Catholic Dogma and Authority of Bible

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-18 18:32:55 UTC

"Monte Cassino" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:47:50 GMT, "Andrew" <***@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority, but a
> >*lesser authority* than the magesterium.
>
> Cite, please? According to the Second Vatican Council Encyclical Dei
> Verbum, you are incorrect:

Andrew made that up. He makes many things up about Catholicism, and when
you disagree with him, he tells you that you don't know what the Catholic
Church teaches, and you're contradicting it. When you show him that he's
wrong, he ignores you, and comes up with the same story a few months later.

> "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between
> sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from
> the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and
> tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God
> inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the
> divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition
> hands on in its full purity God's word, which was entrusted to the
> apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
>
> "Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in
> their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and
> make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred
> Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything
> which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred
> Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and
> reverence."
>
>
> >And therefore all confessors
> >(Catholics), must always submit to the authority of the ~magesterium,
> >and not that of the Scriptures.
>
> Incorrect and misleading; see above.

He also quotes snippets from newspapers instead of actual Catholic teaching
that the Apostles began Sunday keeping.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-18 18:32:55 UTC

Permalink

"Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
news:oO_ug.7221$***@trnddc03...
>
> "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:aC_ug.1433$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority, but a
> > *lesser authority* than the magesterium. And therefore all confessors
> > (Catholics), must always submit to the authority of the ~magesterium,
> > and not that of the Scriptures. Such a belief emboldens them to make
> > such statements as the following..acknowledging their departure from
> > the clear, plain word of the living God as given to us in the
Scriptures.
> >
> > "People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority
> > should logically become Seventh-day Adventists and keep Satur-
> > day holy."
> >
> > Source: Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21,1995
> >
> >
>
> The perfect conclusion from one who admittedly does not base their beliefs
> solely on scripture. Just like the SDAs who place biblical authority on
the
> writings of Ellen G, White the Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel
> failed to study scripture alone and came to an incorrect conclusion.

Andrew knows that the Catholic Church believes that the Apostles began
Sunday keeping, which limits the newspaper clippings he can quote.

He won't get an official statement like that from the Church itself, because
they are better informed.

There is sufficient evidence in the New Testament to see that Sunday was
kept, and definitely enough to know that the Sabbath didn't need to be kept.

Andrew has not yet provided us with a single reference from the Bible that
shows a command to Christians to keep the Sabbath, or an example of
Christians doing so after the resurrection of Jesus.

He can't convince us why his beliefs are right using the Bible, so he tries
to convince us that Catholicism is wrong by telling lies about it.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-19 18:15:00 UTC

Permalink

"Doug" <***@catholicisp.com> wrote in message
news:***@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >
> > All of the above..(a) (b) and (c), illustrate the false concept that the
> > Church is above the Bible, as also stated in the official Catechism..
> >
> > "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
> > whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been en-
> > trusted to the..teaching office of the Church alone. This means that
> > the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in com-
> > munion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" CCC 85
> >
> > This says that the official Catholic position on Scripture, is that it
can
> > not speak for itself, but that it must be interpreted by the
Magisterium,
> > thereby placing the Magisterium of greater authority than the Scripture.
> >
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Actually, Andrew, the Bible requires interpretation. You do it. EGW
> did it.

Acts 8:26-35 KJV
(26) And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go
toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza,
which is desert.
(27) And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of
great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of
all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
(28) Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
(29) Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this
chariot.
(30) And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias,
and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
(31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he
desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(32) The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a
sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened
he not his mouth:
(33) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare
his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
(34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom
speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
(35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and
preached unto him Jesus.

Adventists interpret Lev 23:32 refers to the weekly Sabbath, when the
context is discussing the Day of Atonement.
http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/139/From-sunset-to-sunset

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> That is the only way things like "this is my body" can be
> understood. The pamphlet "National Sunday Law" does a very complex job
> of interpreting Scripture.
>
> But the main difference between Protestantism in general, Adventism in
> particular, and Catholicism is not the authority of Scripture, but the
> interpretation thereof. Your claim that the "it must be interpreted by
> the Magisterium, thereby placing the Magisterium of greater authority
> than Scripture" has the the Adventist equivalent of "it must be
> interpreted by EGW or by oneself, thereby placing EGW or oneself of
> greater authority than Scripture".
>
> To prove that you interpret Scripture, I challenge you to take John
> 6:53 at its face. As an Adventist, you can't because that would
> undermine your theology. "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth,
> unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you
> have no life in you." is typically interpreted by Adventists to mean
> Jesus' words, not his literal flesh and blood.
>
> By interpreting it that way, are you not placing your own authority, or
> that of other Adventists above that of the Bible, which you charge
> Catholics of doing with the Magisterium?
>
> BTW, I believe the Church because I believed Scripture. Catholicism
> and my reading of Scripture match. I returned to the Church because of
> Scripture. My wife left Adventism and became a Catholic for that
> reason as well. There is no better explanation for what Scripture
> teaches than that provided by the Magisterium.
>
> Doug
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-19 18:15:08 UTC

Permalink

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
news:tnavg.1621$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Monte Cassino" wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>
> >>Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority,
> >> but a *lesser authority* than the magesterium.
> >
> > Cite, please?
>
>
> "Sunday is our mark of authority...The church is above the Bible,
> and this transference of sabbath observance is proof of that fact."
>
> -- The Catholic Record, London, Ontario, September 1, 1923
>
>
> "Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claim to observance can
> be defended only on Catholic principles..From beginning to end
> of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer
> of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first."
>
> -- Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August 1900
>
>
> "The holy day, the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday.
> 'The Day of the Lord' [dies domini] was chosen, not from any
> direction noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of
> its own power..... People who think that the Scriptures should be
> the sole authority, should logically become Seventh-Day Adventists,
> and keep Saturday holy."
>
> -- Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel
> Algonac, Michigan, May 21,
1995

Newspaper clippings coupled with your lack of understanding of Catholic
teaching.

Compare newspaper clippings with official Catholic statements:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

"The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles

"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."

Pope John Paul II wrote in Dies Domini:

20. According to the common witness of the Gospels, the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead took place on "the first day after the Sabbath"
(Mk 16:2,9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). On the same day, the Risen Lord appeared to
the two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Lk 24:13-35) and to the eleven Apostles
gathered together (cf. Lk 24:36; Jn 20:19). A week later, as the Gospel of
John recounts (cf. 20:26), the disciples were gathered together once again,
when Jesus appeared to them and made himself known to Thomas by showing him
the signs of his Passion. The day of Pentecost, the first day of the eighth
week after the Jewish Passover (cf. Acts 2:1), when the promise made by
Jesus to the Apostles after the Resurrection was fulfilled by the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4-5), also fell on a Sunday. This
was the day of the first proclamation and the first baptisms: Peter
announced to the assembled crowd that Christ was risen and "those who
received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). This was the epiphany of the
Church, revealed as the people into which are gathered in unity, beyond all
their differences, the scattered children of God.

The first day of the week

21. It was for this reason that, from Apostolic times, "the first day after
the Sabbath", the first day of the week, began to shape the rhythm of life
for Christ's disciples (cf. 1 Cor 16:2). "The first day after the Sabbath"
was also the day upon which the faithful of Troas were gathered "for the
breaking of bread", when Paul bade them farewell and miraculously restored
the young Eutychus to life (cf. Acts 20:7-12). The Book of Revelation gives
evidence of the practice of calling the first day of the week "the Lord's
Day" (1:10). This would now be a characteristic distinguishing Christians
from the world around them. As early as the beginning of the second century,
it was noted by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, in his report on
the Christian practice "of gathering together on a set day before sunrise
and singing among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god".(19) And when
Christians spoke of the "Lord's Day", they did so giving to this term the
full sense of the Easter proclamation: "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil 2:11;
cf. Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 12:3). Thus Christ was given the same title which the
Septuagint used to translate what in the revelation of the Old Testament was
the unutterable name of God: YHWH.

Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday

This is an e-mail I wrote in response to a request for commentary got from
Robert Sanders, who has a ministry for Adventists at his website
http://www.truthorfables.com/ - his words are in green, my reply is in
black.

Thanks for offering me the chance to explain how we Catholics feel about the
Sabbath / Sunday "change."

If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not
change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the
Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but
it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.

Yes, that is pretty much the Catholic position summed up. We do, however,
also hold to the idea that Sunday observance is biblical, and the origins
are referenced in the New Testament (texts like Heb 4, Col 2, Rom 14, Gal 4,
Acts 20, 1 Cor 16 and others.)

One must just be careful in defining one's terms.

One person might say, "The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath" and another
might say, "The Apostles changed the Sabbath" and depending on their
background, they might mean the same thing, or they might be disagreeing
with each other.

Some terms, as used by Catholicism in general, of interest:

- Catholic Church - this refers to the Church as begun by Christ and led by
the Apostles after Pentecost
- Apostolic Church - this is a synonym for the Catholic Church during the
time when the Apostles were alive
- post-Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church once the last Apostle had died
- papacy - the office of Peter instituted in Matt 16:18, and continued in
his successors
- pope - the occupant of the papacy, beginning with Peter in the first
century

I do not expect you to AGREE with these terms or accept the theology we
Catholics accept. All I ask is that when you read Catholic texts written by
Catholics, you TRY to understand what we are saying, instead of applying
YOUR definitions for these words to something WE have written.

For instance, if a Catholic said, "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION" (quotes
from the original e-mail I am responding to) then this needs to be
understood using Catholic definitions, in order to know what the Catholic
means and understands. He is, therefore, NOT saying that Sunday observance
began in 300 AD or 600 AD or whenever it might be that a Protestant feels
the "Roman Catholic Church" <incorrect name, in fact> came into existence.
What the Catholic is actually saying with "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION"
is that Sunday observance is something that came from the Catholic Church -
without specifying era - and he would, in good conscience, say EXACTLY the
same of the decision in Acts 15 about circumcision - he would claim that
THAT TOO was a "Catholic institution" because that IS how he sees the early
Christian Church - as Catholic.

What often happens, then, is that Catholics claim authorship to Sunday
observance because they believe the Apostles began Sunday observance and
they view the Apostles as the first Catholic leaders, but when Adventists
hear these words, they grab them and remove their context and actual
meaning, and make it seem as if the Catholic Church is claiming that Sunday
observance was begun by a group which the Adventists define as the Catholic
Church, and NOT the Apostolic Church.

That said, I must differentiate between THREE types of texts that can be
used as evidence.

1. Statements by Catholics that a) agree with Catholic teaching but b) are
not official sources of Catholic teaching
2. Statements by Catholics that disagree with Catholic teaching
3. Statements that constitute official Catholic teaching

I have almost NEVER seen Adventists quote official Catholic teaching on the
issue of the Sabbath. (Simply because it would destroy what they want people
to believe we teach.) On the rare occasion, one will quote the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, and even more rarely, they will quote it in context.
Virtually ALL of the quotes they offer to support their view, are quotes of
type 2 (not real Catholic teaching) or type 1 quotes where context and the
author's intent have been abused.

Examples of texts of type 3 (official Catholic teaching) include:
- the Bible (Catholics DO view the Bible as an official source of truth)
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church
- papal encyclicals
- Council documents (e.g. from the Council of Nicaea, or the Council of
Trent) - these include catechisms, decrees, canons, letters, etc produced by
the council in question
- other official Vatican documents intended to convey or explain Catholic
teaching

Examples of texts of type 1 (agree with Catholic teaching but the text
itself is not authoritative) include:
- ALL Catholic newspapers
- ALL Catholic periodicals not published by the Vatican (and most which are,
e.g. their tax report)
- books with "Imprimatur" printed in front (this is only permission to
print, and says nothing about accuracy of content)
- books with "Nihil obstat" printed in front (this means that the book is
considered to be faithful to Catholic teaching by the local bishop, NOT that
the book is an official source of Catholic doctrine)
- many books whose titles contain the word "Catechism"
- my website (hopefully, I try to make it agree with Catholic teaching as
far as I can)

Examples of type 2 texts, which disagree with Catholic teaching, include:
- the abundant quotes referenced from the Catholic Mirror newspaper
- other similar texts

Note: I have, on record, Adventist pastors who tell me that the Bible
contains errors, that a lot of what Paul said we need not obey, that it was
merely opinion. I have Adventist pastors who have told me that Ellen White
is indeed infallible and has not erred, that she was inspired by God and
that her writings CAN RIGHTLY be used to interpret difficult passages in the
Bible (and by logical extension, faulty ones if the Bible contains error.)
Do THESE quotes constitute "official Adventist teaching" just because they
come from the mouth of an Adventist pastor? I doubt it. These statements
would fall into the type 2 category I described above. By taking type 1 and
type 2 statements and removing context, a strong straw-man case can be made
for the opposing position - as long as the reader is kept ignorant of the
true nature of these texts, and never shown any type 3 (official) texts
which show authentic teaching of the respective denomination. I will send,
just after this, a case study I have put together on this, which will
hopefully demonstrate the error in the pseudo-Catholic propaganda that many
Sabbatarians spread.

For a full view of Catholic teaching on the origins of the observance of
Sunday, and the removal of the Sabbath observance, I recommend you read the
papal encyclical Dies Domini, written by the current Pope. It can be found
on my website, at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/jp2dies.html

If this is true, then Ellen White is wrong in saying it was changed by "THE
POPE."

Ellen White would have defined the term "the pope" differently to
Catholics - she would likely have meant someone other than the Apostle
Peter, someone who lived much later in Christian history. She should name
him, and she does not. See also the Catholic Insight web page Ellen White,
F.P. (False Prophet)
(http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/white.htm) to see how
Ellen White prophesied falsely on this matter of the imaginary 4th century
change to Sunday.

It is interesting that the SDA Church cannot put a name on the Pope that
made the change.

That IS interesting :-> Certainly it shows that they are prepared to make
claims, but can't give details when the claims are questioned by informed
questioners.

Please visit the following site to view actual historical Christian quotes
about their Sunday observance dating to long before 300 AD:
ttp://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-19 18:19:23 UTC

Permalink

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
news:Kkgvg.49$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Mavis" wrote in message
news:sNcvg.7293$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Dear Pastor Dave.
> >
> > Why do you hate the authority of the Church so much ,
> > yet you claim infallibility to the books they put together
> > and claim it as an authority.
>
>
> The apostles were not RC. They did not worship Mary.

In his Endtime Issues (#141, http://tinyurl.com/osynp) Samuele Bacchiocchi
again (http://tinyurl.com/dama6) criticises the papal stand on moral issues,
and the commitment of Catholics to the support of Catholic moral teaching.
It looks like moral strength is a sign of the end-time evil power. Or so
many Adventists would have us believe.

He also interprets HH Pope Benedict XVI's promotion of Sunday in a sinister
way - whereas in reality, the pope is merely promoting better devotion to
God in a way that Bacchiocchi does not like. Bacchiocchi has a history of
such peculiar interpretations. (http://tinyurl.com/dama6,
http://tinyurl.com/rywub)

Bacchiocchi says of the ecumenical progress:

"For example, Bishop Eero Huovinen of the Finnish Lutheran Church, told the
Eucharistic Congress: "We Finnish Lutheran wish to be part of the Catholic
Church." He expressed agreement with the theme of the congress by affirming
that "Lutheran cannot live without the sacrament of the Eucharist." He
closed saying: "From the bottom of my heart, I would like to anticipate the
day in which Lutherans and Catholics, together, unite in a visible way."

"Bishop Huovinen's statement is significant for two reasons. First, it shows
that the Catholic promotion of Sunday as the day of the eucharistic
celebration, serves as a rallying point for Christian unity under the
leadership of the Catholic Church. Second, it reveals that the historical
doctrinal differences that have divided Protestantism and Catholicism are
largely ignored. Part of this development is due to the historic Joint
Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which is an important
agreement between Lutherans and Roman Catholics."

Once again, Bacchiocchi demonstrates his ignorance on this matter. As I've
pointed out before (http://tinyurl.com/dama6), he doesn't realise that the
Finnish Lutherans have not changed their position on the Eucharist (or
Sunday observance) due to interaction with Catholicism. The Finnish
Lutherans have always been much closer to Catholicism in doctrine and
practice regarding both the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession than
mainstream Lutherans. Mainstream Lutherans in fact do not believe in
Apostolic Succession, whereas the Finnish Lutherans do. It should be made
clear that this bishop's statement reflects centuries of belief amongst
Finnish Lutherans, and not a movement away from historical protests.

Ecumenism is about understanding each other instead of doing what is popular
in many Adventist circles - feeding people incorrect information in order to
promote disunity.

Creating a climate of respect and mutual acceptance is slowly, but surely,
working. The Adventist camp that promotes their traditional propaganda has
decreased, and many now see Ellen White and her writings as flawed, affected
by the anti-Catholic climate of their day, and no longer the absolute
authority the more traditional Adventists of the past have seen them as.
The anti-Catholic propaganda has dwindled - because Adventists are starting
to learn the truth about Catholicism. The days where they blindly accepted
their pastors' claims that "Catholics worship Mary" and "the Pope claims to
be God" and "the Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday" are becoming history.
When Adventists find out what Catholicism really believes, and leave the
propaganda behind them, they can't but accept us Catholics as fellow
Christians. Bacchiocchi, in a way, whether wittingly or not, has helped
this process. Which is why the more conspiracy theorist part of the
pro-division faction in Adventism sometimes label him as a Jesuit
infiltrator.

Bacchiocchi bewails the fact that Protestants consider Catholics to be
Christians. Lately the question of whether to re-classify Adventism as a
cult (http://tinyurl.com/jlkqf) instead of a Christian denomination has been
asked more and more often in Evangelical Protestant circles. Is he just
trying to put Catholicism in the same boat?

Worship through Mary, saints, objects, shrines, icons, crucifixes, or
statues, is condemned by the Scripture as idolatry.

Maybe it is condemned in the Clear Word Bible (http://tinyurl.com/prsvm),
but not in the real thing. Worship of false gods, yes. Worship of false
gods in the form of idols, yes. The use of physical means for worship - no.
The Bible is full of evidence for shrines, sacramentals, statues permitted
by God, and grace coming through physical objects. Yes, even the New
Testament contains this. (http://tinyurl.com/syr58,
http://tinyurl.com/kp3d8, http://tinyurl.com/mwyjr,) Bacchiocchi is willing
to make sweeping - and inaccurate - statements about what the Bible says in
one place, without bothering to put real Catholic teaching and the Bible's
complete witness side by side and compare them.

Bacchiocchi's problem with the Catholic way of experiencing the divine is
not really what he says it is - after all, his own denomination does the
same thing in other ways - the Sabbath, diet laws, Ellen White's writings.
And at an Adventist service I attended, the congregation knelt in reverence
when the Bible was raised for them to see before it was read. Were they
worshipping the Bible? Were they allowing a visual, physical form of
worship to distract them from the real worship of God? Or is this a valid
form of respect that can be paid to the Bible, and thereby instill respect
for it in the hearts of those who believe it?

Bacchiocchi's real problem with the Catholic way of experiencing the divine
is simply becaused it is Catholic. He doesn't spend his time attacking
similar things in other denominations, or in his own. Nor does he spend his
time attacking similar things seen in the Bible - whereas, if he wants to be
consistent, he should be doing just that.

His section title to this section is "Revival of Marian Worship." He should
really know better than to use terms like that - but it serves his purpose,
which is to instill disapproval of Catholicism. As I said before, ecumenism
is about understanding, not about misinformation. This, from Bacchiocchi,
is about misinformation.

Catholics do not worship Mary. To claim they do is as ridiculous as
claiming that Adventists worship the Sabbath or Ellen White.

Yet, in a sense, they do. The term "worship" is not restricted to the
adoration due to God alone. In many places in the world, judges and
magistrates are called, "Your worship." Lovers are said to worship each
other, or to worship the ground walked on by the ones they love. In some
contexts, the word "worship" refers to giving honour or respect. This is
perfectly acceptable in contexts outside of the adoration of God. The Bible
itself contains many such examples - applying to humans, as well as sacred
objects. Those who hold the anti-Catholic position either have not read
these passages in the Bible, or simply dissociate them from the issue of
Catholicism, and never make the logical connection between the two
practices.

The problem is that, in our current language usage, the term "worship" has
become a lot more restrictive, especially in a religious context. When
people today see the term "worship," they associate it solely with the
adoration due to God alone. And this is exactly why Bacchiocchi's use of
the word is misleading. Many Adventists believe that Catholics do indeed
worship Mary in the way we worship God. Bacchiocchi is playing to that
misunderstanding.

Adventists, on the other hand, do give reverence to the Bible, to Ellen
White, and to the Sabbath. They can therefore be said to be worshipping
these things. But it needs to be pointed out that, in this context, the
term "worship" is not being used in the strict modern Christian
interpretation of the word. What Adventists really engage in is a form of
respect - not adoration of the divine. That they reserve for God alone.
And the same is true of Catholics.

The Catholic "worship" of Mary and the saints, etc., is simply what the
Bible shows is a legitimate form of honour. It is not the same as our
worship of God. Just as in the Bible the externals may have resembled that
worship of God, so today Adventists may see similarities - but they do not
see what is in the hearts of Catholics, and, not understanding how Catholics
experience their faith, assume they are the same type of worship. The vast
majority of Catholics, understanding that experience, can easily
differentiate between the two, and know what they are worshipping and what
they are merely paying respect to.

Those Catholics who don't understand this can end up somewhat horrified by
what they are doing, not realising that their actions are condemned by
Catholic teaching, and assume that the idolatry they were guilty of is also
what is going on in the hearts of other Catholics ... and so they loudly
proclaim that Catholics worship Mary, without really having understood what
is really taught. They end up in the same group as those who never manage
to make the logical connection between Catholic practice and the biblical
passages showing honour to non-divine entities.

So, just as Catholics give a biblically permissable form of respect to Mary,
the saints, etc., so Adventists do the same with their traditional icons.
Does this mean that Adventists are engaging in idolatrous worship? No. It
just means that, like Catholics, their hearts can and do know where the line
between God and God-given is drawn. It is through understanding of each
other that prejudices (pre-judgements) like this are dissolved. Bacchiocchi
does not seem to have mutual understanding on his agenda. In many ways,
such as refuting Ellen White on the origins of Sunday observance
(http://tinyurl.com/puaxo), he has contributed to moving Adventism away from
its roots and towards a more fact-based outlook on history - but, in this
newsletter, he does not seem to have this in mind.

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Dolf Boek

2006-07-19 19:52:57 UTC

Permalink

The Catholic Encyclopedia suggests, whilst radically, the natural law
consists of one supreme and universal principle such as Marriage {ie.
Hymenealism deifies this principle}, from which are derived all our natural
moral obligations or duties--There are many erroneous opinions regarding
what is this fundamental rule of life: "In English this term is frequently
employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which
governs the activities of the material universe. Among the Roman jurists
natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the
lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of
offspring. In its strictly ethical application, the natural law is the rule
of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of
the nature with which He has endowed us." [New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia]

To paraphrase Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 CE), the right of humanity in their
own person, is an absolute unity of being which is capable of exercising
good will {eg. an idea is formed by the id #248 being the product of a
spontaneous, dynamic and probable contention between the 'super-ego' and
'ego'} as one that acts in accordance with universal moral laws--a single
moral obligation, which he called the Categorical Imperative, is derived
from the concept of duty. It is from the Categorical Imperative that all
other moral obligations are generated, and by which all moral obligations
can be tested--a practical syllogism as dialectic formulation:

22/7 as 3W1D ...

the major premise {YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE - Formula of Universal Law},
which contains the law of that will: 7 x 24 x 13 = 2184 days of the 'oth
cycle = 6D or 6 x 364 associated to the 'constant sequence of sun and moon'
as 354 x 3 + 30 day intercalation = 1092 days x 2 = 2184 days

the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE - Formula of Humanity}, which
contains the command to behave in accordance with the law, that is, the
principle of subsumption under the law: x 49 = 6J or 294 x 364 days or
365.2425 x 293 years - Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20 March 1996 / 21 March = 1
Nisan 5756; and

the conclusion {ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE - Formula of Autonomy}, which
contains the verdict (sentence), what is laid down as right in the case at
hand: ... 6,000 as 122J3W1D + 9(9²+1)/2 as #369 with Septet #41 centric on
13-17 September 2001 / 18 September = 1 Tishri 5762.

He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself {ie. Infinity
itself is the actual Logos as concept: Georg Hegel (1770-1841 CE) & Martin
Heidegger (1889-1976 CE) ([#4])} where the objective order or phenomenon of
nature as the logical grounding of infinity and the causal necessity that
operates within it as subject, are products of the mind in its interaction
with what lies outside of mind (the 'thing-in-itself').

The first formulation (YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE - Formula of Universal Law as
Sovereignty: #1 - Nature contains Nature {#4 - Nature amended in its
Nature}) says: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will
a universal law of nature." / Remember the Sabbath? (22/7 = 3W1D)

The second formulation (YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE - Formula of Humanity as
Head of State: #2 - Nature rejoices in its Nature {#5 - Act of Nature})
says: "Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a
means." / Honor Parents (26J5W)

The third formulation (ZHUN/SON/SEA/ENUMERATE - Formula of Autonomy as
Individual: #3 - Nature surmounts Nature {#6 - Form of Nature}) is a
synthesis of the first two. It says that "we should so act that we may think
of ourselves as legislating universal laws through our maxims, in a possible
Kingdom of Ends. We may think of ourselves as such autonomous legislators
only insofar as we follow our own laws." / Do Not Murder (40J4W)

The fourth formulation (ONE - Formula of Progression: #4 - Nature amended in
its Nature {#7 - Engendering Nature}) as a progressive adaptation within its
sphere of operation / Avoid Spiritual Adultery (50J)

The Discriminating Norm (Human Nature - Objective & Logical Grounding of
Infinity) [as #5 - Act of Nature {#8 - Transforming Nature} being
functionally equivalent to (YANG/FATHER/HEAVEN/MALE - Formula of Universal
Law as Sovereignty: #1 - Nature contains Nature {#4 - Nature amended in its
Nature})] / Do Not Steal (72J + 3(32+1)/2)

The Binding Norm (Norma Obligans - Subjective Grounding of Infinity), [as #6
- Form of Nature {#9 - Autonomous Nature} being functionally equivalent to
(YIN/MOTHER/EARTH/FEMALE - Formula of Humanity as Head of State: #2 - Nature
rejoices in its Nature {#5 - Act of Nature})] / No False Witness (72J +
10(102+1)/2) and

The Manifesting Norm (Norma Denuntians) [as #7 - Engendering Nature {#10 -
Totality of Nature} being functionally equivalent to (ZHAN/SON/SEA/NUMBER -
Formula of Autonomy as Individual: #3 - Nature surmounts Nature {#6 - Form
of Nature})] / Do Not Covet (122J3W1D + 9(92+1)/2)

That a conceptual unification & integration is carried out by the mind
through the individual GRAPPLE Homoiotic Noumenon entries as nous conceptual
zones or the "categories of the understanding" operating on perceptions
within space and time, which are not concepts, but forms of sensibility that
are necessary conditions for any possible experience

Kant argued that the rational order of the world as known by science could
never be accounted for merely by the fortuitous accumulation of sense
perceptions. It was instead the product of the rule-based activity of
'synthesis'.

