives only in the least suspected places. Most Protestants' history starts around 1776 and the only country they're familiar with is the USA. So little things called "The French Revolution" that resulted in 1 million killed and displaced in continental Europe, the sacking of the Vatican, the kidnapping of the Pope (who subsequently died in captivity).... that's all completely off their radar. As was the Elizabethan terror that killed well over 700 people in 35 years while "bloody Mary" killed fewer than 60 in 5 years and she was fighting a civil war whereas Elizabeth's victims were largely Catholics tried for treason because they went to Mass. Before then there was the sack of Rome by Lutheran forces in 1527 (where the Popes' Swiss guard came to fame by fighting a rear guard action to get the Pope to the fortress of San' Angelo against overwhelming odds. To hear American Christians tell history, you'd never know how close Christendom came to being annihilated by the Turks, by the Mongols, by the Vikings, by the Albigensians, etc. you'd have little clue as to how advanced science was in the 12th century.... Really, history will help open one's eyes to reality and dispel myths about how things are today. |