The discriminating norm is, as we have just seen, human nature itself,
objectively considered as the logical grounding of infinity. It is, so to
speak, the book as encyclical paradigm in which is written the text of the
law as categorical moral imperative, and the classification of human actions
into good and bad. Strictly speaking, our nature is the proximate
discriminating norm or standard. The remote and ultimate norm, of which it
is the partial reflection and application, is the Divine Nature itself, the
ultimate groundwork of the created order. The binding or obligatory norm is
the Divine authority, imposing upon the rational creature the obligation of
living in conformity with his nature, and thus with the universal order
established by the Creator. Contrary to the Kantian theory that [Roman
Catholic Orthodoxy] must not acknowledge any other lawgiver than conscience,
the truth is that reason as conscience is [the] only immediate moral
authority which we are called upon to obey, and conscience itself owes its
authority to the fact that it is the mouthpiece of the Divine will and
imperium. [Natural Law, New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia]

Given the neural linguistic connection (only 22 elements) how did a human
brain end up in an animal body? Isn't the regard for the Seventh-day Sabbath
also a consideration of Natural Law? If so, how then can the Papal Holy See
claim in its representations and protests to the governing authorities in
Germany, of the clear and energetic language as a mutual duty to respect and
fulfill the obligations of the natural law itself that were confirmed by the
Concordat?

Given the 'Male-Female-Number' paradigm as the 'order of male and female'
historically espoused by philosophy of religion is only drawn from symbolic
theology, there is expressed within the immediate context of Adolf Hitler's
four Nuremberg Laws introduced from 15 September 1935 as a Categorical
Imperative, an unnecessary repetition in the expression of an idea,
especially in the words 'marry/sexual intercourse' which fails to impart any
additional force or clearness as the basis for Natural Law's rule of
conduct:

Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are
forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if,
for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad. Proceedings
for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.

Sexual relations outside marriage between Jews and nationals of German or
kindred blood are forbidden.

Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens of German or kindred
blood as domestic servants.

Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the national
colors.

Because human actions, which are the subject of laws, are individual and
innumerable, it is not possible to establish any law that may not sometimes
work out unjustly. Legislators, however, in passing laws, attend to what
commonly happens, though to apply the common rule will sometimes work
injustice and defeat the intention of the law itself. In such cases it is
bad to follow the law; it is good to set aside its letter and follow the
dictates of justice and the common good. Logically, chronologically, and
ontologically antecedent to all human society for which it provides the
indispensable basis, the natural or moral law is neitheras Hobbes, in
anticipation of the modern positivistic school, taughta product of social
agreement or convention, nor a mere congeries of the actions, customs, and
ways of man, as claimed by the ethicists who, refusing to acknowledge the
First Cause as a Personality with whom one entertains personal relations,
deprive the law of its obligatory basis. It is a true law, for through it
the Divine Mind imposes on the subject minds of His rational creatures their
obligations and prescribes their duties. [Our Knowledge of the Natural Law,
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia]

--

- dolf
- <http://www.sybilline.bigpondhosting.com>

On 20/7/06 4:19 AM, in article ***@is.co.za,

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote:
>
> In his Endtime Issues (#141, http://tinyurl.com/osynp) Samuele Bacchiocchi
> again (http://tinyurl.com/dama6) criticises the papal stand on moral issues,
> and the commitment of Catholics to the support of Catholic moral teaching.
> It looks like moral strength is a sign of the end-time evil power. Or so
> many Adventists would have us believe.
>
> He also interprets HH Pope Benedict XVI's promotion of Sunday in a sinister
> way - whereas in reality, the pope is merely promoting better devotion to
> God in a way that Bacchiocchi does not like. Bacchiocchi has a history of
> such peculiar interpretations. (http://tinyurl.com/dama6,
> http://tinyurl.com/rywub)
>
> Bacchiocchi says of the ecumenical progress:
>
> "For example, Bishop Eero Huovinen of the Finnish Lutheran Church, told the
> Eucharistic Congress: "We Finnish Lutheran wish to be part of the Catholic
> Church." He expressed agreement with the theme of the congress by affirming
> that "Lutheran cannot live without the sacrament of the Eucharist." He
> closed saying: "From the bottom of my heart, I would like to anticipate the
> day in which Lutherans and Catholics, together, unite in a visible way."
>
> "Bishop Huovinen's statement is significant for two reasons. First, it shows
> that the Catholic promotion of Sunday as the day of the eucharistic
> celebration, serves as a rallying point for Christian unity under the
> leadership of the Catholic Church. Second, it reveals that the historical
> doctrinal differences that have divided Protestantism and Catholicism are
> largely ignored. Part of this development is due to the historic Joint
> Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which is an important
> agreement between Lutherans and Roman Catholics."
>
> Once again, Bacchiocchi demonstrates his ignorance on this matter. As I've
> pointed out before (http://tinyurl.com/dama6), he doesn't realise that the
> Finnish Lutherans have not changed their position on the Eucharist (or
> Sunday observance) due to interaction with Catholicism. The Finnish
> Lutherans have always been much closer to Catholicism in doctrine and
> practice regarding both the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession than
> mainstream Lutherans. Mainstream Lutherans in fact do not believe in
> Apostolic Succession, whereas the Finnish Lutherans do. It should be made
> clear that this bishop's statement reflects centuries of belief amongst
> Finnish Lutherans, and not a movement away from historical protests.
>
> Ecumenism is about understanding each other instead of doing what is popular
> in many Adventist circles - feeding people incorrect information in order to
> promote disunity.
>
> Creating a climate of respect and mutual acceptance is slowly, but surely,
> working. The Adventist camp that promotes their traditional propaganda has
> decreased, and many now see Ellen White and her writings as flawed, affected
> by the anti-Catholic climate of their day, and no longer the absolute
> authority the more traditional Adventists of the past have seen them as.
> The anti-Catholic propaganda has dwindled - because Adventists are starting
> to learn the truth about Catholicism. The days where they blindly accepted
> their pastors' claims that "Catholics worship Mary" and "the Pope claims to
> be God" and "the Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday" are becoming history.
> When Adventists find out what Catholicism really believes, and leave the
> propaganda behind them, they can't but accept us Catholics as fellow
> Christians. Bacchiocchi, in a way, whether wittingly or not, has helped
> this process. Which is why the more conspiracy theorist part of the
> pro-division faction in Adventism sometimes label him as a Jesuit
> infiltrator.
>
> Bacchiocchi bewails the fact that Protestants consider Catholics to be
> Christians. Lately the question of whether to re-classify Adventism as a
> cult (http://tinyurl.com/jlkqf) instead of a Christian denomination has been
> asked more and more often in Evangelical Protestant circles. Is he just
> trying to put Catholicism in the same boat?
>
> Worship through Mary, saints, objects, shrines, icons, crucifixes, or
> statues, is condemned by the Scripture as idolatry.
>
> Maybe it is condemned in the Clear Word Bible (http://tinyurl.com/prsvm),
> but not in the real thing. Worship of false gods, yes. Worship of false
> gods in the form of idols, yes. The use of physical means for worship - no.
> The Bible is full of evidence for shrines, sacramentals, statues permitted
> by God, and grace coming through physical objects. Yes, even the New
> Testament contains this. (http://tinyurl.com/syr58,
> http://tinyurl.com/kp3d8, http://tinyurl.com/mwyjr,) Bacchiocchi is willing
> to make sweeping - and inaccurate - statements about what the Bible says in
> one place, without bothering to put real Catholic teaching and the Bible's
> complete witness side by side and compare them.
>
> Bacchiocchi's problem with the Catholic way of experiencing the divine is
> not really what he says it is - after all, his own denomination does the
> same thing in other ways - the Sabbath, diet laws, Ellen White's writings.
> And at an Adventist service I attended, the congregation knelt in reverence
> when the Bible was raised for them to see before it was read. Were they
> worshipping the Bible? Were they allowing a visual, physical form of
> worship to distract them from the real worship of God? Or is this a valid
> form of respect that can be paid to the Bible, and thereby instill respect
> for it in the hearts of those who believe it?
>
> Bacchiocchi's real problem with the Catholic way of experiencing the divine
> is simply becaused it is Catholic. He doesn't spend his time attacking
> similar things in other denominations, or in his own. Nor does he spend his
> time attacking similar things seen in the Bible - whereas, if he wants to be
> consistent, he should be doing just that.
>
> His section title to this section is "Revival of Marian Worship." He should
> really know better than to use terms like that - but it serves his purpose,
> which is to instill disapproval of Catholicism. As I said before, ecumenism
> is about understanding, not about misinformation. This, from Bacchiocchi,
> is about misinformation.
>
> Catholics do not worship Mary. To claim they do is as ridiculous as
> claiming that Adventists worship the Sabbath or Ellen White.
>
> Yet, in a sense, they do. The term "worship" is not restricted to the
> adoration due to God alone. In many places in the world, judges and
> magistrates are called, "Your worship." Lovers are said to worship each
> other, or to worship the ground walked on by the ones they love. In some
> contexts, the word "worship" refers to giving honour or respect. This is
> perfectly acceptable in contexts outside of the adoration of God. The Bible
> itself contains many such examples - applying to humans, as well as sacred
> objects. Those who hold the anti-Catholic position either have not read
> these passages in the Bible, or simply dissociate them from the issue of
> Catholicism, and never make the logical connection between the two
> practices.
>
> The problem is that, in our current language usage, the term "worship" has
> become a lot more restrictive, especially in a religious context. When
> people today see the term "worship," they associate it solely with the
> adoration due to God alone. And this is exactly why Bacchiocchi's use of
> the word is misleading. Many Adventists believe that Catholics do indeed
> worship Mary in the way we worship God. Bacchiocchi is playing to that
> misunderstanding.
>
> Adventists, on the other hand, do give reverence to the Bible, to Ellen
> White, and to the Sabbath. They can therefore be said to be worshipping
> these things. But it needs to be pointed out that, in this context, the
> term "worship" is not being used in the strict modern Christian
> interpretation of the word. What Adventists really engage in is a form of
> respect - not adoration of the divine. That they reserve for God alone.
> And the same is true of Catholics.
>
> The Catholic "worship" of Mary and the saints, etc., is simply what the
> Bible shows is a legitimate form of honour. It is not the same as our
> worship of God. Just as in the Bible the externals may have resembled that
> worship of God, so today Adventists may see similarities - but they do not
> see what is in the hearts of Catholics, and, not understanding how Catholics
> experience their faith, assume they are the same type of worship. The vast
> majority of Catholics, understanding that experience, can easily
> differentiate between the two, and know what they are worshipping and what
> they are merely paying respect to.
>
> Those Catholics who don't understand this can end up somewhat horrified by
> what they are doing, not realising that their actions are condemned by
> Catholic teaching, and assume that the idolatry they were guilty of is also
> what is going on in the hearts of other Catholics ... and so they loudly
> proclaim that Catholics worship Mary, without really having understood what
> is really taught. They end up in the same group as those who never manage
> to make the logical connection between Catholic practice and the biblical
> passages showing honour to non-divine entities.
>
> So, just as Catholics give a biblically permissable form of respect to Mary,
> the saints, etc., so Adventists do the same with their traditional icons.
> Does this mean that Adventists are engaging in idolatrous worship? No. It
> just means that, like Catholics, their hearts can and do know where the line
> between God and God-given is drawn. It is through understanding of each
> other that prejudices (pre-judgements) like this are dissolved. Bacchiocchi
> does not seem to have mutual understanding on his agenda. In many ways,
> such as refuting Ellen White on the origins of Sunday observance
> (http://tinyurl.com/puaxo), he has contributed to moving Adventism away from
> its roots and towards a more fact-based outlook on history - but, in this
> newsletter, he does not seem to have this in mind.
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-19 18:19:32 UTC

Permalink

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-19 18:20:53 UTC

Permalink

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-19 18:23:15 UTC

Permalink

"Monte Cassino" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:14:15 GMT, Pastor Dave <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:57:34 GMT, Monte Cassino
> ><***@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:47:50 GMT, "Andrew" <***@usa.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority, but a
> >>>*lesser authority* than the magesterium.
> >>
> >>Cite, please? According to the Second Vatican Council Encyclical Dei
> >>Verbum, you are incorrect:
> >>
> >>"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between
> >>sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from
> >>the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and
> >>tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God
> >>inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the
> >>divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition
> >>hands on in its full purity God's word, which was entrusted to the
> >>apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
> >>
> >>"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in
> >>their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and
> >>make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred
> >>Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything
> >>which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred
> >>Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and
> >>reverence."
> >>
> >>
> >>>And therefore all confessors
> >>>(Catholics), must always submit to the authority of the ~magesterium,
> >>>and not that of the Scriptures.
> >>
> >>Incorrect and misleading; see above.
> >
> >It is right on the money and your quote only supported
> >his statement.
>
> My quotation is miles away from what he claims. He claims that the
> RCC places Scripture as a lesser authority than Tradition. I have
> quoted an officicial Church encyclical that (1) is directly on point,
> and (2) contradicts his assertion. How you can conflate the two is
> beyond me.

It's because some people know Catholic teaching better than the Catholic
Church itself.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-19 18:25:09 UTC

Permalink

"Teresita" <***@debian.org> wrote in message
news:z-***@comcast.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > Official Catholic dogma says that Scriptures are ~an~ authority, but a
> > *lesser authority* than the magesterium
>
> Not true, Andrew. Ask a Catholic. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition,
> and the Magisterium of the Church are of equal authority.

Andrew doesn't ask Catholics. He tells them, giving his instruction from
newspaper clippings so as to avoid having to deal with official Catholic
teaching.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-20 05:00:23 UTC

Permalink

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
news:fbzvg.2087$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Doug" wrote in message
news:***@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >> All of the above..(a) (b) and (c), illustrate the false concept that
the
> >> Church is above the Bible, as also stated in the official Catechism..
> >>
> >> "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God,
> >> whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been en-
> >> trusted to the..teaching office of the Church alone. This means that
> >> the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in com-
> >> munion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" CCC 85
> >>
> >> This says that the official Catholic position on Scripture, is that it
can
> >> not speak for itself, but that it must be interpreted by the
Magisterium,
> >> thereby placing the Magisterium of greater authority than the
Scripture.
> >>
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >
> > Actually, Andrew, the Bible requires interpretation.
>
>
> The Bible is its '''own''' interpreter.

Acts 8:26-35 KJV
(26) And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go
toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza,
which is desert.
(27) And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of
great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of
all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
(28) Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
(29) Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this
chariot.
(30) And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias,
and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
(31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he
desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(32) The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a
sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened
he not his mouth:
(33) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare
his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
(34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom
speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
(35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and
preached unto him Jesus.

And where in the Bible is Lev 23:32 interpreted to mean the 7th day of the
week?

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/139/From-sunset-to-sunset

God bless,
Stephen

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-20 19:58:42 UTC

Permalink

mikejames

2006-07-20 20:26:17 UTC

Permalink

Stephen Korsman wrote:
> "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:qWEvg.648$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>"Doug" wrote in message
>
> news:***@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>Paul says that the Sabbath was but a shadow of things
>>>to come, and let no man judge a Christian about a
>>>Sabbath in Colossians Chapter 2.
>>>
>>>Doug
>>
>>James Cardinal Gibbons says, "You may read the Bible from Genesis to
>> Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the
>
> sanctification
>
>>of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday,
>>a day which we [Roman Catholics] never sanctify"
>> Faith of Our Fathers, p.111
>>
>>"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Command-
>>ments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the
>
> Church
>
>>CHANGE the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer
>>yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!"
>>
>> "Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"
>> James Cardinal Gibbons,
>> Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in
>
> a signed letter
>
>>
>>Sunday-keeping came into the church from paganism
>
>
> Actually, it didn't. The first century texts that explain why Sunday was
> kept tell us that it was because of Jesus' resurrection. So do the 2nd
> century texts, and the 3rd, etc.
>
> Furthermore, since Sunday was not kept holy by any of the pagans, it was
> impossible for it to transfer to Christianity from paganism. The Jews and
> Christians had a 7-day week. The Romans, Greeks, etc didn't. Mithraism
> didn't. Your Adventist pastors will tell you that they did, but historians
> won't.
>
>
dies Solis Sun day Sunday
dies Lunae Moon day Monday
dies Martis Mars's day Tiw's day Tuesday
dies Mercurii Mercury's day Woden's day Wednesday
dies Jovis Jupiter's day Thor's Day Thursday
dies Veneris Venus's day Frigg's day Friday
dies Saturni Saturn's day Saturday

these are preChristian and NOT Judaic.

>>but the commandments
>>of God were never changed.
>
>
> Except for those that were, for example circumcision, the Levitical
> priesthood, sacrifices, etc.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-21 15:54:03 UTC

Permalink

"mikejames" <***@aa.commi> wrote in message
news:IHRvg.4282$***@weber.videotron.net...
> Stephen Korsman wrote:
> > "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:qWEvg.648$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>"Doug" wrote in message
> >
> > news:***@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>>Paul says that the Sabbath was but a shadow of things
> >>>to come, and let no man judge a Christian about a
> >>>Sabbath in Colossians Chapter 2.
> >>>
> >>>Doug
> >>
> >>James Cardinal Gibbons says, "You may read the Bible from Genesis to
> >> Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the
> >
> > sanctification
> >
> >>of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday,
> >>a day which we [Roman Catholics] never sanctify"
> >> Faith of Our Fathers, p.111
> >>
> >>"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Command-
> >>ments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the
> >
> > Church
> >
> >>CHANGE the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer
> >>yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!"
> >>
> >> "Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"
> >> James Cardinal Gibbons,
> >> Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921),
in
> >
> > a signed letter
> >
> >>
> >>Sunday-keeping came into the church from paganism
> >
> >
> > Actually, it didn't. The first century texts that explain why Sunday
was
> > kept tell us that it was because of Jesus' resurrection. So do the 2nd
> > century texts, and the 3rd, etc.
> >
> > Furthermore, since Sunday was not kept holy by any of the pagans, it was
> > impossible for it to transfer to Christianity from paganism. The Jews
and
> > Christians had a 7-day week. The Romans, Greeks, etc didn't. Mithraism
> > didn't. Your Adventist pastors will tell you that they did, but
historians
> > won't.
> >
> >
> dies Solis Sun day Sunday
> dies Lunae Moon day Monday
> dies Martis Mars's day Tiw's day Tuesday
> dies Mercurii Mercury's day Woden's day Wednesday
> dies Jovis Jupiter's day Thor's Day Thursday
> dies Veneris Venus's day Frigg's day Friday
> dies Saturni Saturn's day Saturday
>
>
> these are preChristian and NOT Judaic.

Nope ... those are names for days of the week, but the cultures from which
Adventists claim we adopted Sunday did not have a 7-day week. The Romans,
for instance, had a 8-day business week, and others for other purposes.
None of them actually observed Sunday.

And as Doug said, the above comparison works only for English ... and the
early Christians didn't speak English, so their days were named differently.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-21 18:02:14 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:j07wg.52171$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> > > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> > > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >
> > There is no evidence of this, however.
>
>
> Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN
> THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
> day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
> after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
> inquisitions. If you have a biblically based faith, then you have to
> know the only day Jesus claimed to be Lord of was the Sabbath day. And
> in scripture the similar term "day of the Lord" refers to the second
> coming.
>
> Sunday worship and not keeping the biblical Seventh-day Sabbath is why
> the Council of trent ruled against the Sola Scriptura Protestants, and
> announced their anathemas against them as Heretics.
>
> And yes there is an abundance of proof for those willing to look with an
> open heart and mind:
> and I am not interested in circular arguments or debates, so if you love
> truth; start here with "Rome's challenge to Protestants:
> http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm#

You will never get an official statement from the Catholic Church saying
such absurd things.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

"The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles

"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."

Pope John Paul II wrote in Dies Domini:

20. According to the common witness of the Gospels, the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead took place on "the first day after the Sabbath"
(Mk 16:2,9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). On the same day, the Risen Lord appeared to
the two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Lk 24:13-35) and to the eleven Apostles
gathered together (cf. Lk 24:36; Jn 20:19). A week later, as the Gospel of
John recounts (cf. 20:26), the disciples were gathered together once again,
when Jesus appeared to them and made himself known to Thomas by showing him
the signs of his Passion. The day of Pentecost, the first day of the eighth
week after the Jewish Passover (cf. Acts 2:1), when the promise made by
Jesus to the Apostles after the Resurrection was fulfilled by the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4-5), also fell on a Sunday. This
was the day of the first proclamation and the first baptisms: Peter
announced to the assembled crowd that Christ was risen and "those who
received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). This was the epiphany of the
Church, revealed as the people into which are gathered in unity, beyond all
their differences, the scattered children of God.

The first day of the week

21. It was for this reason that, from Apostolic times, "the first day after
the Sabbath", the first day of the week, began to shape the rhythm of life
for Christ's disciples (cf. 1 Cor 16:2). "The first day after the Sabbath"
was also the day upon which the faithful of Troas were gathered "for the
breaking of bread", when Paul bade them farewell and miraculously restored
the young Eutychus to life (cf. Acts 20:7-12). The Book of Revelation gives
evidence of the practice of calling the first day of the week "the Lord's
Day" (1:10). This would now be a characteristic distinguishing Christians
from the world around them. As early as the beginning of the second century,
it was noted by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, in his report on
the Christian practice "of gathering together on a set day before sunrise
and singing among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god".(19) And when
Christians spoke of the "Lord's Day", they did so giving to this term the
full sense of the Easter proclamation: "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil 2:11;
cf. Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 12:3). Thus Christ was given the same title which the
Septuagint used to translate what in the revelation of the Old Testament was
the unutterable name of God: YHWH.

Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday

This is an e-mail I wrote in response to a request for commentary got from
Robert Sanders, who has a ministry for Adventists at his website
http://www.truthorfables.com/ - his words are in green, my reply is in
black.

Thanks for offering me the chance to explain how we Catholics feel about the
Sabbath / Sunday "change."

If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not
change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the
Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but
it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.

Yes, that is pretty much the Catholic position summed up. We do, however,
also hold to the idea that Sunday observance is biblical, and the origins
are referenced in the New Testament (texts like Heb 4, Col 2, Rom 14, Gal 4,
Acts 20, 1 Cor 16 and others.)

One must just be careful in defining one's terms.

One person might say, "The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath" and another
might say, "The Apostles changed the Sabbath" and depending on their
background, they might mean the same thing, or they might be disagreeing
with each other.

Some terms, as used by Catholicism in general, of interest:

- Catholic Church - this refers to the Church as begun by Christ and led by
the Apostles after Pentecost
- Apostolic Church - this is a synonym for the Catholic Church during the
time when the Apostles were alive
- post-Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church once the last Apostle had died
- papacy - the office of Peter instituted in Matt 16:18, and continued in
his successors
- pope - the occupant of the papacy, beginning with Peter in the first
century

I do not expect you to AGREE with these terms or accept the theology we
Catholics accept. All I ask is that when you read Catholic texts written by
Catholics, you TRY to understand what we are saying, instead of applying
YOUR definitions for these words to something WE have written.

For instance, if a Catholic said, "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION" (quotes
from the original e-mail I am responding to) then this needs to be
understood using Catholic definitions, in order to know what the Catholic
means and understands. He is, therefore, NOT saying that Sunday observance
began in 300 AD or 600 AD or whenever it might be that a Protestant feels
the "Roman Catholic Church" <incorrect name, in fact> came into existence.
What the Catholic is actually saying with "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION"
is that Sunday observance is something that came from the Catholic Church -
without specifying era - and he would, in good conscience, say EXACTLY the
same of the decision in Acts 15 about circumcision - he would claim that
THAT TOO was a "Catholic institution" because that IS how he sees the early
Christian Church - as Catholic.

What often happens, then, is that Catholics claim authorship to Sunday
observance because they believe the Apostles began Sunday observance and
they view the Apostles as the first Catholic leaders, but when Adventists
hear these words, they grab them and remove their context and actual
meaning, and make it seem as if the Catholic Church is claiming that Sunday
observance was begun by a group which the Adventists define as the Catholic
Church, and NOT the Apostolic Church.

That said, I must differentiate between THREE types of texts that can be
used as evidence.

1. Statements by Catholics that a) agree with Catholic teaching but b) are
not official sources of Catholic teaching
2. Statements by Catholics that disagree with Catholic teaching
3. Statements that constitute official Catholic teaching

I have almost NEVER seen Adventists quote official Catholic teaching on the
issue of the Sabbath. (Simply because it would destroy what they want people
to believe we teach.) On the rare occasion, one will quote the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, and even more rarely, they will quote it in context.
Virtually ALL of the quotes they offer to support their view, are quotes of
type 2 (not real Catholic teaching) or type 1 quotes where context and the
author's intent have been abused.

Examples of texts of type 3 (official Catholic teaching) include:
- the Bible (Catholics DO view the Bible as an official source of truth)
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church
- papal encyclicals
- Council documents (e.g. from the Council of Nicaea, or the Council of
Trent) - these include catechisms, decrees, canons, letters, etc produced by
the council in question
- other official Vatican documents intended to convey or explain Catholic
teaching

Examples of texts of type 1 (agree with Catholic teaching but the text
itself is not authoritative) include:
- ALL Catholic newspapers
- ALL Catholic periodicals not published by the Vatican (and most which are,
e.g. their tax report)
- books with "Imprimatur" printed in front (this is only permission to
print, and says nothing about accuracy of content)
- books with "Nihil obstat" printed in front (this means that the book is
considered to be faithful to Catholic teaching by the local bishop, NOT that
the book is an official source of Catholic doctrine)
- many books whose titles contain the word "Catechism"
- my website (hopefully, I try to make it agree with Catholic teaching as
far as I can)

Examples of type 2 texts, which disagree with Catholic teaching, include:
- the abundant quotes referenced from the Catholic Mirror newspaper
- other similar texts

Note: I have, on record, Adventist pastors who tell me that the Bible
contains errors, that a lot of what Paul said we need not obey, that it was
merely opinion. I have Adventist pastors who have told me that Ellen White
is indeed infallible and has not erred, that she was inspired by God and
that her writings CAN RIGHTLY be used to interpret difficult passages in the
Bible (and by logical extension, faulty ones if the Bible contains error.)
Do THESE quotes constitute "official Adventist teaching" just because they
come from the mouth of an Adventist pastor? I doubt it. These statements
would fall into the type 2 category I described above. By taking type 1 and
type 2 statements and removing context, a strong straw-man case can be made
for the opposing position - as long as the reader is kept ignorant of the
true nature of these texts, and never shown any type 3 (official) texts
which show authentic teaching of the respective denomination. I will send,
just after this, a case study I have put together on this, which will
hopefully demonstrate the error in the pseudo-Catholic propaganda that many
Sabbatarians spread.

For a full view of Catholic teaching on the origins of the observance of
Sunday, and the removal of the Sabbath observance, I recommend you read the
papal encyclical Dies Domini, written by the current Pope. It can be found
on my website, at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/jp2dies.html

If this is true, then Ellen White is wrong in saying it was changed by "THE
POPE."

Ellen White would have defined the term "the pope" differently to
Catholics - she would likely have meant someone other than the Apostle
Peter, someone who lived much later in Christian history. She should name
him, and she does not. See also the Catholic Insight web page Ellen White,
F.P. (False Prophet)
(http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/white.htm) to see how
Ellen White prophesied falsely on this matter of the imaginary 4th century
change to Sunday.

It is interesting that the SDA Church cannot put a name on the Pope that
made the change.

That IS interesting :-> Certainly it shows that they are prepared to make
claims, but can't give details when the claims are questioned by informed
questioners.

Please visit the following site to view actual historical Christian quotes
about their Sunday observance dating to long before 300 AD:
http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-21 18:56:36 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:j07wg.52171$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Andrew wrote:
> > > > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > > > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra,"
whom
> > > > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > > > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of this, however.
> >
> >
> > Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO
EVIDENCE IN
> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the
Lord's
> > day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
> > after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
> > inquisitions. If you have a biblically based faith, then you have to
> > know the only day Jesus claimed to be Lord of was the Sabbath day.
And
> > in scripture the similar term "day of the Lord" refers to the
second
> > coming.
> >
> > Sunday worship and not keeping the biblical Seventh-day Sabbath is
why
> > the Council of trent ruled against the Sola Scriptura Protestants,
and
> > announced their anathemas against them as Heretics.
> >
> > And yes there is an abundance of proof for those willing to look
with an
> > open heart and mind:
> > and I am not interested in circular arguments or debates, so if you
love
> > truth; start here with "Rome's challenge to Protestants:
> > http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm#
>
> You will never get an official statement from the Catholic Church
saying
> such absurd things.

You know "The Catholic Mirror" was the official mouthpeice of the only
ArchBishop and Cardinal in America then and spoke for Rome, and those
articles were published with the imprimitur. which is to show they are
approved by Rome and without error.

You and I know they contain a record of from the council of trent
itself, but you have to lie.shamelessly to try and decieve others
Korsman, and would deny your mother to defend Catholicism and attack
Adventism, as you consistantly do even here..

HERE IS A QUOTE YOU HAVE SEEN MANY TIMES::(Want a link?"see below)

[EDITORS' NOTE. - It was upon this very point that the Reformation was
condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged,
as here stated, that the Catholic Church had "apostatized from the truth
as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the
Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant
watchwords; and "the Scripture, as in the written word, the sole
standard of appeal," this was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation
and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." The Bible as
interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the
Fathers," this was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This
was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially
to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the
attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning
faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in
this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the
council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the
Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so
decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates
actually wrote to him that there was "a strong tendency to set aside
tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal."
But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying
the claims of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon
the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the
others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand
upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a
decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was
debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a
standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the
Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the
following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone:
"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They
profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They
justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from
the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants claim, that
they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of
holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF:
The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as
the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they
do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be
observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout.
Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the
written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of
Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church.
Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and
the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully
established, the Protestants themselves being judges."
[The Archbishop of Reggio (Gaspar [Ricciulli] de Fosso) made his
speech at the last opening session of Trent, (17th Session) reconvened
under a new pope (Pius IV), on the 18th of January, 1562 after having
been suspended in 1552. - J. H. Holtzman, Canon and Tradition, published
in Ludwigsburg, Germany, in 1859, page 263, and Archbishop of Reggio's
address in the 17th session of the Council of Trent, Jan. 18, 1562, in
Mansi SC, Vol. 33, cols. 529, 530. Latin.]

There was no getting around this, for the Protestants' own statement
of faith - the Augsburg Confession, 1530 - had clearly admitted that
"the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the Church"
only.
The argument was hailed in the council as of Inspiration only; the
party for "Scripture alone," surrendered; and the council at once
unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an
unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the Catholic
Church; and proceeded, April 8, 1546, "to the promulgation of two
decrees, the first of which, enacts under anathema, that Scripture and
tradition are to be received and venerated equally, and that the
deutero-canonical [the apocryphal] books are part of the canon of
Scripture. The second decree declares the Vulgate to be the sole
authentic and standard Latin version, and gives it such authority as to
supersede the original texts; forbids the interpretation of Scripture
contrary to the sense received by the Church, 'or even contrary to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers,'" etc. (7)
This was the inconsistency of the Protestant practice with the
Protestant profession that gave to the Catholic Church her long-sought
and anxiously desired ground upon which to condemn Protestantism and the
whole Reformation movement as only a selfishly ambitious rebellion
against the Church authority. And in this vital controversy the key, the
chiefest and culminative expression, of the Protestant inconsistency was
in the rejection of the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, enjoined
in the Scriptures, and the adoption and observance of the Sunday as
enjoined by the Catholic Church.
And this is today the position of the respective parties to this
controversy. Today, as this document shows, this is the vital issue upon
which the Catholic Church arraigns Protestantism, and upon which she
condemns the course of popular Protestantism as being "indefensible",
self-contradictory, and suicidal." What will these Protestants, what
will this Protestantism, do?]

(7) See the proceedings of the Council; Augsburg Confession; and
Encyclopaedia Britannica, article "Trent, Council of."

>
> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
>
> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
>
> "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."

Vatican lies and claims without support.

Where did John ever say the Lord's day was the first day? Where did he
ever identify the Lord's day as Sunday?
Nowhere! Where is the record of any of the apostles saying they
consecrated the first day of the week? NOWHERE.
Wouldn't you think they would have mentioned it even once? Wouldn't you
think Korsman would no better then to deny what was published about this
change not being biblical? He thinks you are all too stupid to read what
he is well aquainted with:

Here is the proof:

A Conversation with Stephen Korsman about
Rome's Challenge and the Biblical evidence for Sundaykeeping.
http://biblelight.net/korsman.htm

<snip>

Whazit Tooyah

2006-07-22 03:57:37 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:Er9wg.128320$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
>>
>> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>> news:j07wg.52171$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > > Andrew wrote:
>> > > > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
>> > > > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra,"
> whom
>> > > > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
>> > > > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
>> > >
>> > > There is no evidence of this, however.
>> >
>> >
>> > Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO
> EVIDENCE IN
>> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the
> Lord's
>> > day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
>> > after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
>> > inquisitions. If you have a biblically based faith, then you have to
>> > know the only day Jesus claimed to be Lord of was the Sabbath day.
> And
>> > in scripture the similar term "day of the Lord" refers to the
> second
>> > coming.
>> >
>> > Sunday worship and not keeping the biblical Seventh-day Sabbath is
> why
>> > the Council of trent ruled against the Sola Scriptura Protestants,
> and
>> > announced their anathemas against them as Heretics.
>> >
>> > And yes there is an abundance of proof for those willing to look
> with an
>> > open heart and mind:
>> > and I am not interested in circular arguments or debates, so if you
> love
>> > truth; start here with "Rome's challenge to Protestants:
>> > http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm#
>>
>> You will never get an official statement from the Catholic Church
> saying
>> such absurd things.
>
> You know "The Catholic Mirror" was the official mouthpeice of the only
> ArchBishop and Cardinal in America then and spoke for Rome, and those
> articles were published with the imprimitur. which is to show they are
> approved by Rome and without error.
>
> You and I know they contain a record of from the council of trent
> itself, but you have to lie.shamelessly to try and decieve others
> Korsman, and would deny your mother to defend Catholicism and attack
> Adventism, as you consistantly do even here..
>
> HERE IS A QUOTE YOU HAVE SEEN MANY TIMES::(Want a link?"see below)
>
> [EDITORS' NOTE. - It was upon this very point that the Reformation was
> condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged,
> as here stated, that the Catholic Church had "apostatized from the truth
> as contained in the written word. "The written word," "The Bible and the
> Bible only," "Thus saith the Lord," these were their constant
> watchwords; and "the Scripture, as in the written word, the sole
> standard of appeal," this was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation
> and of Protestantism. "The Scripture and tradition." The Bible as
> interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the
> Fathers," this was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This
> was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially
> to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the
> attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning
> faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in
> this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the
> council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the
> Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so
> decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope's legates
> actually wrote to him that there was "a strong tendency to set aside
> tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal."
> But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying
> the claims of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon
> the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the
> others that "Scripture and tradition" were the only sure ground to stand
> upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a
> decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was
> debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a
> standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the
> Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the
> following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone:
> "The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They
> profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They
> justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from
> the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants claim, that
> they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of
> holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF:
> The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as
> the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they
> do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be
> observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout.
> Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the
> written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of
> Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church.
> Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and
> the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully
> established, the Protestants themselves being judges."
> [The Archbishop of Reggio (Gaspar [Ricciulli] de Fosso) made his
> speech at the last opening session of Trent, (17th Session) reconvened
> under a new pope (Pius IV), on the 18th of January, 1562 after having
> been suspended in 1552. - J. H. Holtzman, Canon and Tradition, published
> in Ludwigsburg, Germany, in 1859, page 263, and Archbishop of Reggio's
> address in the 17th session of the Council of Trent, Jan. 18, 1562, in
> Mansi SC, Vol. 33, cols. 529, 530. Latin.]
>
> There was no getting around this, for the Protestants' own statement
> of faith - the Augsburg Confession, 1530 - had clearly admitted that
> "the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the Church"
> only.
> The argument was hailed in the council as of Inspiration only; the
> party for "Scripture alone," surrendered; and the council at once
> unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an
> unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the Catholic
> Church; and proceeded, April 8, 1546, "to the promulgation of two
> decrees, the first of which, enacts under anathema, that Scripture and
> tradition are to be received and venerated equally, and that the
> deutero-canonical [the apocryphal] books are part of the canon of
> Scripture. The second decree declares the Vulgate to be the sole
> authentic and standard Latin version, and gives it such authority as to
> supersede the original texts; forbids the interpretation of Scripture
> contrary to the sense received by the Church, 'or even contrary to the
> unanimous consent of the Fathers,'" etc. (7)
> This was the inconsistency of the Protestant practice with the
> Protestant profession that gave to the Catholic Church her long-sought
> and anxiously desired ground upon which to condemn Protestantism and the
> whole Reformation movement as only a selfishly ambitious rebellion
> against the Church authority. And in this vital controversy the key, the
> chiefest and culminative expression, of the Protestant inconsistency was
> in the rejection of the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, enjoined
> in the Scriptures, and the adoption and observance of the Sunday as
> enjoined by the Catholic Church.
> And this is today the position of the respective parties to this
> controversy. Today, as this document shows, this is the vital issue upon
> which the Catholic Church arraigns Protestantism, and upon which she
> condemns the course of popular Protestantism as being "indefensible",
> self-contradictory, and suicidal." What will these Protestants, what
> will this Protestantism, do?]
>
> (7) See the proceedings of the Council; Augsburg Confession; and
> Encyclopaedia Britannica, article "Trent, Council of."
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
>>
>> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
>>
>> "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."
>
> Vatican lies and claims without support.
>
> Where did John ever say the Lord's day was the first day? Where did he
> ever identify the Lord's day as Sunday?
> Nowhere! Where is the record of any of the apostles saying they
> consecrated the first day of the week? NOWHERE.
> Wouldn't you think they would have mentioned it even once? Wouldn't you
> think Korsman would no better then to deny what was published about this
> change not being biblical? He thinks you are all too stupid to read what
> he is well aquainted with:
>
> Here is the proof:
>
> A Conversation with Stephen Korsman about
> Rome's Challenge and the Biblical evidence for Sundaykeeping.
> http://biblelight.net/korsman.htm
>
> <snip>
>
>

There is no command in the New Testament addressed to the New Testament
church to keep a Sabbath day! The Jerusalem council saw that the laws of
the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were for a particular people
at a particular time. They came to the conclusion that the only covenant
that Gentiles were still under was the Noahic covenant because we are all
children of Noah. (Acts
The writings of Paul indicate that the keeping of a special day is up to the
individual believer (Romans 14). They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2). He also states that the Sabbath is weak,
worthless and elemental.(Gal 4) He further states that if one is keeping
the Sabbath as something meritorious that he fears for them. How plain can
it get. Instead of a shadow we have the reality of rest in Christ (Mat 11;
Heb 4). Why would anyone turn from the reality and attempt to embrace a
shadow? It just doesn't make any sense
--
WT

By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-22 13:01:16 UTC

Permalink

"Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
news:Rmhwg.406$***@trnddc06...
>

>
> There is no command in the New Testament addressed to the New
Testament
> church to keep a Sabbath day!

There are plenty of examples of Jesus teaching how and how not to keep
the Sabbath day, he even said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath
day"..Why ignore him in all this?.

The Jerusalem council saw that the laws of
> the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were for a particular
people
> at a particular time. They came to the conclusion that the only
covenant
> that Gentiles were still under was the Noahic covenant because we are
all
> children of Noah. (Acts

Uh.. they said nothing about a Noahide Covenant, or any other. They were
settling a dispute about the ceremonial law . I very much doubt if
someone used this argument to justify stealing you would say "that is
true as long as you don't eat fat, blood or a strangled animal and keep
yourself from idols, it's ok...The jerusalem council said that's all we
have to do!

> The writings of Paul indicate that the keeping of a special day is up
to the
> individual believer (Romans 14).

Paul actually said "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind",
he then went on later to say they should all be of one mind, and further
said let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus and .said he
taught nothing that was not already taught in the law and prophets...
What did Jesus do, and say?

> They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
> was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2).

That verse is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths, the new moons and
the feast days connected to them. The ceremonial law pointed to Christ.
Paul wrote that it was added because of transgression (of the moral law)
and said it was only given until the seed would come and that seed was
Christ.The Seventh day was created before sin ever entered the world, it
was not a shadow as it did not point forward, it pointed back and is a
memorial of Creation and our Creator. Thus the words in the commandment
"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy-- why? for in six days God
created the earth and on the seventh day He rested.

> He also states that the Sabbath is weak,
> worthless and elemental.(Gal 4)

Every thing God made was good.

Paul also said the law is perfect and the commandments holy just and
good you have him contradicting himself... So that is wrong He is not
talking about the Sabbath.

When did pagan idoloters and those who worshipped the sun moon and stars
ever keep the seventh-day Sabbath? How could they return to what they
had NEVER done?
Note what he actually said:
Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them
which by nature are no gods.
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how
turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire
again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

He further states that if one is keeping
> the Sabbath as something meritorious that he fears for them.

Look above, he didn't say that, you did.
We can do nothing to earn merit, this is a comman argument of those who
hate the Sabbath. We do what we do out of Faith motivated by love, or it
means nothing. Give up that sad argument.

> How plain can
> it get.

Exactly. Sol ivictus was a pagan Sun worship cult and yet you are
keeping that day with no command from Christ or any biblical reason to
do so, and cite unbiblical writers from the mystery of iniquity warned
about to support yourself. I fear for you as well.

Whazit Tooyah

2006-07-22 13:37:58 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:wkpwg.52394$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> news:Rmhwg.406$***@trnddc06...
>>
>
>>
>> There is no command in the New Testament addressed to the New
> Testament
>> church to keep a Sabbath day!
>
> There are plenty of examples of Jesus teaching how and how not to keep
> the Sabbath day, he even said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath
> day"..Why ignore him in all this?.

List them! Jesus taught literally nothing about the Sabbath except to teach
that it is ceremonial, not moral in nature.(Matt 12; John 7) And that the
Pharisees were wrong in making it a moral command. Nearly all of the
references to the Sabbath in the gospels are noting what day it was when
Jesus did a particular act.

>
> The Jerusalem council saw that the laws of
>> the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were for a particular
> people
>> at a particular time. They came to the conclusion that the only
> covenant
>> that Gentiles were still under was the Noahic covenant because we are
> all
>> children of Noah. (Acts
>
> Uh.. they said nothing about a Noahide Covenant, or any other. They were
> settling a dispute about the ceremonial law . I very much doubt if
> someone used this argument to justify stealing you would say "that is
> true as long as you don't eat fat, blood or a strangled animal and keep
> yourself from idols, it's ok...The jerusalem council said that's all we
> have to do!

You don't know your Bible very well do you? And your second argument is so
sophomoric that its not worth wasting any more time on.

>
>> The writings of Paul indicate that the keeping of a special day is up
> to the
>> individual believer (Romans 14).
>
> Paul actually said "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind",
> he then went on later to say they should all be of one mind, and further
> said let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus and .said he
> taught nothing that was not already taught in the law and prophets...
> What did Jesus do, and say?

A sophomoric argument again. Jesus was under the Law. The law was finished
at the cross. Are you going to have Passover or observe Hanukah this year.
Jesus observed both.

>
>
>> They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
>> was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2).
>
> That verse is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths, the new moons and
> the feast days connected to them.

Just plain WRONG! The Greek word "sabbaton" is used only as a reference to
something that occurs on a weekly basis. You have to redefine the word to
understand it as you do.

>The ceremonial law pointed to Christ.

Yes and the Sabbath pointed to the rest found in salvation in Christ

> Paul wrote that it was added because of transgression (of the moral law)
> and said it was only given until the seed would come and that seed was
> Christ.The Seventh day was created before sin ever entered the world, it
> was not a shadow as it did not point forward, it pointed back and is a
> memorial of Creation and our Creator. Thus the words in the commandment
> "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy-- why? for in six days God
> created the earth and on the seventh day He rested.
>
>> He also states that the Sabbath is weak,
>> worthless and elemental.(Gal 4)
>
> Every thing God made was good.

Yes, but when one observes a shadow after the reality can be found, it
becomes weak worthless and elemental.

>
> Paul also said the law is perfect and the commandments holy just and
> good you have him contradicting himself... So that is wrong He is not
> talking about the Sabbath.

The word "Law" in the NT never refers to the TC alone, but to the whole Law.

>
> When did pagan idoloters and those who worshipped the sun moon and stars
> ever keep the seventh-day Sabbath? How could they return to what they
> had NEVER done?
> Note what he actually said:
> Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them
> which by nature are no gods.
> 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how
> turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire
> again to be in bondage?
> 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
> 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Read Galatians! The context from beginning to end is gentiles taking on
Jewish Law as though it were a part of Christianity.

>
> He further states that if one is keeping
>> the Sabbath as something meritorious that he fears for them.
>
> Look above, he didn't say that, you did.
> We can do nothing to earn merit, this is a comman argument of those who
> hate the Sabbath. We do what we do out of Faith motivated by love, or it
> means nothing. Give up that sad argument.

Then why don't Sabbatarians stop beating everybody else up about the
Sabbath. Don't you think we also do what we do out of Faith motivated by
love.

>
>> How plain can
>> it get.
>
> Exactly. Sol ivictus was a pagan Sun worship cult and yet you are
> keeping that day with no command from Christ or any biblical reason to
> do so, and cite unbiblical writers from the mystery of iniquity warned
> about to support yourself. I fear for you as well.
>
>

Saturn was a pagan God, you worship on Saturn's day. Every day of the week
was named in a pagan manner after a pagan deity. What is your point.
--
WT

By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:51:05 UTC

Permalink

"Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
news:WSpwg.794$***@trnddc06...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:wkpwg.52394$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > news:Rmhwg.406$***@trnddc06...
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> There is no command in the New Testament addressed to the New
> > Testament
> >> church to keep a Sabbath day!

I. B. Wonderin and Andrew have been asked to give us a reference to one, but
so far they haven't managed to.

> > There are plenty of examples of Jesus teaching how and how not to keep
> > the Sabbath day, he even said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath
> > day"..Why ignore him in all this?.
>
> List them! Jesus taught literally nothing about the Sabbath except to
teach
> that it is ceremonial, not moral in nature.(Matt 12; John 7) And that the
> Pharisees were wrong in making it a moral command. Nearly all of the
> references to the Sabbath in the gospels are noting what day it was when
> Jesus did a particular act.

Spot on.

There are also no commands in the New Testament for Christians to keep the
Sabbath.

There are also no examples in the New Testament of Christians keeping the
Sabbath after Jesus rose on Sunday.

> > The Jerusalem council saw that the laws of
> >> the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were for a particular
> > people
> >> at a particular time. They came to the conclusion that the only
> > covenant
> >> that Gentiles were still under was the Noahic covenant because we are
> > all
> >> children of Noah. (Acts
> >
> > Uh.. they said nothing about a Noahide Covenant, or any other. They were
> > settling a dispute about the ceremonial law . I very much doubt if
> > someone used this argument to justify stealing you would say "that is
> > true as long as you don't eat fat, blood or a strangled animal and keep
> > yourself from idols, it's ok...The jerusalem council said that's all we
> > have to do!
>
> You don't know your Bible very well do you? And your second argument is
so
> sophomoric that its not worth wasting any more time on.
>
> >
> >> The writings of Paul indicate that the keeping of a special day is up
> > to the
> >> individual believer (Romans 14).
> >
> > Paul actually said "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind",
> > he then went on later to say they should all be of one mind, and further
> > said let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus and .said he
> > taught nothing that was not already taught in the law and prophets...
> > What did Jesus do, and say?
>
> A sophomoric argument again. Jesus was under the Law. The law was
finished
> at the cross. Are you going to have Passover or observe Hanukah this
year.
> Jesus observed both.

Circumcision, which was also made for man, applied to Jesus, but not to us.

> >> They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
> >> was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2).
> >
> > That verse is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths, the new moons and
> > the feast days connected to them.
>
> Just plain WRONG! The Greek word "sabbaton" is used only as a reference
to
> something that occurs on a weekly basis. You have to redefine the word to
> understand it as you do.

Maybe they were annual feasts that occurred every week?

> >The ceremonial law pointed to Christ.
>
> Yes and the Sabbath pointed to the rest found in salvation in Christ
>
> > Paul wrote that it was added because of transgression (of the moral law)
> > and said it was only given until the seed would come and that seed was
> > Christ.The Seventh day was created before sin ever entered the world, it
> > was not a shadow as it did not point forward, it pointed back and is a
> > memorial of Creation and our Creator. Thus the words in the commandment
> > "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy-- why? for in six days God
> > created the earth and on the seventh day He rested.
> >
> >> He also states that the Sabbath is weak,
> >> worthless and elemental.(Gal 4)
> >
> > Every thing God made was good.
>
> Yes, but when one observes a shadow after the reality can be found, it
> becomes weak worthless and elemental.
>
> >
> > Paul also said the law is perfect and the commandments holy just and
> > good you have him contradicting himself... So that is wrong He is not
> > talking about the Sabbath.
>
> The word "Law" in the NT never refers to the TC alone, but to the whole
Law.

He and I have been through this law issue ... he wouldn't respond.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> > When did pagan idoloters and those who worshipped the sun moon and stars
> > ever keep the seventh-day Sabbath? How could they return to what they
> > had NEVER done?
> > Note what he actually said:
> > Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them
> > which by nature are no gods.
> > 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how
> > turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire
> > again to be in bondage?
> > 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
> > 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
>
> Read Galatians! The context from beginning to end is gentiles taking on
> Jewish Law as though it were a part of Christianity.
>
> >
> > He further states that if one is keeping
> >> the Sabbath as something meritorious that he fears for them.
> >
> > Look above, he didn't say that, you did.
> > We can do nothing to earn merit, this is a comman argument of those who
> > hate the Sabbath. We do what we do out of Faith motivated by love, or it
> > means nothing. Give up that sad argument.
>
> Then why don't Sabbatarians stop beating everybody else up about the
> Sabbath. Don't you think we also do what we do out of Faith motivated by
> love.
>
> >
> >> How plain can
> >> it get.
> >
> > Exactly. Sol ivictus was a pagan Sun worship cult and yet you are
> > keeping that day with no command from Christ or any biblical reason to
> > do so, and cite unbiblical writers from the mystery of iniquity warned
> > about to support yourself. I fear for you as well.
> >
> >
>
> Saturn was a pagan God, you worship on Saturn's day. Every day of the
week
> was named in a pagan manner after a pagan deity. What is your point.
> --
> WT
>
> By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
> if you have love for one another
>
>

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 12:06:31 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> news:WSpwg.794$***@trnddc06...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:wkpwg.52394$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

>
> > >> They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
> > >> was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2).
> > >
> > > That verse is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths, the new moons
and
> > > the feast days connected to them.
> >
> > Just plain WRONG! The Greek word "sabbaton" is used only as a
reference
> to something that occurs on a weekly basis. You have to redefine the
word to
> > understand it as you do.
>
> Maybe they were annual feasts that occurred every week?

Sabbaton is actually from the hebrew Shabbath:
1) Sabbath
a) sabbath
b) day of atonement
c) sabbath year
d) week
e) produce (in sabbath year)

BUT --- If whatzit is correct,. Check this out. (day was added by the
translators)

And upon the first Sabbaton when the disciples came together to break
bread Paul Preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow and
continued his speach unto midnight. Acts 20;7

And upon the first Sabbaton let every one of you lay by him in store, as
God hath prospered him
that there be no gatherings when I come. I Cor 16:2

hmmm...

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 13:54:08 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:bDJwg.133608$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > news:WSpwg.794$***@trnddc06...
> > >
> > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wkpwg.52394$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >
> > > >> They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
> > > >> was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2).
> > > >
> > > > That verse is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths, the new moons
> and
> > > > the feast days connected to them.
> > >
> > > Just plain WRONG! The Greek word "sabbaton" is used only as a
> reference
> > to something that occurs on a weekly basis. You have to redefine the
> word to
> > > understand it as you do.
> >
> > Maybe they were annual feasts that occurred every week?
>
> Sabbaton is actually from the hebrew Shabbath:
> 1) Sabbath
> a) sabbath
> b) day of atonement
> c) sabbath year
> d) week
> e) produce (in sabbath year)

Which one of the following did Paul mean?

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect
of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect
of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect
of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the day of atonement:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect
of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath year:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect
of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the week:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect
of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the produce (in sabbath year):

Or did he use it in the same way the rest of the Bible uses it? Every other
instance of it being used outside the context of "first day of the week" it
means the weekly Sabbath.

Since holy days and new moons are already covered, and include the Day of
Atonement (to which Leb 23:32 refers, by the way,) it can't mean those, or
else Paul would be writing like a drunk.

> BUT --- If whatzit is correct,. Check this out. (day was added by the
> translators)
>
> And upon the first Sabbaton when the disciples came together to break
> bread Paul Preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow and
> continued his speach unto midnight. Acts 20;7
>
> And upon the first Sabbaton let every one of you lay by him in store, as
> God hath prospered him
> that there be no gatherings when I come. I Cor 16:2

Don't be absurd. Not even your own church's scholars would attempt that
sort of change.

Try doing that to these texts (KJV):

Mar 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came
unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Mar 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Joh 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was
yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the
sepulchre.

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week,
when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the
Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto
you.

Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Fasting twice on the Sabbath? Right.

Each and every instance of the use of the phrase "first [day] of the
Sabbaton] means the first day of the week.

This verse actually puts it in context, defining it:

Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first
day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the
sepulchre.

Weak argument.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 16:55:38 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:wkpwg.52394$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> news:Rmhwg.406$***@trnddc06...
> >
>
> >
> > There is no command in the New Testament addressed to the New
> Testament
> > church to keep a Sabbath day!
>
> There are plenty of examples of Jesus teaching how and how not to keep
> the Sabbath day, he even said "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath
> day"..Why ignore him in all this?.
>
> The Jerusalem council saw that the laws of
> > the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were for a particular
> people
> > at a particular time. They came to the conclusion that the only
> covenant
> > that Gentiles were still under was the Noahic covenant because we are
> all
> > children of Noah. (Acts
>
> Uh.. they said nothing about a Noahide Covenant, or any other. They were
> settling a dispute about the ceremonial law . I very much doubt if
> someone used this argument to justify stealing you would say "that is
> true as long as you don't eat fat, blood or a strangled animal and keep
> yourself from idols, it's ok...The jerusalem council said that's all we
> have to do!
>
> > The writings of Paul indicate that the keeping of a special day is up
> to the
> > individual believer (Romans 14).
>
> Paul actually said "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind",
> he then went on later to say they should all be of one mind, and further
> said let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus and .said he
> taught nothing that was not already taught in the law and prophets...
> What did Jesus do, and say?
>
>
> > They also indicate that the weekly Sabbath
> > was but a shadow of Christ (Col 2).
>
> That verse is talking about the ceremonial Sabbaths, the new moons and
> the feast days connected to them.

Can you name those ceremonial Sabbaths, and name the feast days? You'll
come up with the same list in each column.

Col 2 refers to annual, monthly, and weekly events. Since the only weekly
Sabbath was the weekly Sabbath, it must b referring to that.

> The ceremonial law pointed to Christ.
> Paul wrote that it was added because of transgression (of the moral law)
> and said it was only given until the seed would come and that seed was
> Christ.The Seventh day was created before sin ever entered the world, it
> was not a shadow as it did not point forward, it pointed back and is a
> memorial of Creation and our Creator. Thus the words in the commandment
> "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy-- why? for in six days God
> created the earth and on the seventh day He rested.
>
> > He also states that the Sabbath is weak,
> > worthless and elemental.(Gal 4)
>
> Every thing God made was good.

Do you keep Passover?

> Paul also said the law is perfect and the commandments holy just and
> good you have him contradicting himself... So that is wrong He is not
> talking about the Sabbath.

On the other hand, Paul said that the law written on stone has a lesser
glory than the law written on our hearts, and is replaced. He called it a
dispensation of death. There he was talking about the Sabbath, because that
was one of the laws written on stone.

> When did pagan idoloters and those who worshipped the sun moon and stars
> ever keep the seventh-day Sabbath? How could they return to what they
> had NEVER done?
> Note what he actually said:
> Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them
> which by nature are no gods.
> 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how
> turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire
> again to be in bondage?
> 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
> 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

The weak and beggarly elements Paul refers to are the Jewish law. After
abandoning paganism, they turned to the same day observance methods, just
within Christianity, taking on the days of the Jews.

http://tinyurl.com/kbkp9
http://tinyurl.com/g5y2t

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 16:45:38 UTC

Permalink

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-21 18:03:20 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy, the word
> for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian pagans.
> and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter their word
> for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
>
> Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's name...

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

"The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles

"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."

Pope John Paul II wrote in Dies Domini:

20. According to the common witness of the Gospels, the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead took place on "the first day after the Sabbath"
(Mk 16:2,9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). On the same day, the Risen Lord appeared to
the two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Lk 24:13-35) and to the eleven Apostles
gathered together (cf. Lk 24:36; Jn 20:19). A week later, as the Gospel of
John recounts (cf. 20:26), the disciples were gathered together once again,
when Jesus appeared to them and made himself known to Thomas by showing him
the signs of his Passion. The day of Pentecost, the first day of the eighth
week after the Jewish Passover (cf. Acts 2:1), when the promise made by
Jesus to the Apostles after the Resurrection was fulfilled by the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4-5), also fell on a Sunday. This
was the day of the first proclamation and the first baptisms: Peter
announced to the assembled crowd that Christ was risen and "those who
received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). This was the epiphany of the
Church, revealed as the people into which are gathered in unity, beyond all
their differences, the scattered children of God.

The first day of the week

21. It was for this reason that, from Apostolic times, "the first day after
the Sabbath", the first day of the week, began to shape the rhythm of life
for Christ's disciples (cf. 1 Cor 16:2). "The first day after the Sabbath"
was also the day upon which the faithful of Troas were gathered "for the
breaking of bread", when Paul bade them farewell and miraculously restored
the young Eutychus to life (cf. Acts 20:7-12). The Book of Revelation gives
evidence of the practice of calling the first day of the week "the Lord's
Day" (1:10). This would now be a characteristic distinguishing Christians
from the world around them. As early as the beginning of the second century,
it was noted by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, in his report on
the Christian practice "of gathering together on a set day before sunrise
and singing among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god".(19) And when
Christians spoke of the "Lord's Day", they did so giving to this term the
full sense of the Easter proclamation: "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil 2:11;
cf. Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 12:3). Thus Christ was given the same title which the
Septuagint used to translate what in the revelation of the Old Testament was
the unutterable name of God: YHWH.

Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday

This is an e-mail I wrote in response to a request for commentary got from
Robert Sanders, who has a ministry for Adventists at his website
http://www.truthorfables.com/ - his words are in green, my reply is in
black.

Thanks for offering me the chance to explain how we Catholics feel about the
Sabbath / Sunday "change."

If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not
change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the
Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but
it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.

Yes, that is pretty much the Catholic position summed up. We do, however,
also hold to the idea that Sunday observance is biblical, and the origins
are referenced in the New Testament (texts like Heb 4, Col 2, Rom 14, Gal 4,
Acts 20, 1 Cor 16 and others.)

One must just be careful in defining one's terms.

One person might say, "The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath" and another
might say, "The Apostles changed the Sabbath" and depending on their
background, they might mean the same thing, or they might be disagreeing
with each other.

Some terms, as used by Catholicism in general, of interest:

- Catholic Church - this refers to the Church as begun by Christ and led by
the Apostles after Pentecost
- Apostolic Church - this is a synonym for the Catholic Church during the
time when the Apostles were alive
- post-Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church once the last Apostle had died
- papacy - the office of Peter instituted in Matt 16:18, and continued in
his successors
- pope - the occupant of the papacy, beginning with Peter in the first
century

I do not expect you to AGREE with these terms or accept the theology we
Catholics accept. All I ask is that when you read Catholic texts written by
Catholics, you TRY to understand what we are saying, instead of applying
YOUR definitions for these words to something WE have written.

For instance, if a Catholic said, "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION" (quotes
from the original e-mail I am responding to) then this needs to be
understood using Catholic definitions, in order to know what the Catholic
means and understands. He is, therefore, NOT saying that Sunday observance
began in 300 AD or 600 AD or whenever it might be that a Protestant feels
the "Roman Catholic Church" <incorrect name, in fact> came into existence.
What the Catholic is actually saying with "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION"
is that Sunday observance is something that came from the Catholic Church -
without specifying era - and he would, in good conscience, say EXACTLY the
same of the decision in Acts 15 about circumcision - he would claim that
THAT TOO was a "Catholic institution" because that IS how he sees the early
Christian Church - as Catholic.

What often happens, then, is that Catholics claim authorship to Sunday
observance because they believe the Apostles began Sunday observance and
they view the Apostles as the first Catholic leaders, but when Adventists
hear these words, they grab them and remove their context and actual
meaning, and make it seem as if the Catholic Church is claiming that Sunday
observance was begun by a group which the Adventists define as the Catholic
Church, and NOT the Apostolic Church.

That said, I must differentiate between THREE types of texts that can be
used as evidence.

1. Statements by Catholics that a) agree with Catholic teaching but b) are
not official sources of Catholic teaching
2. Statements by Catholics that disagree with Catholic teaching
3. Statements that constitute official Catholic teaching

I have almost NEVER seen Adventists quote official Catholic teaching on the
issue of the Sabbath. (Simply because it would destroy what they want people
to believe we teach.) On the rare occasion, one will quote the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, and even more rarely, they will quote it in context.
Virtually ALL of the quotes they offer to support their view, are quotes of
type 2 (not real Catholic teaching) or type 1 quotes where context and the
author's intent have been abused.

Examples of texts of type 3 (official Catholic teaching) include:
- the Bible (Catholics DO view the Bible as an official source of truth)
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church
- papal encyclicals
- Council documents (e.g. from the Council of Nicaea, or the Council of
Trent) - these include catechisms, decrees, canons, letters, etc produced by
the council in question
- other official Vatican documents intended to convey or explain Catholic
teaching

Examples of texts of type 1 (agree with Catholic teaching but the text
itself is not authoritative) include:
- ALL Catholic newspapers
- ALL Catholic periodicals not published by the Vatican (and most which are,
e.g. their tax report)
- books with "Imprimatur" printed in front (this is only permission to
print, and says nothing about accuracy of content)
- books with "Nihil obstat" printed in front (this means that the book is
considered to be faithful to Catholic teaching by the local bishop, NOT that
the book is an official source of Catholic doctrine)
- many books whose titles contain the word "Catechism"
- my website (hopefully, I try to make it agree with Catholic teaching as
far as I can)

Examples of type 2 texts, which disagree with Catholic teaching, include:
- the abundant quotes referenced from the Catholic Mirror newspaper
- other similar texts

Note: I have, on record, Adventist pastors who tell me that the Bible
contains errors, that a lot of what Paul said we need not obey, that it was
merely opinion. I have Adventist pastors who have told me that Ellen White
is indeed infallible and has not erred, that she was inspired by God and
that her writings CAN RIGHTLY be used to interpret difficult passages in the
Bible (and by logical extension, faulty ones if the Bible contains error.)
Do THESE quotes constitute "official Adventist teaching" just because they
come from the mouth of an Adventist pastor? I doubt it. These statements
would fall into the type 2 category I described above. By taking type 1 and
type 2 statements and removing context, a strong straw-man case can be made
for the opposing position - as long as the reader is kept ignorant of the
true nature of these texts, and never shown any type 3 (official) texts
which show authentic teaching of the respective denomination. I will send,
just after this, a case study I have put together on this, which will
hopefully demonstrate the error in the pseudo-Catholic propaganda that many
Sabbatarians spread.

For a full view of Catholic teaching on the origins of the observance of
Sunday, and the removal of the Sabbath observance, I recommend you read the
papal encyclical Dies Domini, written by the current Pope. It can be found
on my website, at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/jp2dies.html

If this is true, then Ellen White is wrong in saying it was changed by "THE
POPE."

Ellen White would have defined the term "the pope" differently to
Catholics - she would likely have meant someone other than the Apostle
Peter, someone who lived much later in Christian history. She should name
him, and she does not. See also the Catholic Insight web page Ellen White,
F.P. (False Prophet)
(http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/white.htm) to see how
Ellen White prophesied falsely on this matter of the imaginary 4th century
change to Sunday.

It is interesting that the SDA Church cannot put a name on the Pope that
made the change.

That IS interesting :-> Certainly it shows that they are prepared to make
claims, but can't give details when the claims are questioned by informed
questioners.

Please visit the following site to view actual historical Christian quotes
about their Sunday observance dating to long before 300 AD:
http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-21 19:45:56 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy, the
word
> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
pagans.
> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter their
word
> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> >
> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's name...
>
> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
>
> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles

Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow INVALIDATE
WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own Church
again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....

See:
SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

Check this out:

Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
-------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
Catholic
Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
solemnity from
Saturday to Sunday." <-------
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is no
Scriptural authority. <-------------
- Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
by T. W. Strong, p. 174.

"Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the Bible,
and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923

Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath
to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical
authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal
Gibbons.

Whazit Tooyah

2006-07-22 04:52:12 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
>>
>> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy, the
> word
>> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
> pagans.
>> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter their
> word
>> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
>> >
>> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
>> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's name...
>>
>> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
>>
>> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
>
> Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow INVALIDATE
> WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
> worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own Church
> again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....
>
> See:
> SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
>
> Check this out:
>
>
> Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> Catholic
> Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
> solemnity from
> Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
>
>
> Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> institute festivals of precept?
> A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
> modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
> the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
> of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is no
> Scriptural authority. <-------------
> - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
>
>
> "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the Bible,
> and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
> Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
>
>
> Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath
> to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical
> authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal
> Gibbons.
>
>
>
>

One only has to study the writings of the first and second century church
fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as politely as
I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what matters is what
scripture teaches and what history shows. There are numerous statements
about gathering for worship on the first day of the week. There are
numerous statements about turning from the Sabbath. There is nothing in the
majority of these writings about turning Sunday into the Sabbath. These
were two separate things in their eyes.
Stephan has explained numerous times that in the mind of Catholics the early
church fathers were also Catholic as were the Apostles. It is by this
understanding that the Catholics claim that by her own authority the
Catholic church changed the Sabbath i.e. by the authority of the Catholic
apostles, not by some latter council.
I believe they are wrong about two things; first the Sabbath has never
changed, but we as Christians are not under a Sabbath day law which is what
scripture and the early fathers both state; second, I don't accept that the
early church fathers and apostles were Catholic as the word Catholic is
understood today.
--
WT

By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-22 13:36:53 UTC

Permalink

"Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:***@is.co.za...
> >>
> >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy,
the
> > word
> >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
> > pagans.
> >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter
their
> > word
> >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> >> >
> >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's
name...
> >>
> >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> >>
> >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> >
> > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow
INVALIDATE
> > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
> > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own
Church
> > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....
> >
> > See:
> > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
> >
> > Check this out:
> >
> >
> > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> > Catholic
> > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
> > solemnity from
> > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> >
> >
> > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> > institute festivals of precept?
> > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
> > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
> > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the
observance
> > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is no
> > Scriptural authority. <-------------
> > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
> >
> >
> > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the Bible,
> > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
> > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
> >
> >
> > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday
Sabbath
> > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her
ecclesiastical
> > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal
> > Gibbons.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> One only has to study the writings of the first and second century
church
> fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as
politely as
> I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what matters is
what
> scripture teaches and what history shows.

Don't be silly! What Catholicism teaches is catholic dogma. What is the
title of this thread and subject?

There are numerous statements
> about gathering for worship on the first day of the week. There are
> numerous statements about turning from the Sabbath.

Now here you are referring to catholic writers again after saying this
is irrelevant...

> There is nothing in the
> majority of these writings about turning Sunday into the Sabbath.

Then what is this?

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
modern religionists agree with her;------>she could not have substituted
the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no
Scriptural authority. <-------------
Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
by T. W. Strong, p. 174.

Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
-------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred
the
solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.

Is the Council of Laodicea Catholic writings? Where the apostles alive
then?

These
> were two separate things in their eyes.
> Stephan has explained numerous times that in the mind of Catholics the
early
> church fathers were also Catholic as were the Apostles. It is by this
> understanding that the Catholics claim that by her own authority the
> Catholic church changed the Sabbath i.e. by the authority of the
Catholic
> apostles, not by some latter council.

Then what is this?

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
modern religionists agree with her;------>she could not have substituted
the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no
Scriptural authority. <-------------
Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
by T. W. Strong, p. 174.

Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
-------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred
the
solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.

Is the Council of Laodicea Catholic writings? Where the apostles alive
then?

> I believe they are wrong about two things; first the Sabbath has never
> changed, but we as Christians are not under a Sabbath day law which is
what
> scripture and the early fathers both state; second, I don't accept
that the
> early church fathers and apostles were Catholic as the word Catholic
is
> understood today.
> --

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Who do you think the mystery of iniguity Paul warned about in reference
to the Old testament prophecies was, and who was the man of sin he said
was yet to be revealed???

> WT
>
> By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
> if you have love for one another
>
>

alanm

2006-07-22 13:56:11 UTC

Permalink

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:15:50 UTC

Permalink

"alanm" <***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%7qwg.9063$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:VRpwg.52395$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
> > >
> > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > >>
> > > >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy,
> > the
> > > > word
> > > >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
> > > > pagans.
> > > >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter
> > their
> > > > word
> > > >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> > > >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's
> > name...
> > > >>
> > > >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> > > >>
> > > >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> > > >
> > > > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow
> > INVALIDATE
> > > > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
> > > > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own
> > Church
> > > > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....
> > > >
> > > > See:
> > > > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> > > > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
> > > >
> > > > Check this out:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> > > > Catholic
> > > > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
> > > > solemnity from
> > > > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> > > > institute festivals of precept?
> > > > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
> > > > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
> > > > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the
> > observance
> > > > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is no
> > > > Scriptural authority. <-------------
> > > > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> > > > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> > > > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the Bible,
> > > > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
> > > > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday
> > Sabbath
> > > > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her
> > ecclesiastical
> > > > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal
> > > > Gibbons.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > One only has to study the writings of the first and second century
> > church
> > > fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as
> > politely as
> > > I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what matters is
> > what
> > > scripture teaches and what history shows.
> >
> > Don't be silly! What Catholicism teaches is catholic dogma. What is the
> > title of this thread and subject?
> >
>
> You can simply obtain this information by reading it.

Something he won't do. I've quoted official Catholic teaching for him, and
he won't accept that it's official Catholic teaching. He considers the
Council of Trent and the Pope to be ignorant of official Catholic teaching,
and newspapers and other unofficial sources that he takes out of context to
be a better source of information.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 11:38:14 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "alanm" <***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%7qwg.9063$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:VRpwg.52395$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > > news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
> > > >
> > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic
hierchy,
> > > the
> > > > > word
> > > > >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the
Egyptian
> > > > > pagans.
> > > > >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans
adapter
> > > their
> > > > > word
> > > > >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the
Catholic
> > > > >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and
it's
> > > name...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow
> > > INVALIDATE
> > > > > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and
sun
> > > > > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his
own
> > > Church
> > > > > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a
lie....
> > > > >
> > > > > See:
> > > > > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> > > > > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Check this out:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday
because the
> > > > > Catholic
> > > > > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred
the
> > > > > solemnity from
> > > > > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power
to
> > > > > institute festivals of precept?
> > > > > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in
which all
> > > > > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have
substituted
> > > > > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the
> > > observance
> > > > > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there
is no
> > > > > Scriptural authority. <-------------
> > > > > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur
by
> > > > > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright
1876
> > > > > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the
Bible,
> > > > > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that
fact"
> > > > > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday
> > > Sabbath
> > > > > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her
> > > ecclesiastical
> > > > > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of
Cardinal
> > > > > Gibbons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One only has to study the writings of the first and second
century
> > > church
> > > > fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as
> > > politely as
> > > > I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what
matters is
> > > what
> > > > scripture teaches and what history shows.
> > >
> > > Don't be silly! What Catholicism teaches is catholic dogma. What
is the
> > > title of this thread and subject?
> > >
> >
> > You can simply obtain this information by reading it.
>
> Something he won't do. I've quoted official Catholic teaching for
him, and
> he won't accept that it's official Catholic teaching.

You are lying again. I already posted to you I acknowledged what you
posted. I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed the
Sabbath, I just don't happen to believe it's true, or all that Rome
teaches about this.

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 11:43:41 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:GcJwg.133503$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "alanm" <***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:%7qwg.9063$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > news:VRpwg.52395$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
> > > > >
> > > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic
> hierchy,
> > > > the
> > > > > > word
> > > > > >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the
> Egyptian
> > > > > > pagans.
> > > > > >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans
> adapter
> > > > their
> > > > > > word
> > > > > >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the
> Catholic
> > > > > >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and
> it's
> > > > name...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow
> > > > INVALIDATE
> > > > > > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and
> sun
> > > > > > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his
> own
> > > > Church
> > > > > > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a
> lie....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See:
> > > > > > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> > > > > > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday
> because the
> > > > > > Catholic
> > > > > > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred
> the
> > > > > > solemnity from
> > > > > > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power
> to
> > > > > > institute festivals of precept?
> > > > > > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in
> which all
> > > > > > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have
> substituted
> > > > > > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the
> > > > observance
> > > > > > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there
> is no
> > > > > > Scriptural authority. <-------------
> > > > > > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur
> by
> > > > > > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright
> 1876
> > > > > > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the
> Bible,
> > > > > > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that
> fact"
> > > > > > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday
> > > > Sabbath
> > > > > > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her
> > > > ecclesiastical
> > > > > > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of
> Cardinal
> > > > > > Gibbons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > One only has to study the writings of the first and second
> century
> > > > church
> > > > > fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as
> > > > politely as
> > > > > I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what
> matters is
> > > > what
> > > > > scripture teaches and what history shows.
> > > >
> > > > Don't be silly! What Catholicism teaches is catholic dogma. What
> is the
> > > > title of this thread and subject?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You can simply obtain this information by reading it.
> >
> > Something he won't do. I've quoted official Catholic teaching for
> him, and
> > he won't accept that it's official Catholic teaching.
>
> You are lying again.

No, I'm not.

> I already posted to you I acknowledged what you
> posted. I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed the
> Sabbath, I just don't happen to believe it's true, or all that Rome
> teaches about this.

Then why do you continue to claim the following (22 July):

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:UNuwg.177174$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Rome changed the law concerning the Sabbath to the 1st day of the week.
> Rome made laws starting with Constantine and on up through the years.
> Just as those Catholic Catechism quotes I supplied said. The Catholic
> Church claims to have changed the law and the time of the observance of
> the Sabbath Commandment to the first day of the week. Rome says she did
> this in 364AD at the council of Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have
> done any of this lawmaking in the days of the apostles,.

You're confused. Instead of telling us that the Catholic Church teaches
thing that in reality it doesn't, why don't you deal with the biblical
evidence?

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 12:26:55 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:0pedndNWb-***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:GcJwg.133503$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:***@is.co.za...
> > >
> > > "alanm" <***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> > > news:%7qwg.9063$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > >
> > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:VRpwg.52395$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic
> > hierchy,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > word
> > > > > > >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the
> > Egyptian
> > > > > > > pagans.
> > > > > > >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans
> > adapter
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > word
> > > > > > >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the
> > Catholic
> > > > > > >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and
> > it's
> > > > > name...
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow
> > > > > INVALIDATE
> > > > > > > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus
and
> > sun
> > > > > > > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting
his
> > own
> > > > > Church
> > > > > > > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a
> > lie....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See:
> > > > > > > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> > > > > > > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
> > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday
> > because the
> > > > > > > Catholic
> > > > > > > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364),
transferred
> > the
> > > > > > > solemnity from
> > > > > > > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd
ed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has
power
> > to
> > > > > > > institute festivals of precept?
> > > > > > > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in
> > which all
> > > > > > > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have
> > substituted
> > > > > > > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for
the
> > > > > observance
> > > > > > > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which
there
> > is no
> > > > > > > Scriptural authority. <-------------
> > > > > > > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan,
Imprimatur
> > by
> > > > > > > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright
> > 1876
> > > > > > > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above
the
> > Bible,
> > > > > > > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of
that
> > fact"
> > > > > > > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change
(Saturday
> > > > > Sabbath
> > > > > > > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her
> > > > > ecclesiastical
> > > > > > > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of
> > Cardinal
> > > > > > > Gibbons.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One only has to study the writings of the first and second
> > century
> > > > > church
> > > > > > fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put
it as
> > > > > politely as
> > > > > > I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what
> > matters is
> > > > > what
> > > > > > scripture teaches and what history shows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't be silly! What Catholicism teaches is catholic dogma.
What
> > is the
> > > > > title of this thread and subject?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can simply obtain this information by reading it.
> > >
> > > Something he won't do. I've quoted official Catholic teaching for
> > him, and
> > > he won't accept that it's official Catholic teaching.
> >
> > You are lying again.
>
> No, I'm not.
>
> > I already posted to you I acknowledged what you
> > posted. I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed
the
> > Sabbath, I just don't happen to believe it's true, or all that Rome
> > teaches about this.
>
> Then why do you continue to claim the following (22 July):
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:UNuwg.177174$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> > Rome changed the law concerning the Sabbath to the 1st day of the
week.
> > Rome made laws starting with Constantine and on up through the
years.
> > Just as those Catholic Catechism quotes I supplied said. The
Catholic
> > Church claims to have changed the law and the time of the observance
of
> > the Sabbath Commandment to the first day of the week. Rome says she
did
> > this in 364AD at the council of Laodicea. Rome does not claim to
have
> > done any of this lawmaking in the days of the apostles,.
>
> You're confused. Instead of telling us that the Catholic Church
teaches
> thing that in reality it doesn't, why don't you deal with the biblical
> evidence?

I am.
Dan 7:
:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall
wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and
laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and
the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to
consume and to destroy [it] unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under
the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most
High, whose kingdom [is] an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall
serve and obey him.

Or as Paul said in 2 thes 2:

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,
nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at
hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come],
except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed,
the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his
time.

:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now
letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of
his coming:
:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power
and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness

>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 14:03:35 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:jWJwg.133688$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:0pedndNWb-***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:GcJwg.133503$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > >
> > > > "alanm" <***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> > > > news:%7qwg.9063$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > >
> > > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:VRpwg.52395$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > > >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic
> > > hierchy,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > word
> > > > > > > >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the
> > > Egyptian
> > > > > > > > pagans.
> > > > > > > >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans
> > > adapter
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > word
> > > > > > > >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the
> > > Catholic
> > > > > > > >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and
> > > it's
> > > > > > name...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow
> > > > > > INVALIDATE
> > > > > > > > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus
> and
> > > sun
> > > > > > > > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting
> his
> > > own
> > > > > > Church
> > > > > > > > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a
> > > lie....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See:
> > > > > > > > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> > > > > > > > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
> > > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Check this out:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > > > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > > > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > > > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday
> > > because the
> > > > > > > > Catholic
> > > > > > > > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364),
> transferred
> > > the
> > > > > > > > solemnity from
> > > > > > > > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > > > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd
> ed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has
> power
> > > to
> > > > > > > > institute festivals of precept?
> > > > > > > > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in
> > > which all
> > > > > > > > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have
> > > substituted
> > > > > > > > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for
> the
> > > > > > observance
> > > > > > > > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which
> there
> > > is no
> > > > > > > > Scriptural authority. <-------------
> > > > > > > > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan,
> Imprimatur
> > > by
> > > > > > > > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright
> > > 1876
> > > > > > > > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above
> the
> > > Bible,
> > > > > > > > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of
> that
> > > fact"
> > > > > > > > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change
> (Saturday
> > > > > > Sabbath
> > > > > > > > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her
> > > > > > ecclesiastical
> > > > > > > > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of
> > > Cardinal
> > > > > > > > Gibbons.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One only has to study the writings of the first and second
> > > century
> > > > > > church
> > > > > > > fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put
> it as
> > > > > > politely as
> > > > > > > I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what
> > > matters is
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > scripture teaches and what history shows.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't be silly! What Catholicism teaches is catholic dogma.
> What
> > > is the
> > > > > > title of this thread and subject?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You can simply obtain this information by reading it.
> > > >
> > > > Something he won't do. I've quoted official Catholic teaching for
> > > him, and
> > > > he won't accept that it's official Catholic teaching.
> > >
> > > You are lying again.
> >
> > No, I'm not.
> >
> > > I already posted to you I acknowledged what you
> > > posted. I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed
> the
> > > Sabbath, I just don't happen to believe it's true, or all that Rome
> > > teaches about this.
> >
> > Then why do you continue to claim the following (22 July):
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:UNuwg.177174$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> > > Rome changed the law concerning the Sabbath to the 1st day of the
> week.
> > > Rome made laws starting with Constantine and on up through the
> years.
> > > Just as those Catholic Catechism quotes I supplied said. The
> Catholic
> > > Church claims to have changed the law and the time of the observance
> of
> > > the Sabbath Commandment to the first day of the week. Rome says she
> did
> > > this in 364AD at the council of Laodicea. Rome does not claim to
> have
> > > done any of this lawmaking in the days of the apostles,.
> >
> > You're confused. Instead of telling us that the Catholic Church
> teaches
> > thing that in reality it doesn't, why don't you deal with the biblical
> > evidence?
>
>
> I am.

Confused, yes. "I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed
the Sabbath" but "Rome says she did this in 364AD at the council of
Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have done any of this lawmaking in the days
of the apostles,."

Sounds confused to me. Sounds like a contradiction.

The verses you quote below contain neither a command for Christians to keep
the Sabbath, nor an example of Christians doing so.

The verses you quote below are directed towards the Apostles, one of whom
wrote in the Bible several times that the Sabbath is not necessary for
Christians. Since Catholics and Protestants all believe that the Apostles
instituted Sunday observance, your arguments mean nothing.

You can only be successful by doing one of the following:

- show from the Bible that we need to keep the Sabbath (you can't/won't)
- show that the Apostles didn't change the day (can't/won't)
- show that Trent and John Paul II's statements do not represent official
Catholic teaching on the matter

Since we know that Catholics and Protestants believe the Apostles began
Sunday keeping, you need to show us why this verse applies to the Apostles,
or you need to show us when Sunday keeping actually began, and explain all
the evidence we have that it began much earlier than Constantine, or
whenever you choose to put it.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> Dan 7:
> :25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall
> wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and
> laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and
> the dividing of time.
> 26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to
> consume and to destroy [it] unto the end.
> 27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under
> the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most
> High, whose kingdom [is] an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall
> serve and obey him.
>
> Or as Paul said in 2 thes 2:
>
> 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,
> nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at
> hand.
> 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come],
> except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed,
> the son of perdition;
> 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
> that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
> shewing himself that he is God.
> 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
> things?
> 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his
> time.
>
> :7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now
> letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
> :8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
> with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of
> his coming:
> :9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power
> and signs and lying wonders,
> 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
> because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
> saved.
> 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
> should believe a lie:
> 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
> pleasure in unrighteousness
>
>
> >
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Korsman
> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> >
> > IC | XC
> > ---------
> > NI | KA
> >
> > add an s before .co.za
> >
> >
>

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 17:31:50 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:k7KdnS-***@is.co.za...
"I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed
> the Sabbath" but "Rome says she did this in 364AD at the council of
> Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have done any of this lawmaking in
the days
> of the apostles,."
>
> Sounds confused to me. Sounds like a contradiction.

No it's not. God's laws continue until He says different. I accept that
the mystery of iniquity was at work and man began to disregard God's
Sabbath early on, I accept some began to gather on Sunday. I accept that
Rome teaches that the apostles changed the day and placed the solemnity
of the seventh-day onto the first, however Rome teaches a lie, and they
didn't teach that to begin with.

Please quote where the Apostles changed it, or anyone claimed they
changed it and where and when and what was said, or any of the above,
and please provide that quote from before your Church began to make laws
in Constantine's day to command others to do as she had already been
doing. See the apostles made no laws, there is no record from them, or
even an eyewitness acount of them doing any such thing. The NT shows
them meeting on Sabbath. Paul is recorded teaching on Sabbath "every
Sabbath" in the book of acts, you have his testimony before Agrippa, he
said He Never broke the law, and the Jews could find nothing to accuse
him of. The only record you have are Romes lies and false claims.

You want me to prove the Apostles didn't change it.
Dude, it's your claim, I can't prove a negative.

You say they changed it. You say yout Church teaches this. The burden of
proof is on you. Prove what you are claiming.

>
> The verses you quote below contain neither a command for Christians to
keep
> the Sabbath, nor an example of Christians doing so.
>
> The verses you quote below are directed towards the Apostles, one of
whom
> wrote in the Bible several times that the Sabbath is not necessary for
> Christians. Since Catholics and Protestants all believe that the
Apostles
> instituted Sunday observance, your arguments mean nothing.
>
> You can only be successful by doing one of the following:
>
> - show from the Bible that we need to keep the Sabbath (you
can't/won't)
> - show that the Apostles didn't change the day (can't/won't)
> - show that Trent and John Paul II's statements do not represent
official
> Catholic teaching on the matter
>
> Since we know that Catholics and Protestants believe the Apostles
began
> Sunday keeping, you need to show us why this verse applies to the
Apostles,
> or you need to show us when Sunday keeping actually began, and explain
all
> the evidence we have that it began much earlier than Constantine, or
> whenever you choose to put it.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
> > Dan 7:
> > :25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and
shall
> > wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and
> > laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times
and
> > the dividing of time.
> > 26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his
dominion, to
> > consume and to destroy [it] unto the end.
> > 27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom
under
> > the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the
most
> > High, whose kingdom [is] an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions
shall
> > serve and obey him.
> >
> > Or as Paul said in 2 thes 2:
> >
> > 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by
spirit,
> > nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is
at
> > hand.
> > 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not
come],
> > except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
revealed,
> > the son of perdition;
> > 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
> > that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
> > shewing himself that he is God.
> > 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
> > things?
> > 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his
> > time.
> >
> > :7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now
> > letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
> > :8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall
consume
> > with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness
of
> > his coming:
> > :9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all
power
> > and signs and lying wonders,
> > 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that
perish;
> > because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
> > saved.
> > 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
> > should believe a lie:
> > 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
> > pleasure in unrighteousness
> >
> >
> > >
> > > God bless,
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Korsman
> > > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> > >
> > > IC | XC
> > > ---------
> > > NI | KA
> > >
> > > add an s before .co.za
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 18:34:15 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:aoOwg.178300$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:k7KdnS-***@is.co.za...
> "I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed
> > the Sabbath" but "Rome says she did this in 364AD at the council of
> > Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have done any of this lawmaking in
> the days
> > of the apostles,."
> >
> > Sounds confused to me. Sounds like a contradiction.
>
> No it's not. God's laws continue until He says different.

Yes it is a contradiction. God's laws have nothing to do with whether it is
or isn't a contradiction. You said that Rome teaches that the Apostles
changed the Sabbath, and that Rome teaches that they didn't. That is a
glaring contradiction.

> I accept that
> the mystery of iniquity was at work and man began to disregard God's
> Sabbath early on, I accept some began to gather on Sunday. I accept that
> Rome teaches that the apostles changed the day and placed the solemnity
> of the seventh-day onto the first, however Rome teaches a lie, and they
> didn't teach that to begin with.

They taught it in the 1500's, and you've seen the evidence of that. Do you
have a quote from prior to the 1500's to show me I'm wrong?

> Please quote where the Apostles changed it, or anyone claimed they
> changed it and where and when and what was said, or any of the above,
> and please provide that quote from before your Church began to make laws
> in Constantine's day to command others to do as she had already been
> doing. See the apostles made no laws, there is no record from them, or
> even an eyewitness acount of them doing any such thing. The NT shows
> them meeting on Sabbath.

Meeting with non-Christian Jews on the Sabbath doesn't fit the description
of a Christian service on the Sabbath.

> Paul is recorded teaching on Sabbath "every
> Sabbath" in the book of acts,

There is a big difference between a worship service for Christians, and
evangelising Jews at their own services.

> you have his testimony before Agrippa, he
> said He Never broke the law, and the Jews could find nothing to accuse
> him of. The only record you have are Romes lies and false claims.

The issue is not whether Rome is correct or not. The issue is what Rome
actually says. On that matter, you've been proven wrong. You've been shown
the evidence, and produced none of your own from official Catholic sources.
You only have opinions from unofficial sources, which contradict the
official views of the Catholic Church.

> You want me to prove the Apostles didn't change it.
> Dude, it's your claim, I can't prove a negative.

Yes you can - if you can show that the Apostles kept it, you'll be showing
that they wouldn't have changed to Sunday keeping.

But you can't show that.

Nowhere does the Bible command Sabbath keeping for Christians. Nowhere does
it show us examples of Christians keeping the Sabbath.

So why is it so important, if the Bible doesn't mention it in that context?

> You say they changed it. You say yout Church teaches this. The burden of
> proof is on you. Prove what you are claiming.

No, it's up to you to do the proving. You're the one making up beliefs to
attribute to the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> > The verses you quote below contain neither a command for Christians to
> keep
> > the Sabbath, nor an example of Christians doing so.
> >
> > The verses you quote below are directed towards the Apostles, one of
> whom
> > wrote in the Bible several times that the Sabbath is not necessary for
> > Christians. Since Catholics and Protestants all believe that the
> Apostles
> > instituted Sunday observance, your arguments mean nothing.
> >
> > You can only be successful by doing one of the following:
> >
> > - show from the Bible that we need to keep the Sabbath (you
> can't/won't)
> > - show that the Apostles didn't change the day (can't/won't)
> > - show that Trent and John Paul II's statements do not represent
> official
> > Catholic teaching on the matter
> >
> > Since we know that Catholics and Protestants believe the Apostles
> began
> > Sunday keeping, you need to show us why this verse applies to the
> Apostles,
> > or you need to show us when Sunday keeping actually began, and explain
> all
> > the evidence we have that it began much earlier than Constantine, or
> > whenever you choose to put it.
> >
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Korsman
> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> >
> > IC | XC
> > ---------
> > NI | KA
> >
> > add an s before .co.za
> >
> > > Dan 7:
> > > :25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and
> shall
> > > wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and
> > > laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times
> and
> > > the dividing of time.
> > > 26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his
> dominion, to
> > > consume and to destroy [it] unto the end.
> > > 27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom
> under
> > > the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the
> most
> > > High, whose kingdom [is] an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions
> shall
> > > serve and obey him.
> > >
> > > Or as Paul said in 2 thes 2:
> > >
> > > 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by
> spirit,
> > > nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is
> at
> > > hand.
> > > 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not
> come],
> > > except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
> revealed,
> > > the son of perdition;
> > > 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
> > > that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
> > > shewing himself that he is God.
> > > 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
> > > things?
> > > 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his
> > > time.
> > >
> > > :7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now
> > > letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
> > > :8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall
> consume
> > > with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness
> of
> > > his coming:
> > > :9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all
> power
> > > and signs and lying wonders,
> > > 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that
> perish;
> > > because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
> > > saved.
> > > 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
> > > should believe a lie:
> > > 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
> > > pleasure in unrighteousness
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > God bless,
> > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Korsman
> > > > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > > > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> > > >
> > > > IC | XC
> > > > ---------
> > > > NI | KA
> > > >
> > > > add an s before .co.za
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 22:17:21 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:aoOwg.178300$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:k7KdnS-***@is.co.za...
> > "I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed
> > > the Sabbath" but "Rome says she did this in 364AD at the council
of
> > > Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have done any of this lawmaking
in
> > the days
> > > of the apostles,."
> > >
> > > Sounds confused to me. Sounds like a contradiction.
> >
> > No it's not. God's laws continue until He says different.
>
> Yes it is a contradiction. God's laws have nothing to do with whether
it is
> or isn't a contradiction. You said that Rome teaches that the
Apostles
> changed the Sabbath, and that Rome teaches that they didn't. That is
a
> glaring contradiction.

I said Rome teaches they changed it at the council of Laodicea and they
did, and I said Rome claims the apostles did so earlier--which is not
true, and would also make Rome's later laws redundant...

>
> > I accept that
> > the mystery of iniquity was at work and man began to disregard God's
> > Sabbath early on, I accept some began to gather on Sunday. I accept
that
> > Rome teaches that the apostles changed the day and placed the
solemnity
> > of the seventh-day onto the first, however Rome teaches a lie, and
they
> > didn't teach that to begin with.
>
> They taught it in the 1500's, and you've seen the evidence of that.
Do you
> have a quote from prior to the 1500's to show me I'm wrong?
>

Let me remind you that it is you who claims it was changed by apostolic
authority prior to Constantine and prior the council of Laodicea. No I
don't have a quote to prove they did so, for that's false, and
unbiblical.. You claim your Church is correct in what they said in the
1500's about the apostles changing the Sabbath, so you supply the proof
of where they did so, you supply the quotes.

Put up or just please have the decency to be quiet and stop claiming
things you have no proof for.

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 23:29:05 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:RzSwg.134110$***@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:aoOwg.178300$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> > >
> > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > news:k7KdnS-***@is.co.za...
> > > "I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed
> > > > the Sabbath" but "Rome says she did this in 364AD at the council
> of
> > > > Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have done any of this lawmaking
> in
> > > the days
> > > > of the apostles,."
> > > >
> > > > Sounds confused to me. Sounds like a contradiction.
> > >
> > > No it's not. God's laws continue until He says different.
> >
> > Yes it is a contradiction. God's laws have nothing to do with whether
> it is
> > or isn't a contradiction. You said that Rome teaches that the
> Apostles
> > changed the Sabbath, and that Rome teaches that they didn't. That is
> a
> > glaring contradiction.
>
> I said Rome teaches they changed it at the council of Laodicea and they
> did,

Yet you have no evidence for any official claims. You have no real
historians to back you up. You have only quotes that do not reflect
official Catholic teaching.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/238/I-B-Wonderin

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2

> and I said Rome claims the apostles did so earlier--which is not
> true, and would also make Rome's later laws redundant...

Catholicism claims the Apostles did. Period. You have no evidence to the
contrary. Your evidence consists of abuse of statements by people who
didn't know the facts.

> > > I accept that
> > > the mystery of iniquity was at work and man began to disregard God's
> > > Sabbath early on, I accept some began to gather on Sunday. I accept
> that
> > > Rome teaches that the apostles changed the day and placed the
> solemnity
> > > of the seventh-day onto the first, however Rome teaches a lie, and
> they
> > > didn't teach that to begin with.
> >
> > They taught it in the 1500's, and you've seen the evidence of that.
> Do you
> > have a quote from prior to the 1500's to show me I'm wrong?
> >
>
> Let me remind you that it is you who claims it was changed by apostolic
> authority prior to Constantine and prior the council of Laodicea.

Obviously it did. Christians had been keeping Sunday for a long time prior
to that. How on earth can you claim that Catholicism instituted Sunday
observance at the time of Constantine, when Sunday observance had been
around for ages prior to his arrival on the scene?

That's just daft.

As for the biblical evidence, you've avoided that well, so I don't expect
you to deal with it now.

> No I
> don't have a quote to prove they did so, for that's false, and
> unbiblical.. You claim your Church is correct in what they said in the
> 1500's about the apostles changing the Sabbath, so you supply the proof
> of where they did so, you supply the quotes.

The evidence has already been put forward. You've ignored it all.

And you're making things up - your own quotes say that the Sabbath is still
Saturday.

> Put up or just please have the decency to be quiet and stop claiming
> things you have no proof for.

You're projecting. You're the one claiming things that you have no evidence
for. You should take your own advice.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/238/I-B-Wonderin

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2

Until you're prepared to address the issue of the biblical evidence, there
is little more to say. By following diversions into what the Catholic
Church does and doesn't teach, you're only making a laughing stock of your
beliefs.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Whazit Tooyah

2006-07-22 22:13:09 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:VRpwg.52395$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
>>
>> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>> news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
>> > news:***@is.co.za...
>> >>
>> >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy,
> the
>> > word
>> >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
>> > pagans.
>> >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter
> their
>> > word
>> >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
>> >> >
>> >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
>> >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's
> name...
>> >>
>> >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
>> >>
>> >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
>> >
>> > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow
> INVALIDATE
>> > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
>> > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own
> Church
>> > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....
>> >
>> > See:
>> > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
>> > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
>> >
>> > Check this out:
>> >
>> >
>> > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
>> > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
>> > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
>> > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
>> > Catholic
>> > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
>> > solemnity from
>> > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
>> > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
>> >
>> >
>> > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
>> > institute festivals of precept?
>> > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
>> > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
>> > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the
> observance
>> > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is no
>> > Scriptural authority. <-------------
>> > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
>> > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
>> > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the Bible,
>> > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
>> > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday
> Sabbath
>> > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her
> ecclesiastical
>> > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal
>> > Gibbons.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> One only has to study the writings of the first and second century
> church
>> fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as
> politely as
>> I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what matters is
> what
>> scripture teaches and what history shows.
>
> Don't be silly! What Catholicism teaches is catholic dogma. What is the
> title of this thread and subject?
>
>
> There are numerous statements
>> about gathering for worship on the first day of the week. There are
>> numerous statements about turning from the Sabbath.
>
> Now here you are referring to catholic writers again after saying this
> is irrelevant.

So in your opinion everybody after the Apostles is a Catholic? Even the
first century writers?

>
>> There is nothing in the
>> majority of these writings about turning Sunday into the Sabbath.
>
> Then what is this?
>
> Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> institute festivals of precept?
> A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
> modern religionists agree with her;------>she could not have substituted
> the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
> of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no
> Scriptural authority. <-------------
> Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
>
> Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred
> the
> solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.

That is not from the early church fathers of the first and second centuries.

>
> Is the Council of Laodicea Catholic writings? Where the apostles alive
> then?
>
> These
>> were two separate things in their eyes.
>> Stephan has explained numerous times that in the mind of Catholics the
> early
>> church fathers were also Catholic as were the Apostles. It is by this
>> understanding that the Catholics claim that by her own authority the
>> Catholic church changed the Sabbath i.e. by the authority of the
> Catholic
>> apostles, not by some latter council.
>
> Then what is this?
>
> Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> institute festivals of precept?
> A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
> modern religionists agree with her;------>she could not have substituted
> the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
> of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no
> Scriptural authority. <-------------
> Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
>
> Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred
> the
> solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
>
> Is the Council of Laodicea Catholic writings? Where the apostles alive
> then?
>

Did you read what I wrote, or is your cut and paste button sticking. I wrote
"in the mind of Catholics the early church fathers were also Catholic as
were the Apostles." This is why in their minds the Catholic Church has
authority over the Sabbath.

>
>> I believe they are wrong about two things; first the Sabbath has never
>> changed, but we as Christians are not under a Sabbath day law which is
> what
>> scripture and the early fathers both state; second, I don't accept
> that the
>> early church fathers and apostles were Catholic as the word Catholic
> is
>> understood today.
>> --
>
> Thanks for sharing your opinion.
>
> Who do you think the mystery of iniquity Paul warned about in reference
> to the Old testament prophecies was, and who was the man of sin he said
> was yet to be revealed???

Nobody is going to be convinced that you are right. You do not discuss, you
acuse. You do not love Catholics, you wish to vanquish them. Some on this
ng seem to perceive all Catholics as being the spawn of Satan. With that
attitude, the only ones you will ever show to be in error are yourselves.

>
>
>> WT
>>
>> By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
>> if you have love for one another
>>
>>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 18:10:47 UTC

Permalink

"Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:***@is.co.za...
> >>
> >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy, the
> > word
> >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
> > pagans.
> >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter their
> > word
> >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> >> >
> >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's name...
> >>
> >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> >>
> >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> >
> > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow INVALIDATE
> > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
> > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own Church
> > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....
> >
> > See:
> > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
> >
> > Check this out:
> >
> >
> > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> > Catholic
> > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
> > solemnity from
> > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> >
> >
> > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> > institute festivals of precept?
> > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
> > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
> > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
> > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is no
> > Scriptural authority. <-------------
> > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
> >
> >
> > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the Bible,
> > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
> > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
> >
> >
> > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath
> > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical
> > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal
> > Gibbons.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> One only has to study the writings of the first and second century church
> fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as politely
as
> I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what matters is
what
> scripture teaches and what history shows.

That is true. He's basing his attack on Sunday observance by saying:

1. Catholic newspapers say that the Catholic Church began Sunday keeping.
2. Catholic newspapers say that there is no biblical evidence for Sunday
keeping.
3. On those two points we can trust Catholicism, even though it cannot be
trusted.
4. Therefore Sunday keeping is a Catholic plot without biblical support.

That's a good way to avoid having to review historical and biblical data.

> There are numerous statements
> about gathering for worship on the first day of the week. There are
> numerous statements about turning from the Sabbath. There is nothing in
the
> majority of these writings about turning Sunday into the Sabbath. These
> were two separate things in their eyes.
> Stephan has explained numerous times that in the mind of Catholics the
early
> church fathers were also Catholic as were the Apostles. It is by this
> understanding that the Catholics claim that by her own authority the
> Catholic church changed the Sabbath i.e. by the authority of the Catholic
> apostles, not by some latter council.

And whether he agrees with Catholic teaching or not, he has to accept that
that IS Catholic teaching. I've shown him the evidence, but each time he
argues back with "but it's not true." Each time, by doing that, he diverts
to another subtopic - when we're discussing what is and isn't Catholic
teaching, he rejects Catholic teaching by saying it's not biblical (using
newspaper clippings as his evidence) ... and each time we discuss what is
and isn't biblical, he brings up the issue of Catholic teaching, which he
refuses to present accurately. He won't acknowledge official Catholic
teaching as being official Catholic teaching, and insists on using
unofficial sources that he misinterprets. So, in effect, he's saying "I
disagree with that, so it cannot be official Catholic teaching. I will
therefore provide official Catholic teaching from unofficial sources,
because it helps my argument, even though I need to remove them from context
to make them support my argument."

He doesn't understand that whether its true or not is not relevant - whether
it's Catholic teaching or not IS relevant to the discussion of the relevance
of his quotes regarding Catholic teaching about Sunday ... and whether it's
Catholic teaching or not IS NOT relevant to the discussion of the biblical
and historical evidence.

So he's trapped in a vicious circle of faulty logic that keeps him from
addressing what the Bible actually says.

> I believe they are wrong about two things; first the Sabbath has never
> changed, but we as Christians are not under a Sabbath day law which is
what
> scripture and the early fathers both state; second, I don't accept that
the
> early church fathers and apostles were Catholic as the word Catholic is
> understood today.

Perhaps more technically, the Sabbath was not changed, but worshipping on
Sunday as the primary day for Christian gathering (and Christmas, Easter,
etc) is covered by the principle of community worship in the 10 Commandments
(whose principles may continue, as they do with other Old Testament laws,
even though as a legal code they are no longer in effect) as well as by Mat
18:18 (Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven, KJV) - and that would not just be a Catholic interpretation, but be
acceptable for most Protestant denominations as well.

I'm also not asking him (or you) to accept and believe Catholic teaching
(the official version or his newspaper version). I'm asking him to
acknowledge Catholic teaching as Catholic teaching. Whether it's truth or
not is another matter. But by refusing to acknowledge Catholic teaching as
Catholic teaching, he a) will never reach the point where the biblical
evidence becomes relevant, b) continues to misrepresent Catholic teaching in
the face of overwhelming evidence against him about what Catholic teaching
is, and c) he makes himself and his church look silly for ignoring biblical
evidence and determining their beliefs according to newspaper clippings and
distorted citations they disagree with.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-22 19:13:56 UTC

Permalink

You are dancing all around the point AND MAKING CONFUSING ARGUMENTS TO
DECEIVE - Jesuit tactics

No one is saying that People didn't ever meet on the first day of the
week. In fact they broke bread together daily and even met daily as the
book of Acts records..There is no prophecy about anyone meeting together
on a specific day. The prophecy is about making laws and changing them
and the times. People can meet whenever they want this never makes a
day Holy nor a law of the Church, nor does it mean there is a change in
God's commandments.

Daniel speaks of a little horn arising out the divisions of the Pagan
Roman empire which persecutes and which has the names of blasphemy ,
that power thinks to change times and laws. Paul speaks of this also
calling him the man of sin is yet to appear.

You are missing the point entirely.

Rome changed the law concerning the Sabbath to the 1st day of the week.
Rome made laws starting with Constantine and on up through the years.
Just as those Catholic Catechism quotes I supplied said. The Catholic
Church claims to have changed the law and the time of the observance of
the Sabbath Commandment to the first day of the week. Rome says she did
this in 364AD at the council of Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have
done any of this lawmaking in the days of the apostles,.

Now Korsman I cknowledge your fascitious arguments now acknowledge what
I wrote and stop playing jello and refusing to be nailed to the wall on
this point.
Answer plainly.

Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____

Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
-------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is no
Scriptural authority. <-------------
- Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
by T. W. Strong, p. 174.

Do you acknowledge Rome has made laws concerning the observance of the
first day of the week
Yes_____ NO_____

and forbidding rest or sabbatizing on the seventh day?
Yes_____ NO_____

Do I need to go get those laws for you?

yes_____ NO_____
.

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > >>
> > >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy,
the
> > > word
> > >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
> > > pagans.
> > >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter
their
> > > word
> > >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> > >> >
> > >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> > >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's
name...
> > >>
> > >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> > >>
> > >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> > >
> > > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow
INVALIDATE
> > > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
> > > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own
Church
> > > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....
> > >
> > > See:
> > > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> > > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
> > >
> > > Check this out:
> > >
> > >
> > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because
the
> > > Catholic
> > > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
> > > solemnity from
> > > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> > > institute festivals of precept?
> > > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which
all
> > > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
> > > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the
observance
> > > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is
no
> > > Scriptural authority. <-------------
> > > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> > > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> > > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the
Bible,
> > > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
> > > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday
Sabbath
> > > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her
ecclesiastical
> > > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of
Cardinal
> > > Gibbons.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > One only has to study the writings of the first and second century
church
> > fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as
politely
> as
> > I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what matters
is
> what
> > scripture teaches and what history shows.
>
> That is true. He's basing his attack on Sunday observance by saying:
>
> 1. Catholic newspapers say that the Catholic Church began Sunday
keeping.
> 2. Catholic newspapers say that there is no biblical evidence for
Sunday
> keeping.
> 3. On those two points we can trust Catholicism, even though it cannot
be
> trusted.
> 4. Therefore Sunday keeping is a Catholic plot without biblical
support.
>
> That's a good way to avoid having to review historical and biblical
data.
>
> > There are numerous statements
> > about gathering for worship on the first day of the week. There are
> > numerous statements about turning from the Sabbath. There is
nothing in
> the
> > majority of these writings about turning Sunday into the Sabbath.
These
> > were two separate things in their eyes.
> > Stephan has explained numerous times that in the mind of Catholics
the
> early
> > church fathers were also Catholic as were the Apostles. It is by
this
> > understanding that the Catholics claim that by her own authority the
> > Catholic church changed the Sabbath i.e. by the authority of the
Catholic
> > apostles, not by some latter council.
>
> And whether he agrees with Catholic teaching or not, he has to accept
that
> that IS Catholic teaching. I've shown him the evidence, but each time
he
> argues back with "but it's not true." Each time, by doing that, he
diverts
> to another subtopic - when we're discussing what is and isn't Catholic
> teaching, he rejects Catholic teaching by saying it's not biblical
(using
> newspaper clippings as his evidence) ... and each time we discuss what
is
> and isn't biblical, he brings up the issue of Catholic teaching, which
he
> refuses to present accurately. He won't acknowledge official Catholic
> teaching as being official Catholic teaching, and insists on using
> unofficial sources that he misinterprets. So, in effect, he's saying
"I
> disagree with that, so it cannot be official Catholic teaching. I
will
> therefore provide official Catholic teaching from unofficial sources,
> because it helps my argument, even though I need to remove them from
context
> to make them support my argument."
>
> He doesn't understand that whether its true or not is not relevant -
whether
> it's Catholic teaching or not IS relevant to the discussion of the
relevance
> of his quotes regarding Catholic teaching about Sunday ... and whether
it's
> Catholic teaching or not IS NOT relevant to the discussion of the
biblical
> and historical evidence.
>
> So he's trapped in a vicious circle of faulty logic that keeps him
from
> addressing what the Bible actually says.
>
> > I believe they are wrong about two things; first the Sabbath has
never
> > changed, but we as Christians are not under a Sabbath day law which
is
> what
> > scripture and the early fathers both state; second, I don't accept
that
> the
> > early church fathers and apostles were Catholic as the word
Catholic is
> > understood today.
>
> Perhaps more technically, the Sabbath was not changed, but worshipping
on
> Sunday as the primary day for Christian gathering (and Christmas,
Easter,
> etc) is covered by the principle of community worship in the 10
Commandments
> (whose principles may continue, as they do with other Old Testament
laws,
> even though as a legal code they are no longer in effect) as well as
by Mat
> 18:18 (Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall
be
> bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in
> heaven, KJV) - and that would not just be a Catholic interpretation,
but be
> acceptable for most Protestant denominations as well.
>
> I'm also not asking him (or you) to accept and believe Catholic
teaching
> (the official version or his newspaper version). I'm asking him to
> acknowledge Catholic teaching as Catholic teaching. Whether it's
truth or
> not is another matter. But by refusing to acknowledge Catholic
teaching as
> Catholic teaching, he a) will never reach the point where the biblical
> evidence becomes relevant, b) continues to misrepresent Catholic
teaching in
> the face of overwhelming evidence against him about what Catholic
teaching
> is, and c) he makes himself and his church look silly for ignoring
biblical
> evidence and determining their beliefs according to newspaper
clippings and
> distorted citations they disagree with.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 22:51:43 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:UNuwg.177174$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> You are dancing all around the point AND MAKING CONFUSING ARGUMENTS TO
> DECEIVE - Jesuit tactics

Nope. I am just telling the truth. I am not avoiding the point - that is
what you have done repeatedly in the past when the evidence gets too much.
Likewise for Andrew.

> No one is saying that People didn't ever meet on the first day of the
> week. In fact they broke bread together daily and even met daily as the
> book of Acts records..There is no prophecy about anyone meeting together
> on a specific day. The prophecy is about making laws and changing them
> and the times. People can meet whenever they want this never makes a
> day Holy nor a law of the Church, nor does it mean there is a change in
> God's commandments.

But the Bible does say that there was a change in the law, doesn't it? Yes,
it does. And I'm sure you can name several laws we no longer keep. The
problem is that you create artificial divisions in the law that the Bible
doesn't support, in order to leave those but keep the Sabbath. A further
problem is that you refuse to discuss the evidence against those artificial
divisions when it is presented. (And, like here, harp on about what is and
isn't Catholic teaching, which really has nothing to do with the issue.)

> Daniel speaks of a little horn arising out the divisions of the Pagan
> Roman empire which persecutes and which has the names of blasphemy ,
> that power thinks to change times and laws. Paul speaks of this also
> calling him the man of sin is yet to appear.

Which pope changed the Sabbath? Which pope began Sunday observance? You
don't even believe that the papacy existed in the 1st and 2nd centuries - so
how could it have been a pope doing all those things??

> You are missing the point entirely.
>
> Rome changed the law concerning the Sabbath to the 1st day of the week.
> Rome made laws starting with Constantine and on up through the years.

Actually, long before Constantine Christians were keeping Sunday. That
whole Constantine thing is just to avoid the fact that there is plenty of
evidence that Christians kept Sunday much earlier.

> Just as those Catholic Catechism quotes I supplied said. The Catholic
> Church claims to have changed the law and the time of the observance of
> the Sabbath Commandment to the first day of the week. Rome says she did
> this in 364AD at the council of Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have
> done any of this lawmaking in the days of the apostles,.

Actually, I have provided official sources to say otherwise. Rome says the
Apostles instituted Sunday observance. If you think I made that up, look it
up for yourself. I've given the references.

> Now Korsman I cknowledge your fascitious arguments now acknowledge what
> I wrote and stop playing jello and refusing to be nailed to the wall on
> this point.

What you wrote is wrong. You've been led to believe all these things by
people who are equally ill-informed. I'm not the one who refuses to be
nailed to the wall. That's you - on this issue, on purgatory, and on the
issue of what the Law is. Those are topics you've refused to answer on.

> Answer plainly.
>
> Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____
>
> Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
> solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.

Yes. It's incorrect. It contradicts official Catholic teaching, namely the
Council of Trent and Pope John Paul II.

That book is incorrect. In no way can it claim to be more official in terms
of Catholic teaching than Trent and the Pope. You know it's incorrect, yet
you continue to pretend it's official Catholic teaching.

> Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> institute festivals of precept?
> A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
> modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
> the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
> of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is no
> Scriptural authority. <-------------
> - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> by T. W. Strong, p. 174.

This text is 100% correct. It means that the Apostles began Sunday
observance, and that while there is sufficient evidence for Sunday
observance in the Bible, there is no explicit command to keep Sunday.
Interpret it in light of official Catholic teaching, or believe that it does
not represent Catholic teaching. But there is no way you can honestly claim
that *your* interpretation of it is official Catholic teaching.

Furthermore, that text is NOT an official Catholic document. It's merely a
catechism produced by the Diocese of New York. No book or newspaper or
pamphlet produced by any bishop or cardinal or diocese constitutes an
official statement from the Catholic Church regarding official beliefs.
Official Catholic teaching is stated by ecumenical councils of the bishops
together as one voice (Laodicea was not one) and their documents, popes and
official documents they write. Official Catholic teaching gets explained by
certain official statements coming from appropriate places in Rome. Not
even unofficial texts written by the pope count as official Catholic
teaching, although they are certainly likely to reflect it. In no way can
your quote claim to be more official in terms of Catholic teaching than
Trent and the Pope.

> Do you acknowledge Rome has made laws concerning the observance of the
> first day of the week
> Yes_____ NO_____

Laws concerning the observance are irrelevant. Of course they have been
made. At one time the Church outlawed kneeling in services on Sundays.
However, you are unable to show that Sunday observance was invented by
Catholics at a time other than the first century AD. The historical
evidence is against you.

> and forbidding rest or sabbatizing on the seventh day?
> Yes_____ NO_____

In a time when they wanted to distance themselves from the Jews who had
kicked them out of the synagogues a few centuries earlier, it is quite a
logical thing to do. If Christians were Judaising, it is also a logical
thing to do. Paul himself did exactly that in Gal 4, when he criticised
them for keeping days etc. What you describe was done at the Council of
Laodicea, yes, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of Sunday
observance, for which you cannot give a date.

> Do I need to go get those laws for you?
>
> yes_____ NO_____

Their existence (which I don't doubt) is irrelevant, as they do not prove
that Catholic teaching is what you claim it to be, and as they do not
demonstrate biblical texts that show Christians keeping the Sabbath, or
being commanded to do so.

Once again, you're harping on about what is and isn't Catholic teaching,
ignoring official statements so that you can insist that unofficial ones are
really Catholic teaching, which they are not.

All of which is ultimately irrelevant to the original issue - is the Sabbath
commanded for Christians in the Bible? Are there examples of Christians
keeping the Sabbath in the Bible? The answer to both of those questions is
no, which is why Andrew created this new thread for the purpose of
distracting everyone from the real issue. It's not going to help your cause
proving to anyone that you don't know what Catholicism actually teaches ...
so address what the Bible teaches. After all, for most of the Protestants
reading this, what the Catholic Church teaches is not going to make the
slightest difference to their beliefs.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > news:0aiwg.2143$***@trnddc02...
> > >
> > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > >>
> > > >> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >> > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy,
> the
> > > > word
> > > >> > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
> > > > pagans.
> > > >> > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter
> their
> > > > word
> > > >> > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> > > >> > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's
> name...
> > > >>
> > > >> The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> > > >>
> > > >> "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
> > > >
> > > > Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow
> INVALIDATE
> > > > WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
> > > > worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own
> Church
> > > > again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....
> > > >
> > > > See:
> > > > SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
> > > > CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
> > > >
> > > > Check this out:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because
> the
> > > > Catholic
> > > > Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
> > > > solemnity from
> > > > Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> > > > institute festivals of precept?
> > > > A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which
> all
> > > > modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
> > > > the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the
> observance
> > > > of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is
> no
> > > > Scriptural authority. <-------------
> > > > - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> > > > John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> > > > by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the
> Bible,
> > > > and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
> > > > Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday
> Sabbath
> > > > to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her
> ecclesiastical
> > > > authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of
> Cardinal
> > > > Gibbons.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > One only has to study the writings of the first and second century
> church
> > > fathers to know what you are saying is Bravo Sierra to put it as
> politely
> > as
> > > I can. What the Catholic church claims is irrelevant, what matters
> is
> > what
> > > scripture teaches and what history shows.
> >
> > That is true. He's basing his attack on Sunday observance by saying:
> >
> > 1. Catholic newspapers say that the Catholic Church began Sunday
> keeping.
> > 2. Catholic newspapers say that there is no biblical evidence for
> Sunday
> > keeping.
> > 3. On those two points we can trust Catholicism, even though it cannot
> be
> > trusted.
> > 4. Therefore Sunday keeping is a Catholic plot without biblical
> support.
> >
> > That's a good way to avoid having to review historical and biblical
> data.
> >
> > > There are numerous statements
> > > about gathering for worship on the first day of the week. There are
> > > numerous statements about turning from the Sabbath. There is
> nothing in
> > the
> > > majority of these writings about turning Sunday into the Sabbath.
> These
> > > were two separate things in their eyes.
> > > Stephan has explained numerous times that in the mind of Catholics
> the
> > early
> > > church fathers were also Catholic as were the Apostles. It is by
> this
> > > understanding that the Catholics claim that by her own authority the
> > > Catholic church changed the Sabbath i.e. by the authority of the
> Catholic
> > > apostles, not by some latter council.
> >
> > And whether he agrees with Catholic teaching or not, he has to accept
> that
> > that IS Catholic teaching. I've shown him the evidence, but each time
> he
> > argues back with "but it's not true." Each time, by doing that, he
> diverts
> > to another subtopic - when we're discussing what is and isn't Catholic
> > teaching, he rejects Catholic teaching by saying it's not biblical
> (using
> > newspaper clippings as his evidence) ... and each time we discuss what
> is
> > and isn't biblical, he brings up the issue of Catholic teaching, which
> he
> > refuses to present accurately. He won't acknowledge official Catholic
> > teaching as being official Catholic teaching, and insists on using
> > unofficial sources that he misinterprets. So, in effect, he's saying
> "I
> > disagree with that, so it cannot be official Catholic teaching. I
> will
> > therefore provide official Catholic teaching from unofficial sources,
> > because it helps my argument, even though I need to remove them from
> context
> > to make them support my argument."
> >
> > He doesn't understand that whether its true or not is not relevant -
> whether
> > it's Catholic teaching or not IS relevant to the discussion of the
> relevance
> > of his quotes regarding Catholic teaching about Sunday ... and whether
> it's
> > Catholic teaching or not IS NOT relevant to the discussion of the
> biblical
> > and historical evidence.
> >
> > So he's trapped in a vicious circle of faulty logic that keeps him
> from
> > addressing what the Bible actually says.
> >
> > > I believe they are wrong about two things; first the Sabbath has
> never
> > > changed, but we as Christians are not under a Sabbath day law which
> is
> > what
> > > scripture and the early fathers both state; second, I don't accept
> that
> > the
> > > early church fathers and apostles were Catholic as the word
> Catholic is
> > > understood today.
> >
> > Perhaps more technically, the Sabbath was not changed, but worshipping
> on
> > Sunday as the primary day for Christian gathering (and Christmas,
> Easter,
> > etc) is covered by the principle of community worship in the 10
> Commandments
> > (whose principles may continue, as they do with other Old Testament
> laws,
> > even though as a legal code they are no longer in effect) as well as
> by Mat
> > 18:18 (Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall
> be
> > bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
> loosed in
> > heaven, KJV) - and that would not just be a Catholic interpretation,
> but be
> > acceptable for most Protestant denominations as well.
> >
> > I'm also not asking him (or you) to accept and believe Catholic
> teaching
> > (the official version or his newspaper version). I'm asking him to
> > acknowledge Catholic teaching as Catholic teaching. Whether it's
> truth or
> > not is another matter. But by refusing to acknowledge Catholic
> teaching as
> > Catholic teaching, he a) will never reach the point where the biblical
> > evidence becomes relevant, b) continues to misrepresent Catholic
> teaching in
> > the face of overwhelming evidence against him about what Catholic
> teaching
> > is, and c) he makes himself and his church look silly for ignoring
> biblical
> > evidence and determining their beliefs according to newspaper
> clippings and
> > distorted citations they disagree with.
> >
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Korsman
> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> >
> > IC | XC
> > ---------
> > NI | KA
> >
> > add an s before .co.za
> >
> >
>

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-24 05:07:03 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > Answer plainly.
> >
> > Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____
> >
> > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> > Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred
the
> > solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.

KORSMAN:
> Yes. It's incorrect. It contradicts official Catholic teaching,
namely the
> Council of Trent and Pope John Paul II.
>
> That book is incorrect. In no way can it claim to be more official in
terms
> of Catholic teaching than Trent and the Pope. You know it's
incorrect, yet
> you continue to pretend it's official Catholic teaching.
--------------

Why sell out your Mother Korsman? That is a Catechism with a imprimatur
as required by your Church law. (see below) The Convert's Catechism of
Catholic Doctrine by Rev. Peter Geirmann, C.SS.R., Imprimatur Joseph E.
Ritter S.T.D. Archbishop of St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis,
MO.

I can't help it if your official Church teaching contradicts your other
official church teaching. My main point is your church has blasphemously
thought to change times and laws just as prophesied in Dan 9.beginning
by keeping and teaching manmade traditions instead of God's Sabbath
Commandment. Which Christ identified as vain worship, and then as she
gained power going on to make and enforce laws and claiming to have
changed God's commandment regarding the Seventh day to the First day.

And Here's what that Catechism is referring to specifically canon 29
COUNCIL OF LAODICEA 364AD

CANON XVI.
THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the
other Scriptures.

CANON XXIX.
CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on
that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting
then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them
be anathema from Christ.

CANON XLIX.
DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and
on the Lord's Day only.

CANON LI.
The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and
Lord's days

Of course the laws got stricter as time went on as did the punishments
when in 538 the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church and
corrector of all heretics by decree of the Emperor Justinian, but that's
another post.

And before you start claiming that Catechism with it's imprimatur is
not official Vatican teaching. and declared free of doctrinal error.
This is for the readers:

From the Catholic Education Resourse Center

The Magisterium's Imprimatur FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

I have often noticed in Catholic books "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat."
What do these terms mean? Do they show that a book teaches what the
Church teaches?

Before addressing the terms themselves, we must remember that the
Magisterium, the teaching authority of our Church, has the duty to
"preserve God's people from deviations and defections, and to guarantee
them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without
error" (Catechism, No. 890). Therefore, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, whom our Lord called the Spirit of Truth, the Magisterium
preserves, understands, teaches and proclaims the truth which leads to
salvation.

With this in mind, the Magisterium will examine those works,
particularly books, on faith and morals and pronounce whether they are
free from doctrinal error. On March 19, 1975, the Sacred Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following norms in this matter:
"The Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be vigilant
lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and
consequently, even to demand that the publication of writing concerning
the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval, and
also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals." This
mandate was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, No. 823.

The review process would then begin with the author submitting the
manuscript to the censor deputatus, who is appointed by the bishop or
other ecclesiastical authority to make such examinations. If the censor
deputatus finds no doctrinal error in the work, he grants a nihil obstat
attesting to this. Translated as "nothing stands in the way," the nihil
obstat indicates that the manuscript can be safely forwarded to the
bishop for his review and decision.
Similarly, a member of a religious community would submit his work to
his major superior. If the work is found free of doctrinal error, the
major superior grants an imprimi potest, translated as "it is able to be
printed." With this approval, the manuscript is then forwarded to the
bishop for his review and decision.

If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he
grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress or to
stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, "let it be printed."
Technically, this is the bishop's official declaration that the book is
free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a
censor.

Keep in mind that the imprimatur is an official permission pertaining to
works written by a member of the Church and not by the official teaching
Church, such as a Church council, synod, bishop, etc. The author can
seek the imprimatur from his own bishop or from the bishop of the
diocese where the work will be published.

While a Catholic author can certainly publish a manuscript without
seeking the bishop's imprimatur, some works require this official
approval before they can be used by the faithful. Prayer books for
public or private use, and catechisms or other catechetical materials
(or their translations) require the bishop's permission for publication
(Code of Canon Law, No. 826, 827.1). Books related to Sacred Scripture,
theology, canon law, Church history, or religious or moral disciplines
cannot be used as textbooks in education at any level unless they are
published with the approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority,
or receive such approval subsequently (No. 827.2). Finally, books or
other writings which deal with faith or morals cannot be exhibited,
sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they are published
with the approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority or receive
such approval subsequently (No. 827.4).

In all, these official declarations state that a publication is true to
the Church's teachings on faith and morals, and free of doctrinal error.
Too many souls are in jeopardy because of the erroneous literature that
is promoted as genuinely representing the Catholic faith. In an age
where publications are abundant, a good Catholic must be on guard and
look for the imprimatur before buying.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Saunders, Rev. William. "The Magisterium's Imprimatur." Arlington
Catholic Herald.
Reprinted with permission of the Arlington Catholic Herald.

THE AUTHOR
Father William Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of
Christendom College and pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in
Alexandria, Virginia. The above article is a "Straight Answers" column
he wrote for the Arlington Catholic Herald. Father Saunders is also the
author of Straight Answers, a book based on 100 of his columns and
published by Cathedral Press in Baltimore. Copyright © 2000 Arlington
Catholic Herald

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-24 18:19:48 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:XzYwg.55463$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

Aside from the stuff I wrote below, I should note that you clearly don't
know what dogma is. It is the official view of the Catholic Church that
Sunday was instituted by the Apostles, but that is not Catholic dogma.

> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > Answer plainly.
> > >
> > > Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____
> > >
> > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> > > Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred
> the
> > > solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
>
>
> KORSMAN:
> > Yes. It's incorrect. It contradicts official Catholic teaching,
> namely the
> > Council of Trent and Pope John Paul II.
> >
> > That book is incorrect. In no way can it claim to be more official in
> terms
> > of Catholic teaching than Trent and the Pope. You know it's
> incorrect, yet
> > you continue to pretend it's official Catholic teaching.
> --------------
>
> Why sell out your Mother Korsman?

I'm not. You're just unwilling to deal with the biblical evidence.

And you seem to make up the biblical evidence as you go along.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2

> That is a Catechism with a imprimatur
> as required by your Church law. (see below) The Convert's Catechism of
> Catholic Doctrine by Rev. Peter Geirmann, C.SS.R., Imprimatur Joseph E.
> Ritter S.T.D. Archbishop of St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis,
> MO.

The Imprimatur says it can be printed. The Nihil Obstat says that the
bishop considers it to be free of error.

Does it have a Nihil Obstat?

> I can't help it if your official Church teaching contradicts your other
> official church teaching. My main point is your church has blasphemously
> thought to change times and laws just as prophesied in Dan 9.beginning
> by keeping and teaching manmade traditions instead of God's Sabbath
> Commandment. Which Christ identified as vain worship, and then as she
> gained power going on to make and enforce laws and claiming to have
> changed God's commandment regarding the Seventh day to the First day.
>
> And Here's what that Catechism is referring to specifically canon 29
> COUNCIL OF LAODICEA 364AD
>
> CANON XVI.
> THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the
> other Scriptures.

Oh dear ... what a terrible thing to do!! They must be evil!

> CANON XXIX.
> CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on
> that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting
> then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them
> be anathema from Christ.

Judaiser were obviously a problem. But in no way does that even come close
to instituting Sunday observance.

> CANON XLIX.
> DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and
> on the Lord's Day only.

Monday to Friday - no Eucharist.
Saturday and Sunday - Eucharist.

That's hardly establishing a new day of worship.

> CANON LI.
> The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
> commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and
> Lord's days

Ummm ... so they had Sabbaths? Dearie me ... I'm surprised you aren't
calling them Adventists.

> Of course the laws got stricter as time went on as did the punishments
> when in 538 the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church and
> corrector of all heretics by decree of the Emperor Justinian, but that's
> another post.
>
>
> And before you start claiming that Catechism with it's imprimatur is
> not official Vatican teaching.

Yes, your quote below says exactly that. Did you read it before you cut and
pasted it?

> and declared free of doctrinal error.
> This is for the readers:
>
> From the Catholic Education Resourse Center
>
> The Magisterium's Imprimatur FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
>
> I have often noticed in Catholic books "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat."
> What do these terms mean? Do they show that a book teaches what the
> Church teaches?
>
> Before addressing the terms themselves, we must remember that the
> Magisterium, the teaching authority of our Church, has the duty to
> "preserve God's people from deviations and defections, and to guarantee
> them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without
> error" (Catechism, No. 890). Therefore, under the guidance of the Holy
> Spirit, whom our Lord called the Spirit of Truth, the Magisterium
> preserves, understands, teaches and proclaims the truth which leads to
> salvation.
>
> With this in mind, the Magisterium will examine those works,
> particularly books, on faith and morals and pronounce whether they are
> free from doctrinal error. On March 19, 1975, the Sacred Congregation
> for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following norms in this matter:
> "The Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be vigilant
> lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and
> consequently, even to demand that the publication of writing concerning
> the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval, and
> also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals." This
> mandate was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, No. 823.
>
> The review process would then begin with the author submitting the
> manuscript to the censor deputatus, who is appointed by the bishop or
> other ecclesiastical authority to make such examinations. If the censor
> deputatus finds no doctrinal error in the work, he grants a nihil obstat
> attesting to this. Translated as "nothing stands in the way," the nihil
> obstat indicates that the manuscript can be safely forwarded to the
> bishop for his review and decision.

So, does your catechism contain the words "Nihil Obstat" in the front
somewhere? Please quote the entire section.

> Similarly, a member of a religious community would submit his work to
> his major superior. If the work is found free of doctrinal error, the
> major superior grants an imprimi potest, translated as "it is able to be
> printed." With this approval, the manuscript is then forwarded to the
> bishop for his review and decision.
>
> If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he
> grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress or to
> stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, "let it be printed."
> Technically, this is the bishop's official declaration that the book is
> free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a
> censor.

All three terms are called an Imprimatur as a collective term. Three
steps - Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. The book can have one
of them, two of them, or all three. There are many books with only an
Imprimatur. Most, however, contain an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, without
the Imprimi Potest. Probably the most well known to you is Samuele
Bacchiocchi's thesis, which has an Imprimatur with no Nihil Obstat and no
Imprimi Potest ... if it really ever did have an Imprimatur, as he claims it
did. http://tinyurl.com/hbhbt and http://tinyurl.com/p82d5

Bacchiocchi's thesis is certainly not free from doctrinal error - which is
why it got the Imprimatur without the Nihil Obstat or Imprimi Potest.

And even if your catechism DOES have a Nihil Obstat, it still doesn't mean
it's officially approved as being accurate by the Vatican. It's approval
from the local bishop - NOT Rome. And even then, it would not be an
official Catholic document, merely a book by a member of the Church, NOT by
the official teaching Church.

> Keep in mind that the imprimatur is an official permission pertaining to
> works written by a member of the Church and not by the official teaching
> Church, such as a Church council, synod, bishop, etc.

Note that it's official permission from the local bishop for a work written
by a member of the Church.

It is NOT a work by the official teaching Church.

What part of that do you not understand?

> The author can
> seek the imprimatur from his own bishop or from the bishop of the
> diocese where the work will be published.

The local bishop. Not Rome. And the local bishop doesn't even have to
agree with the contents. The contents may be opinions that the bishop
disagrees with, but sees no reason to withhold publication because the
essential facts of the faith are not compromised.

Nothing is compromised by making a mistake about Laodicaea. The writer was
ignorant, and so was the bishop. Neither had read the Catechism of the
Council of Trent, it seems. Unless you're claiming infallibility for each
individual bishop?

You're being totally unreasonable with this claim of yours. You're
expecting each bishop to know everything, and that every miniscule detail in
a book he approves, whether relevant or not, must therefore be 100% accurate
according to the teachings of Rome.

You're way out of line on that one - nobody claims that that is what an
Imprimatur means.

In Imprimatur means that the text is free from MORAL and THEOLOGICAL error -
not HISTORICAL error.

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=268 says the following:

"They signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the imprimatur,
the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However, the nihil
obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the
entire contents of a work are true."

"The bishop's authorization 'is an essentially negative judgment of
non-offensiveness.'"

That quote within the quote is from The Code of Canon Law: A Text and
Commentary, 580.

"The nihil obstat and imprimatur are not the equivalent of an endorsement or
recommendation. They do not affirm that the whole of a work's contents are
true. Neither do the nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that the censor or
bishop necessarily agrees with the contents of a work. For example, a book
on Catholic bioethics may have received the nihil obstat and imprimatur.
Such a book may discuss Church teachings, and it may also proffer opinions
in matters where the Church has not yet spoken (e.g., when new technology
raises new ethical concerns). Those opinions may be deemed "free of
doctrinal or moral error," but the bishop who granted the imprimatur may not
agree with those opinions."

"A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s) did not
notice."

"There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what Church
teaching is on a given subject."

"Finally, a nihil obstat and imprimatur do not guarantee that a book is well
written. They do not ensure that arguments are well presented, that
explanations are complete, or that topics are fully covered."

From Wikipedia -

"The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any doctrinal
or moral error is found to be contained in the work."

Obviously an imprimatur cannot mean absolute truth. That's being
ridiculous.

From the US Catholic Bishops' Office for the Catechism:

"The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work is
free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a negative
approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No
implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by those who
have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the
content, opinions or statements expressed in the work." -
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/update/spring98.htm

So your claim that an Imprimatur implies that the text is an official
teaching of the Catholic Church is bogus. Your claims that a text with an
Imprimatur has Rome's approval is bogus. Your claim that

We've seen TWO *official* Catholic statements saying that Sunday was
instituted by the Apostles. Here's a third:

CCC 2177 - The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at
the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal
mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be
observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."

And that is quoting the Code of Canon Law.

Can. 1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery
is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial
holy day of obligation.

So now you've been given FOUR official Catholic texts saying that
Catholicism believes Sunday was instituted by the Apostles.

And you've got ONE UNOFFICIAL text with only the approval in matters of
faith and morals, not history, from a local bishop, NOT Rome, and your
unofficial text is contradicted by both official Catholic statements and
historical evidence.

So, which side has the evidence for the official view, and which side is
misinterpreting?

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-24 19:58:47 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:s9ydnU9Kwra-***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:XzYwg.55463$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Aside from the stuff I wrote below, I should note that you clearly
don't
> know what dogma is. It is the official view of the Catholic Church
that
> Sunday was instituted by the Apostles, but that is not Catholic dogma.
>

Where did I say it was? You're the one who keeps bringing that up
without any proof the apostles ever did so. Here is a clue Sherlock
Hemlock. I am addressing your doctrines, laws and canons, based on your
unbiblical traditions they are Catholic dogma. I am addressing How the
Catholic Church thinks to change God's times and laws. I am addressing
How in Jesus testimony which is through his prophets this was fortold
long before in the book of Daniel, as well as Rome's history written in
the blood of the Saints and Martyrs. I am in the middle of an answer
which is more in depth, but Have to go pick my son up..

please just sit on the edge of your seat and chomp on your bit - for a
bit...

~ Cliff Hanger

> > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:***@is.co.za...
> > >
> > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > Answer plainly.
> > > >
> > > > Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____
> > > >
> > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because
the
> > > > Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364),
transferred
> > the
> > > > solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> >
> >
> > KORSMAN:
> > > Yes. It's incorrect. It contradicts official Catholic teaching,
> > namely the
> > > Council of Trent and Pope John Paul II.
> > >
> > > That book is incorrect. In no way can it claim to be more
official in
> > terms
> > > of Catholic teaching than Trent and the Pope. You know it's
> > incorrect, yet
> > > you continue to pretend it's official Catholic teaching.
> > --------------
> >
> > Why sell out your Mother Korsman?
>
> I'm not. You're just unwilling to deal with the biblical evidence.
>
> And you seem to make up the biblical evidence as you go along.
>
> http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2
>
> > That is a Catechism with a imprimatur
> > as required by your Church law. (see below) The Convert's Catechism
of
> > Catholic Doctrine by Rev. Peter Geirmann, C.SS.R., Imprimatur Joseph
E.
> > Ritter S.T.D. Archbishop of St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., St.
Louis,
> > MO.
>
> The Imprimatur says it can be printed. The Nihil Obstat says that the
> bishop considers it to be free of error.
>
> Does it have a Nihil Obstat?
>
> > I can't help it if your official Church teaching contradicts your
other
> > official church teaching. My main point is your church has
blasphemously
> > thought to change times and laws just as prophesied in Dan
9.beginning
> > by keeping and teaching manmade traditions instead of God's Sabbath
> > Commandment. Which Christ identified as vain worship, and then as
she
> > gained power going on to make and enforce laws and claiming to have
> > changed God's commandment regarding the Seventh day to the First
day.
> >
> > And Here's what that Catechism is referring to specifically canon 29
> > COUNCIL OF LAODICEA 364AD
> >
> > CANON XVI.
> > THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the
> > other Scriptures.
>
> Oh dear ... what a terrible thing to do!! They must be evil!
>
> > CANON XXIX.
> > CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work
on
> > that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting
> > then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let
them
> > be anathema from Christ.
>
> Judaiser were obviously a problem. But in no way does that even come
close
> to instituting Sunday observance.
>
> > CANON XLIX.
> > DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day
and
> > on the Lord's Day only.
>
> Monday to Friday - no Eucharist.
> Saturday and Sunday - Eucharist.
>
> That's hardly establishing a new day of worship.
>
> > CANON LI.
> > The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
> > commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths
and
> > Lord's days
>
> Ummm ... so they had Sabbaths? Dearie me ... I'm surprised you aren't
> calling them Adventists.
>
> > Of course the laws got stricter as time went on as did the
punishments
> > when in 538 the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church and
> > corrector of all heretics by decree of the Emperor Justinian, but
that's
> > another post.
> >
> >
> > And before you start claiming that Catechism with it's imprimatur is
> > not official Vatican teaching.
>
> Yes, your quote below says exactly that. Did you read it before you
cut and
> pasted it?
>
> > and declared free of doctrinal error.
> > This is for the readers:
> >
> > From the Catholic Education Resourse Center
> >
> > The Magisterium's Imprimatur FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
> >
> > I have often noticed in Catholic books "imprimatur" and "nihil
obstat."
> > What do these terms mean? Do they show that a book teaches what the
> > Church teaches?
> >
> > Before addressing the terms themselves, we must remember that the
> > Magisterium, the teaching authority of our Church, has the duty to
> > "preserve God's people from deviations and defections, and to
guarantee
> > them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without
> > error" (Catechism, No. 890). Therefore, under the guidance of the
Holy
> > Spirit, whom our Lord called the Spirit of Truth, the Magisterium
> > preserves, understands, teaches and proclaims the truth which leads
to
> > salvation.
> >
> > With this in mind, the Magisterium will examine those works,
> > particularly books, on faith and morals and pronounce whether they
are
> > free from doctrinal error. On March 19, 1975, the Sacred
Congregation
> > for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following norms in this
matter:
> > "The Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be
vigilant
> > lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and
> > consequently, even to demand that the publication of writing
concerning
> > the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval,
and
> > also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals."
This
> > mandate was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, No. 823.
> >
> > The review process would then begin with the author submitting the
> > manuscript to the censor deputatus, who is appointed by the bishop
or
> > other ecclesiastical authority to make such examinations. If the
censor
> > deputatus finds no doctrinal error in the work, he grants a nihil
obstat
> > attesting to this. Translated as "nothing stands in the way," the
nihil
> > obstat indicates that the manuscript can be safely forwarded to the
> > bishop for his review and decision.
>
> So, does your catechism contain the words "Nihil Obstat" in the front
> somewhere? Please quote the entire section.
>
> > Similarly, a member of a religious community would submit his work
to
> > his major superior. If the work is found free of doctrinal error,
the
> > major superior grants an imprimi potest, translated as "it is able
to be
> > printed." With this approval, the manuscript is then forwarded to
the
> > bishop for his review and decision.
> >
> > If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he
> > grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress
or to
> > stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, "let it be printed."
> > Technically, this is the bishop's official declaration that the book
is
> > free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a
> > censor.
>
> All three terms are called an Imprimatur as a collective term. Three
> steps - Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. The book can
have one
> of them, two of them, or all three. There are many books with only an
> Imprimatur. Most, however, contain an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat,
without
> the Imprimi Potest. Probably the most well known to you is Samuele
> Bacchiocchi's thesis, which has an Imprimatur with no Nihil Obstat and
no
> Imprimi Potest ... if it really ever did have an Imprimatur, as he
claims it
> did. http://tinyurl.com/hbhbt and http://tinyurl.com/p82d5
>
> Bacchiocchi's thesis is certainly not free from doctrinal error -
which is
> why it got the Imprimatur without the Nihil Obstat or Imprimi Potest.
>
> And even if your catechism DOES have a Nihil Obstat, it still doesn't
mean
> it's officially approved as being accurate by the Vatican. It's
approval
> from the local bishop - NOT Rome. And even then, it would not be an
> official Catholic document, merely a book by a member of the Church,
NOT by
> the official teaching Church.
>
> > Keep in mind that the imprimatur is an official permission
pertaining to
> > works written by a member of the Church and not by the official
teaching
> > Church, such as a Church council, synod, bishop, etc.
>
> Note that it's official permission from the local bishop for a work
written
> by a member of the Church.
>
> It is NOT a work by the official teaching Church.
>
> What part of that do you not understand?
>
> > The author can
> > seek the imprimatur from his own bishop or from the bishop of the
> > diocese where the work will be published.
>
> The local bishop. Not Rome. And the local bishop doesn't even have
to
> agree with the contents. The contents may be opinions that the bishop
> disagrees with, but sees no reason to withhold publication because the
> essential facts of the faith are not compromised.
>
> Nothing is compromised by making a mistake about Laodicaea. The
writer was
> ignorant, and so was the bishop. Neither had read the Catechism of
the
> Council of Trent, it seems. Unless you're claiming infallibility for
each
> individual bishop?
>
> You're being totally unreasonable with this claim of yours. You're
> expecting each bishop to know everything, and that every miniscule
detail in
> a book he approves, whether relevant or not, must therefore be 100%
accurate
> according to the teachings of Rome.
>
> You're way out of line on that one - nobody claims that that is what
an
> Imprimatur means.
>
> In Imprimatur means that the text is free from MORAL and THEOLOGICAL
error -
> not HISTORICAL error.
>
> http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=268 says the
following:
>
> "They signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the
imprimatur,
> the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However, the
nihil
> obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that
the
> entire contents of a work are true."
>
> "The bishop's authorization 'is an essentially negative judgment of
> non-offensiveness.'"
>
> That quote within the quote is from The Code of Canon Law: A Text and
> Commentary, 580.
>
> "The nihil obstat and imprimatur are not the equivalent of an
endorsement or
> recommendation. They do not affirm that the whole of a work's contents
are
> true. Neither do the nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that the
censor or
> bishop necessarily agrees with the contents of a work. For example, a
book
> on Catholic bioethics may have received the nihil obstat and
imprimatur.
> Such a book may discuss Church teachings, and it may also proffer
opinions
> in matters where the Church has not yet spoken (e.g., when new
technology
> raises new ethical concerns). Those opinions may be deemed "free of
> doctrinal or moral error," but the bishop who granted the imprimatur
may not
> agree with those opinions."
>
> "A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s) did
not
> notice."
>
> "There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what Church
> teaching is on a given subject."
>
> "Finally, a nihil obstat and imprimatur do not guarantee that a book
is well
> written. They do not ensure that arguments are well presented, that
> explanations are complete, or that topics are fully covered."
>
> From Wikipedia -
>
> "The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any
doctrinal
> or moral error is found to be contained in the work."
>
> Obviously an imprimatur cannot mean absolute truth. That's being
> ridiculous.
>
> From the US Catholic Bishops' Office for the Catechism:
>
> "The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work
is
> free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a
negative
> approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No
> implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by
those who
> have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the
> content, opinions or statements expressed in the work." -
> http://www.usccb.org/catechism/update/spring98.htm
>
> So your claim that an Imprimatur implies that the text is an official
> teaching of the Catholic Church is bogus. Your claims that a text
with an
> Imprimatur has Rome's approval is bogus. Your claim that
>
> We've seen TWO *official* Catholic statements saying that Sunday was
> instituted by the Apostles. Here's a third:
>
> CCC 2177 - The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist
is at
> the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the
paschal
> mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be
> observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal
Church."
>
> And that is quoting the Code of Canon Law.
>
> Can. 1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal
mystery
> is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the
primordial
> holy day of obligation.
>
> So now you've been given FOUR official Catholic texts saying that
> Catholicism believes Sunday was instituted by the Apostles.
>
> And you've got ONE UNOFFICIAL text with only the approval in matters
of
> faith and morals, not history, from a local bishop, NOT Rome, and your
> unofficial text is contradicted by both official Catholic statements
and
> historical evidence.
>
> So, which side has the evidence for the official view, and which side
is
> misinterpreting?
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-24 20:28:25 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:XD9xg.55579$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:s9ydnU9Kwra-***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:XzYwg.55463$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > Aside from the stuff I wrote below, I should note that you clearly
> don't
> > know what dogma is. It is the official view of the Catholic Church
> that
> > Sunday was instituted by the Apostles, but that is not Catholic dogma.
> >
>
> Where did I say it was?

In the subject line. You wrote the subject line.

> You're the one who keeps bringing that up
> without any proof the apostles ever did so.

I've cited evidence that you've refused to address.

> Here is a clue Sherlock
> Hemlock. I am addressing your doctrines, laws and canons, based on your
> unbiblical traditions they are Catholic dogma.

Like I said, you don't know what dogma means.

I've obviously annoyed you. You don't write good English gramer when you're
peeved.

> I am addressing How the
> Catholic Church thinks to change God's times and laws.

Why not address the evidence I've presented that the Apostles observed
Sunday?

> I am addressing
> How in Jesus testimony which is through his prophets this was fortold
> long before in the book of Daniel,

More errors of the English gramer.

> as well as Rome's history written in
> the blood of the Saints and Martyrs. I am in the middle of an answer
> which is more in depth,

I doubt it - you don't change just because your identity is known.

> but Have to go pick my son up..
>
> please just sit on the edge of your seat and chomp on your bit - for a
> bit...

No need ... now that we know who we're dealing with, it would be pointless.
Your history here speaks for itself. It would be like waiting for a
profound piece of wisdom from Susan/Ted.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> ~ Cliff Hanger
>
>
>
> > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > >
> > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > Answer plainly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____
> > > > >
> > > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because
> the
> > > > > Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364),
> transferred
> > > the
> > > > > solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> > >
> > >
> > > KORSMAN:
> > > > Yes. It's incorrect. It contradicts official Catholic teaching,
> > > namely the
> > > > Council of Trent and Pope John Paul II.
> > > >
> > > > That book is incorrect. In no way can it claim to be more
> official in
> > > terms
> > > > of Catholic teaching than Trent and the Pope. You know it's
> > > incorrect, yet
> > > > you continue to pretend it's official Catholic teaching.
> > > --------------
> > >
> > > Why sell out your Mother Korsman?
> >
> > I'm not. You're just unwilling to deal with the biblical evidence.
> >
> > And you seem to make up the biblical evidence as you go along.
> >
> > http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2
> >
> > > That is a Catechism with a imprimatur
> > > as required by your Church law. (see below) The Convert's Catechism
> of
> > > Catholic Doctrine by Rev. Peter Geirmann, C.SS.R., Imprimatur Joseph
> E.
> > > Ritter S.T.D. Archbishop of St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., St.
> Louis,
> > > MO.
> >
> > The Imprimatur says it can be printed. The Nihil Obstat says that the
> > bishop considers it to be free of error.
> >
> > Does it have a Nihil Obstat?
> >
> > > I can't help it if your official Church teaching contradicts your
> other
> > > official church teaching. My main point is your church has
> blasphemously
> > > thought to change times and laws just as prophesied in Dan
> 9.beginning
> > > by keeping and teaching manmade traditions instead of God's Sabbath
> > > Commandment. Which Christ identified as vain worship, and then as
> she
> > > gained power going on to make and enforce laws and claiming to have
> > > changed God's commandment regarding the Seventh day to the First
> day.
> > >
> > > And Here's what that Catechism is referring to specifically canon 29
> > > COUNCIL OF LAODICEA 364AD
> > >
> > > CANON XVI.
> > > THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the
> > > other Scriptures.
> >
> > Oh dear ... what a terrible thing to do!! They must be evil!
> >
> > > CANON XXIX.
> > > CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work
> on
> > > that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting
> > > then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let
> them
> > > be anathema from Christ.
> >
> > Judaiser were obviously a problem. But in no way does that even come
> close
> > to instituting Sunday observance.
> >
> > > CANON XLIX.
> > > DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day
> and
> > > on the Lord's Day only.
> >
> > Monday to Friday - no Eucharist.
> > Saturday and Sunday - Eucharist.
> >
> > That's hardly establishing a new day of worship.
> >
> > > CANON LI.
> > > The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
> > > commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths
> and
> > > Lord's days
> >
> > Ummm ... so they had Sabbaths? Dearie me ... I'm surprised you aren't
> > calling them Adventists.
> >
> > > Of course the laws got stricter as time went on as did the
> punishments
> > > when in 538 the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church and
> > > corrector of all heretics by decree of the Emperor Justinian, but
> that's
> > > another post.
> > >
> > >
> > > And before you start claiming that Catechism with it's imprimatur is
> > > not official Vatican teaching.
> >
> > Yes, your quote below says exactly that. Did you read it before you
> cut and
> > pasted it?
> >
> > > and declared free of doctrinal error.
> > > This is for the readers:
> > >
> > > From the Catholic Education Resourse Center
> > >
> > > The Magisterium's Imprimatur FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
> > >
> > > I have often noticed in Catholic books "imprimatur" and "nihil
> obstat."
> > > What do these terms mean? Do they show that a book teaches what the
> > > Church teaches?
> > >
> > > Before addressing the terms themselves, we must remember that the
> > > Magisterium, the teaching authority of our Church, has the duty to
> > > "preserve God's people from deviations and defections, and to
> guarantee
> > > them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without
> > > error" (Catechism, No. 890). Therefore, under the guidance of the
> Holy
> > > Spirit, whom our Lord called the Spirit of Truth, the Magisterium
> > > preserves, understands, teaches and proclaims the truth which leads
> to
> > > salvation.
> > >
> > > With this in mind, the Magisterium will examine those works,
> > > particularly books, on faith and morals and pronounce whether they
> are
> > > free from doctrinal error. On March 19, 1975, the Sacred
> Congregation
> > > for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following norms in this
> matter:
> > > "The Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be
> vigilant
> > > lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and
> > > consequently, even to demand that the publication of writing
> concerning
> > > the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval,
> and
> > > also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals."
> This
> > > mandate was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, No. 823.
> > >
> > > The review process would then begin with the author submitting the
> > > manuscript to the censor deputatus, who is appointed by the bishop
> or
> > > other ecclesiastical authority to make such examinations. If the
> censor
> > > deputatus finds no doctrinal error in the work, he grants a nihil
> obstat
> > > attesting to this. Translated as "nothing stands in the way," the
> nihil
> > > obstat indicates that the manuscript can be safely forwarded to the
> > > bishop for his review and decision.
> >
> > So, does your catechism contain the words "Nihil Obstat" in the front
> > somewhere? Please quote the entire section.
> >
> > > Similarly, a member of a religious community would submit his work
> to
> > > his major superior. If the work is found free of doctrinal error,
> the
> > > major superior grants an imprimi potest, translated as "it is able
> to be
> > > printed." With this approval, the manuscript is then forwarded to
> the
> > > bishop for his review and decision.
> > >
> > > If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he
> > > grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress
> or to
> > > stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, "let it be printed."
> > > Technically, this is the bishop's official declaration that the book
> is
> > > free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a
> > > censor.
> >
> > All three terms are called an Imprimatur as a collective term. Three
> > steps - Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. The book can
> have one
> > of them, two of them, or all three. There are many books with only an
> > Imprimatur. Most, however, contain an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat,
> without
> > the Imprimi Potest. Probably the most well known to you is Samuele
> > Bacchiocchi's thesis, which has an Imprimatur with no Nihil Obstat and
> no
> > Imprimi Potest ... if it really ever did have an Imprimatur, as he
> claims it
> > did. http://tinyurl.com/hbhbt and http://tinyurl.com/p82d5
> >
> > Bacchiocchi's thesis is certainly not free from doctrinal error -
> which is
> > why it got the Imprimatur without the Nihil Obstat or Imprimi Potest.
> >
> > And even if your catechism DOES have a Nihil Obstat, it still doesn't
> mean
> > it's officially approved as being accurate by the Vatican. It's
> approval
> > from the local bishop - NOT Rome. And even then, it would not be an
> > official Catholic document, merely a book by a member of the Church,
> NOT by
> > the official teaching Church.
> >
> > > Keep in mind that the imprimatur is an official permission
> pertaining to
> > > works written by a member of the Church and not by the official
> teaching
> > > Church, such as a Church council, synod, bishop, etc.
> >
> > Note that it's official permission from the local bishop for a work
> written
> > by a member of the Church.
> >
> > It is NOT a work by the official teaching Church.
> >
> > What part of that do you not understand?
> >
> > > The author can
> > > seek the imprimatur from his own bishop or from the bishop of the
> > > diocese where the work will be published.
> >
> > The local bishop. Not Rome. And the local bishop doesn't even have
> to
> > agree with the contents. The contents may be opinions that the bishop
> > disagrees with, but sees no reason to withhold publication because the
> > essential facts of the faith are not compromised.
> >
> > Nothing is compromised by making a mistake about Laodicaea. The
> writer was
> > ignorant, and so was the bishop. Neither had read the Catechism of
> the
> > Council of Trent, it seems. Unless you're claiming infallibility for
> each
> > individual bishop?
> >
> > You're being totally unreasonable with this claim of yours. You're
> > expecting each bishop to know everything, and that every miniscule
> detail in
> > a book he approves, whether relevant or not, must therefore be 100%
> accurate
> > according to the teachings of Rome.
> >
> > You're way out of line on that one - nobody claims that that is what
> an
> > Imprimatur means.
> >
> > In Imprimatur means that the text is free from MORAL and THEOLOGICAL
> error -
> > not HISTORICAL error.
> >
> > http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=268 says the
> following:
> >
> > "They signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the
> imprimatur,
> > the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However, the
> nihil
> > obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that
> the
> > entire contents of a work are true."
> >
> > "The bishop's authorization 'is an essentially negative judgment of
> > non-offensiveness.'"
> >
> > That quote within the quote is from The Code of Canon Law: A Text and
> > Commentary, 580.
> >
> > "The nihil obstat and imprimatur are not the equivalent of an
> endorsement or
> > recommendation. They do not affirm that the whole of a work's contents
> are
> > true. Neither do the nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that the
> censor or
> > bishop necessarily agrees with the contents of a work. For example, a
> book
> > on Catholic bioethics may have received the nihil obstat and
> imprimatur.
> > Such a book may discuss Church teachings, and it may also proffer
> opinions
> > in matters where the Church has not yet spoken (e.g., when new
> technology
> > raises new ethical concerns). Those opinions may be deemed "free of
> > doctrinal or moral error," but the bishop who granted the imprimatur
> may not
> > agree with those opinions."
> >
> > "A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s) did
> not
> > notice."
> >
> > "There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what Church
> > teaching is on a given subject."
> >
> > "Finally, a nihil obstat and imprimatur do not guarantee that a book
> is well
> > written. They do not ensure that arguments are well presented, that
> > explanations are complete, or that topics are fully covered."
> >
> > From Wikipedia -
> >
> > "The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any
> doctrinal
> > or moral error is found to be contained in the work."
> >
> > Obviously an imprimatur cannot mean absolute truth. That's being
> > ridiculous.
> >
> > From the US Catholic Bishops' Office for the Catechism:
> >
> > "The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work
> is
> > free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a
> negative
> > approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No
> > implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by
> those who
> > have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the
> > content, opinions or statements expressed in the work." -
> > http://www.usccb.org/catechism/update/spring98.htm
> >
> > So your claim that an Imprimatur implies that the text is an official
> > teaching of the Catholic Church is bogus. Your claims that a text
> with an
> > Imprimatur has Rome's approval is bogus. Your claim that
> >
> > We've seen TWO *official* Catholic statements saying that Sunday was
> > instituted by the Apostles. Here's a third:
> >
> > CCC 2177 - The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist
> is at
> > the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the
> paschal
> > mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be
> > observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal
> Church."
> >
> > And that is quoting the Code of Canon Law.
> >
> > Can. 1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal
> mystery
> > is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the
> primordial
> > holy day of obligation.
> >
> > So now you've been given FOUR official Catholic texts saying that
> > Catholicism believes Sunday was instituted by the Apostles.
> >
> > And you've got ONE UNOFFICIAL text with only the approval in matters
> of
> > faith and morals, not history, from a local bishop, NOT Rome, and your
> > unofficial text is contradicted by both official Catholic statements
> and
> > historical evidence.
> >
> > So, which side has the evidence for the official view, and which side
> is
> > misinterpreting?
> >
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Korsman
> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> >
> > IC | XC
> > ---------
> > NI | KA
> >
> > add an s before .co.za
> >
> >
>

Donna

2006-07-24 22:14:39 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:XD9xg.55579$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:s9ydnU9Kwra-***@is.co.za...
>> >
>> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>> > news:XzYwg.55463$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > Aside from the stuff I wrote below, I should note that you clearly
>> don't
>> > know what dogma is. It is the official view of the Catholic Church
>> that
>> > Sunday was instituted by the Apostles, but that is not Catholic dogma.
>> >
>>
>> Where did I say it was?
>
> In the subject line. You wrote the subject line.
>

Mr. korsman,

I am confused by your statements. First it appears you wrote the subject
line. What official Catholic dogma are you accusing her of misrepresenting?

In addition you make a long and somewhat confusing argument below. This
seems un-necessary, unless you are trying to decieve us. This from the
original quote:

"While a Catholic author can certainly publish a manuscript without
seeking the bishop's imprimatur, some works require this official
approval before they can be used by the faithful. Prayer books for
public or private use, and CATECHISMS or other catechetical materials
(or their translations) require the bishop's permission for publication
(Code of Canon Law, No. 826, 827.1). Books related to Sacred Scripture,
theology, CANON LAW, CHURCH HISTORY, or religious or moral disciplines
cannot be used as textbooks in education at any level unless they are
published with the approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority,
or receive such approval subsequently (No. 827.2). Finally, books or
other writings which deal with faith or morals cannot be exhibited,
sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they are published
with the approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority or receive
such approval subsequently (No. 827.4).

In all, these official declarations state that a publication is true to
the Church's teachings on faith and morals, and free of doctrinal error.
Too many souls are in jeopardy because of the erroneous literature that
is promoted as genuinely representing the Catholic faith. In an age
where publications are abundant, a good Catholic must be on guard and
look for the imprimatur before buying."
"
.
Lastly, is it HONESTLY your view that Canon 29 doesn't contradict God's
Sabbath Commandment?

Exd 20:9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

Exd 20:10But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it]
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is]
within thy gates:

Exd 20:11For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed
the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Canon XXIX
"CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on
that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting
then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be
anathema from Christ."

Thank you,
D

>> You're the one who keeps bringing that up
>> without any proof the apostles ever did so.
>
> I've cited evidence that you've refused to address.
>
>> Here is a clue Sherlock
>> Hemlock. I am addressing your doctrines, laws and canons, based on your
>> unbiblical traditions they are Catholic dogma.
>
> Like I said, you don't know what dogma means.
>
> I've obviously annoyed you. You don't write good English gramer when
> you're
> peeved.
>
>> I am addressing How the
>> Catholic Church thinks to change God's times and laws.
>
> Why not address the evidence I've presented that the Apostles observed
> Sunday?
>
>> I am addressing
>> How in Jesus testimony which is through his prophets this was fortold
>> long before in the book of Daniel,
>
> More errors of the English gramer.
>
>> as well as Rome's history written in
>> the blood of the Saints and Martyrs. I am in the middle of an answer
>> which is more in depth,
>
> I doubt it - you don't change just because your identity is known.
>
>> but Have to go pick my son up..
>>
>> please just sit on the edge of your seat and chomp on your bit - for a
>> bit...
>
> No need ... now that we know who we're dealing with, it would be
> pointless.
> Your history here speaks for itself. It would be like waiting for a
> profound piece of wisdom from Susan/Ted.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
>> ~ Cliff Hanger
>>
>>
>>
>> > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
>> > > news:***@is.co.za...
>> > > >
>> > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>> > > > > Answer plainly.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
>> > > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
>> > > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
>> > > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because
>> the
>> > > > > Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364),
>> transferred
>> > > the
>> > > > > solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
>> > > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > KORSMAN:
>> > > > Yes. It's incorrect. It contradicts official Catholic teaching,
>> > > namely the
>> > > > Council of Trent and Pope John Paul II.
>> > > >
>> > > > That book is incorrect. In no way can it claim to be more
>> official in
>> > > terms
>> > > > of Catholic teaching than Trent and the Pope. You know it's
>> > > incorrect, yet
>> > > > you continue to pretend it's official Catholic teaching.
>> > > --------------
>> > >
>> > > Why sell out your Mother Korsman?
>> >
>> > I'm not. You're just unwilling to deal with the biblical evidence.
>> >
>> > And you seem to make up the biblical evidence as you go along.
>> >
>> > http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2
>> >
>> > > That is a Catechism with a imprimatur
>> > > as required by your Church law. (see below) The Convert's Catechism
>> of
>> > > Catholic Doctrine by Rev. Peter Geirmann, C.SS.R., Imprimatur Joseph
>> E.
>> > > Ritter S.T.D. Archbishop of St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., St.
>> Louis,
>> > > MO.
>> >
>> > The Imprimatur says it can be printed. The Nihil Obstat says that the
>> > bishop considers it to be free of error.
>> >
>> > Does it have a Nihil Obstat?
>> >
>> > > I can't help it if your official Church teaching contradicts your
>> other
>> > > official church teaching. My main point is your church has
>> blasphemously
>> > > thought to change times and laws just as prophesied in Dan
>> 9.beginning
>> > > by keeping and teaching manmade traditions instead of God's Sabbath
>> > > Commandment. Which Christ identified as vain worship, and then as
>> she
>> > > gained power going on to make and enforce laws and claiming to have
>> > > changed God's commandment regarding the Seventh day to the First
>> day.
>> > >
>> > > And Here's what that Catechism is referring to specifically canon 29
>> > > COUNCIL OF LAODICEA 364AD
>> > >
>> > > CANON XVI.
>> > > THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the
>> > > other Scriptures.
>> >
>> > Oh dear ... what a terrible thing to do!! They must be evil!
>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > Judaiser were obviously a problem. But in no way does that even come
>> close
>> > to instituting Sunday observance.
>> >
>> > > CANON XLIX.
>> > > DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day
>> and
>> > > on the Lord's Day only.
>> >
>> > Monday to Friday - no Eucharist.
>> > Saturday and Sunday - Eucharist.
>> >
>> > That's hardly establishing a new day of worship.
>> >
>> > > CANON LI.
>> > > The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
>> > > commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths
>> and
>> > > Lord's days
>> >
>> > Ummm ... so they had Sabbaths? Dearie me ... I'm surprised you aren't
>> > calling them Adventists.
>> >
>> > > Of course the laws got stricter as time went on as did the
>> punishments
>> > > when in 538 the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church and
>> > > corrector of all heretics by decree of the Emperor Justinian, but
>> that's
>> > > another post.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > And before you start claiming that Catechism with it's imprimatur is
>> > > not official Vatican teaching.
>> >
>> > Yes, your quote below says exactly that. Did you read it before you
>> cut and
>> > pasted it?
>> >
>> > > and declared free of doctrinal error.
>> > > This is for the readers:
>> > >
>> > > From the Catholic Education Resourse Center
>> > >
>> > > The Magisterium's Imprimatur FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
>> > >
>> > > I have often noticed in Catholic books "imprimatur" and "nihil
>> obstat."
>> > > What do these terms mean? Do they show that a book teaches what the
>> > > Church teaches?
>> > >
>> > > Before addressing the terms themselves, we must remember that the
>> > > Magisterium, the teaching authority of our Church, has the duty to
>> > > "preserve God's people from deviations and defections, and to
>> guarantee
>> > > them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without
>> > > error" (Catechism, No. 890). Therefore, under the guidance of the
>> Holy
>> > > Spirit, whom our Lord called the Spirit of Truth, the Magisterium
>> > > preserves, understands, teaches and proclaims the truth which leads
>> to
>> > > salvation.
>> > >
>> > > With this in mind, the Magisterium will examine those works,
>> > > particularly books, on faith and morals and pronounce whether they
>> are
>> > > free from doctrinal error. On March 19, 1975, the Sacred
>> Congregation
>> > > for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following norms in this
>> matter:
>> > > "The Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be
>> vigilant
>> > > lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and
>> > > consequently, even to demand that the publication of writing
>> concerning
>> > > the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval,
>> and
>> > > also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals."
>> This
>> > > mandate was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, No. 823.
>> > >
>> > > The review process would then begin with the author submitting the
>> > > manuscript to the censor deputatus, who is appointed by the bishop
>> or
>> > > other ecclesiastical authority to make such examinations. If the
>> censor
>> > > deputatus finds no doctrinal error in the work, he grants a nihil
>> obstat
>> > > attesting to this. Translated as "nothing stands in the way," the
>> nihil
>> > > obstat indicates that the manuscript can be safely forwarded to the
>> > > bishop for his review and decision.
>> >
>> > So, does your catechism contain the words "Nihil Obstat" in the front
>> > somewhere? Please quote the entire section.
>> >
>> > > Similarly, a member of a religious community would submit his work
>> to
>> > > his major superior. If the work is found free of doctrinal error,
>> the
>> > > major superior grants an imprimi potest, translated as "it is able
>> to be
>> > > printed." With this approval, the manuscript is then forwarded to
>> the
>> > > bishop for his review and decision.
>> > >
>> > > If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he
>> > > grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress
>> or to
>> > > stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, "let it be printed."
>> > > Technically, this is the bishop's official declaration that the book
>> is
>> > > free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a
>> > > censor.
>> >
>> > All three terms are called an Imprimatur as a collective term. Three
>> > steps - Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. The book can
>> have one
>> > of them, two of them, or all three. There are many books with only an
>> > Imprimatur. Most, however, contain an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat,
>> without
>> > the Imprimi Potest. Probably the most well known to you is Samuele
>> > Bacchiocchi's thesis, which has an Imprimatur with no Nihil Obstat and
>> no
>> > Imprimi Potest ... if it really ever did have an Imprimatur, as he
>> claims it
>> > did. http://tinyurl.com/hbhbt and http://tinyurl.com/p82d5
>> >
>> > Bacchiocchi's thesis is certainly not free from doctrinal error -
>> which is
>> > why it got the Imprimatur without the Nihil Obstat or Imprimi Potest.
>> >
>> > And even if your catechism DOES have a Nihil Obstat, it still doesn't
>> mean
>> > it's officially approved as being accurate by the Vatican. It's
>> approval
>> > from the local bishop - NOT Rome. And even then, it would not be an
>> > official Catholic document, merely a book by a member of the Church,
>> NOT by
>> > the official teaching Church.
>> >
>> > > Keep in mind that the imprimatur is an official permission
>> pertaining to
>> > > works written by a member of the Church and not by the official
>> teaching
>> > > Church, such as a Church council, synod, bishop, etc.
>> >
>> > Note that it's official permission from the local bishop for a work
>> written
>> > by a member of the Church.
>> >
>> > It is NOT a work by the official teaching Church.
>> >
>> > What part of that do you not understand?
>> >
>> > > The author can
>> > > seek the imprimatur from his own bishop or from the bishop of the
>> > > diocese where the work will be published.
>> >
>> > The local bishop. Not Rome. And the local bishop doesn't even have
>> to
>> > agree with the contents. The contents may be opinions that the bishop
>> > disagrees with, but sees no reason to withhold publication because the
>> > essential facts of the faith are not compromised.
>> >
>> > Nothing is compromised by making a mistake about Laodicaea. The
>> writer was
>> > ignorant, and so was the bishop. Neither had read the Catechism of
>> the
>> > Council of Trent, it seems. Unless you're claiming infallibility for
>> each
>> > individual bishop?
>> >
>> > You're being totally unreasonable with this claim of yours. You're
>> > expecting each bishop to know everything, and that every miniscule
>> detail in
>> > a book he approves, whether relevant or not, must therefore be 100%
>> accurate
>> > according to the teachings of Rome.
>> >
>> > You're way out of line on that one - nobody claims that that is what
>> an
>> > Imprimatur means.
>> >
>> > In Imprimatur means that the text is free from MORAL and THEOLOGICAL
>> error -
>> > not HISTORICAL error.
>> >
>> > http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=268 says the
>> following:
>> >
>> > "They signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the
>> imprimatur,
>> > the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However, the
>> nihil
>> > obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that
>> the
>> > entire contents of a work are true."
>> >
>> > "The bishop's authorization 'is an essentially negative judgment of
>> > non-offensiveness.'"
>> >
>> > That quote within the quote is from The Code of Canon Law: A Text and
>> > Commentary, 580.
>> >
>> > "The nihil obstat and imprimatur are not the equivalent of an
>> endorsement or
>> > recommendation. They do not affirm that the whole of a work's contents
>> are
>> > true. Neither do the nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that the
>> censor or
>> > bishop necessarily agrees with the contents of a work. For example, a
>> book
>> > on Catholic bioethics may have received the nihil obstat and
>> imprimatur.
>> > Such a book may discuss Church teachings, and it may also proffer
>> opinions
>> > in matters where the Church has not yet spoken (e.g., when new
>> technology
>> > raises new ethical concerns). Those opinions may be deemed "free of
>> > doctrinal or moral error," but the bishop who granted the imprimatur
>> may not
>> > agree with those opinions."
>> >
>> > "A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s) did
>> not
>> > notice."
>> >
>> > "There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what Church
>> > teaching is on a given subject."
>> >
>> > "Finally, a nihil obstat and imprimatur do not guarantee that a book
>> is well
>> > written. They do not ensure that arguments are well presented, that
>> > explanations are complete, or that topics are fully covered."
>> >
>> > From Wikipedia -
>> >
>> > "The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any
>> doctrinal
>> > or moral error is found to be contained in the work."
>> >
>> > Obviously an imprimatur cannot mean absolute truth. That's being
>> > ridiculous.
>> >
>> > From the US Catholic Bishops' Office for the Catechism:
>> >
>> > "The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work
>> is
>> > free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a
>> negative
>> > approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No
>> > implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by
>> those who
>> > have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the
>> > content, opinions or statements expressed in the work." -
>> > http://www.usccb.org/catechism/update/spring98.htm
>> >
>> > So your claim that an Imprimatur implies that the text is an official
>> > teaching of the Catholic Church is bogus. Your claims that a text
>> with an
>> > Imprimatur has Rome's approval is bogus. Your claim that
>> >
>> > We've seen TWO *official* Catholic statements saying that Sunday was
>> > instituted by the Apostles. Here's a third:
>> >
>> > CCC 2177 - The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist
>> is at
>> > the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the
>> paschal
>> > mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be
>> > observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal
>> Church."
>> >
>> > And that is quoting the Code of Canon Law.
>> >
>> > Can. 1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal
>> mystery
>> > is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the
>> primordial
>> > holy day of obligation.
>> >
>> > So now you've been given FOUR official Catholic texts saying that
>> > Catholicism believes Sunday was instituted by the Apostles.
>> >
>> > And you've got ONE UNOFFICIAL text with only the approval in matters
>> of
>> > faith and morals, not history, from a local bishop, NOT Rome, and your
>> > unofficial text is contradicted by both official Catholic statements
>> and
>> > historical evidence.
>> >
>> > So, which side has the evidence for the official view, and which side
>> is
>> > misinterpreting?
>> >
>> > God bless,
>> > Stephen
>> >
>> > --
>> > Stephen Korsman
>> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
>> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>> >
>> > IC | XC
>> > ---------
>> > NI | KA
>> >
>> > add an s before .co.za
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-25 14:16:12 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:XD9xg.55579$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:s9ydnU9Kwra-***@is.co.za...
> > >
> > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > news:XzYwg.55463$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > Aside from the stuff I wrote below, I should note that you clearly
> > don't
> > > know what dogma is. It is the official view of the Catholic
Church
> > that
> > > Sunday was instituted by the Apostles, but that is not Catholic
dogma.
> > >
> >
> > Where did I say it was?
>
> In the subject line. You wrote the subject line.
>

Correction. YOU wrote the subject line.

> > You're the one who keeps bringing that up
> > without any proof the apostles ever did so.
>
> I've cited evidence that you've refused to address.
>

WHERE IS IT? Link please.

> > Here is a clue Sherlock
> > Hemlock. I am addressing your doctrines, laws and canons, based on
your
> > unbiblical traditions they are Catholic dogma.
>
> Like I said, you don't know what dogma means.
>

Then may I suggest you not engage in a thread ABOUT CATHOLIC DOGMA and
write (how many posts?) defending your dogma and accusing others of
misrepresenting Catholic dogma without first clarifying what the meaning
of IS, is, Mr Clinton???

Here's most people's definition, including mine, so you'll know what I
am talking about in the future.

Merriam -Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more
at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite
authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a
point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate
grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally
stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Catholic Encyclopedia:
Dogma
I. DEFINITION
The word dogma (Gr. dogma from dokein) signifies, in the writings of the
ancient classical authors, sometimes, an opinion or that which seems
true to a person; sometimes, the philosophical doctrines or tenets, and
especially the distinctive philosophical doctrines, of a particular
school of philosophers (cf. Cic. Ac., ii, 9), and sometimes, a public
decree or ordinance, as dogma poieisthai.

In Sacred Scripture it is used, at one time, in the sense of a decree or
edict of the civil authority, as in Luke, ii, 1: "And it came to pass,
that in those days there went out a decree [edictum, dogma] from Caesar
Augustus" (cf. Acts 17:7; Esther 3:3); at another time, in the sense of
an ordinance of the Mosaic Law as in Eph., ii 15: "Making void the law
of commandments contained in decrees" (dogmasin), and again, it is
applied to the ordinances or decrees of the first Apostolic Council in
Jerusalem: "And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto
them the decrees [dogmata] for to keep, that were decreed by the
apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).

Among the early Fathers the usage was prevalent of designating as dogmas
the doctrines and moral precepts taught or promulgated by the Saviour or
by the Apostles; and a distinction was sometimes made between Divine,
Apostolical, and ecclesiastical dogmas, according as a doctrine was
conceived as having been taught by Christ, by the Apostles, or as having
been delivered to the faithful by the Church.

But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a
truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from
the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the
Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly
as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do
not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to
doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a
revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through
her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a
twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching
of the Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

> I've obviously annoyed you. You don't write good English gramer when
you're
> peeved.
>

Do you also forget how to spell when you are peeved?

Perhaps you could adjust your psycho analysis, oh Despotic Doctor? Ever
since I first became aquainted with your jesuit babble and ridiculous
denials and accusations I've thought you annoying.so that can't possibly
be it.

Maybe, my spellcheck won't work, and when I am in a hurry I make silly
spelling and grammatical errors and I don't like taking the time to
proof read, as I require sleep and have other responsibilities, and it
seems you infiltrators on ARCA don't??

And Most likely you are just focussing on who I am and how I write to
the exclusion of what the issues are because that's what you internet
soldiers of the pope have been trained to do when people start posting
evidence and facts to you, and your unreasonable denials and circular
arguments aren't accepted as fact?

> > I am addressing How the
> > Catholic Church thinks to change God's times and laws.
>
> Why not address the evidence I've presented that the Apostles observed
> Sunday?
>

Because there is NO EVIDENCE, if you think you have evidence, present
it! WHERE IS IT? Link please.
And don't pretend obscure references to the first day prove this when
you claim hundreds of references to the seventh day Sabbath don't prove
Sabbath-keeping!!!!

And why pretend you have evidence when you will not supply the time,
place, and words when they changed it, or even one of those things, as I
have asked seveal times now in regard to your Vatican claims about this
" The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: "The Jewish Sabbath
Changed To Sunday By The Apostles "The Apostles therefore resolved to
consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called
it the Lord's day"

STILL WAITING...

.

> > I am addressing
> > How in Jesus testimony which is through his prophets this was
fortold
> > long before in the book of Daniel,
>
> More errors of the English gramer.
>

Did you know that grammer is spelled with 2 m's?
Did you know this is the passage I am talking about?

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and
shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times
and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times
and the dividing of time.

and this:

Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not
come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his
time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth
[will let], until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of
his coming:

Do you know WHO & WHAT those passages are talking about?
Can you notice you keep accusing me of not discussing scripture or
addressing the evidence, while you do that yourself?

> > as well as Rome's history written in
> > the blood of the Saints and Martyrs. I am in the middle of an answer
> > which is more in depth,
>
> I doubt it - you don't change just because your identity is known.
>

You're right, I don't. I didn't even know my identity was in question,
or even had any bearing on biblical issues and the sure word of prophecy
and it's fulfillment till you all began to post your theories, and give
me such power...

> > but Have to go pick my son up..
> >
> > please just sit on the edge of your seat and chomp on your bit - for
a
> > bit...
>
> No need ... now that we know who we're dealing with, it would be
pointless.
> Your history here speaks for itself. It would be like waiting for a
> profound piece of wisdom from Susan/Ted.
>

Does that mean you'll stop answering me now? Doubtful, eh? Sorry,to
disapoint you but I think there is a need..

See ya.

> God bless,
> Stephen
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
> > ~ Cliff Hanger
> >
> >
> >
> > > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > > >
> > > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > Answer plainly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday
because
> > the
> > > > > > Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364),
> > transferred
> > > > the
> > > > > > solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KORSMAN:
> > > > > Yes. It's incorrect. It contradicts official Catholic
teaching,
> > > > namely the
> > > > > Council of Trent and Pope John Paul II.
> > > > >
> > > > > That book is incorrect. In no way can it claim to be more
> > official in
> > > > terms
> > > > > of Catholic teaching than Trent and the Pope. You know it's
> > > > incorrect, yet
> > > > > you continue to pretend it's official Catholic teaching.
> > > > --------------
> > > >
> > > > Why sell out your Mother Korsman?
> > >
> > > I'm not. You're just unwilling to deal with the biblical
evidence.
> > >
> > > And you seem to make up the biblical evidence as you go along.
> > >
> > > http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2
> > >
> > > > That is a Catechism with a imprimatur
> > > > as required by your Church law. (see below) The Convert's
Catechism
> > of
> > > > Catholic Doctrine by Rev. Peter Geirmann, C.SS.R., Imprimatur
Joseph
> > E.
> > > > Ritter S.T.D. Archbishop of St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., St.
> > Louis,
> > > > MO.
> > >
> > > The Imprimatur says it can be printed. The Nihil Obstat says that
the
> > > bishop considers it to be free of error.
> > >
> > > Does it have a Nihil Obstat?
> > >
> > > > I can't help it if your official Church teaching contradicts
your
> > other
> > > > official church teaching. My main point is your church has
> > blasphemously
> > > > thought to change times and laws just as prophesied in Dan
> > 9.beginning
> > > > by keeping and teaching manmade traditions instead of God's
Sabbath
> > > > Commandment. Which Christ identified as vain worship, and then
as
> > she
> > > > gained power going on to make and enforce laws and claiming to
have
> > > > changed God's commandment regarding the Seventh day to the First
> > day.
> > > >
> > > > And Here's what that Catechism is referring to specifically
canon 29
> > > > COUNCIL OF LAODICEA 364AD
> > > >
> > > > CANON XVI.
> > > > THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with
the
> > > > other Scriptures.
> > >
> > > Oh dear ... what a terrible thing to do!! They must be evil!
> > >
> > > > CANON XXIX.
> > > > CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must
work
> > on
> > > > that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can,
resting
> > > > then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers,
let
> > them
> > > > be anathema from Christ.
> > >
> > > Judaiser were obviously a problem. But in no way does that even
come
> > close
> > > to instituting Sunday observance.
> > >
> > > > CANON XLIX.
> > > > DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath
Day
> > and
> > > > on the Lord's Day only.
> > >
> > > Monday to Friday - no Eucharist.
> > > Saturday and Sunday - Eucharist.
> > >
> > > That's hardly establishing a new day of worship.
> > >
> > > > CANON LI.
> > > > The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
> > > > commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the
Sabbaths
> > and
> > > > Lord's days
> > >
> > > Ummm ... so they had Sabbaths? Dearie me ... I'm surprised you
aren't
> > > calling them Adventists.
> > >
> > > > Of course the laws got stricter as time went on as did the
> > punishments
> > > > when in 538 the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church and
> > > > corrector of all heretics by decree of the Emperor Justinian,
but
> > that's
> > > > another post.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And before you start claiming that Catechism with it's
imprimatur is
> > > > not official Vatican teaching.
> > >
> > > Yes, your quote below says exactly that. Did you read it before
you
> > cut and
> > > pasted it?
> > >
> > > > and declared free of doctrinal error.
> > > > This is for the readers:
> > > >
> > > > From the Catholic Education Resourse Center
> > > >
> > > > The Magisterium's Imprimatur FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
> > > >
> > > > I have often noticed in Catholic books "imprimatur" and "nihil
> > obstat."
> > > > What do these terms mean? Do they show that a book teaches what
the
> > > > Church teaches?
> > > >
> > > > Before addressing the terms themselves, we must remember that
the
> > > > Magisterium, the teaching authority of our Church, has the duty
to
> > > > "preserve God's people from deviations and defections, and to
> > guarantee
> > > > them the objective possibility of professing the true faith
without
> > > > error" (Catechism, No. 890). Therefore, under the guidance of
the
> > Holy
> > > > Spirit, whom our Lord called the Spirit of Truth, the
Magisterium
> > > > preserves, understands, teaches and proclaims the truth which
leads
> > to
> > > > salvation.
> > > >
> > > > With this in mind, the Magisterium will examine those works,
> > > > particularly books, on faith and morals and pronounce whether
they
> > are
> > > > free from doctrinal error. On March 19, 1975, the Sacred
> > Congregation
> > > > for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following norms in this
> > matter:
> > > > "The Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be
> > vigilant
> > > > lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings;
and
> > > > consequently, even to demand that the publication of writing
> > concerning
> > > > the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's
approval,
> > and
> > > > also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals."
> > This
> > > > mandate was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, No. 823.
> > > >
> > > > The review process would then begin with the author submitting
the
> > > > manuscript to the censor deputatus, who is appointed by the
bishop
> > or
> > > > other ecclesiastical authority to make such examinations. If the
> > censor
> > > > deputatus finds no doctrinal error in the work, he grants a
nihil
> > obstat
> > > > attesting to this. Translated as "nothing stands in the way,"
the
> > nihil
> > > > obstat indicates that the manuscript can be safely forwarded to
the
> > > > bishop for his review and decision.
> > >
> > > So, does your catechism contain the words "Nihil Obstat" in the
front
> > > somewhere? Please quote the entire section.
> > >
> > > > Similarly, a member of a religious community would submit his
work
> > to
> > > > his major superior. If the work is found free of doctrinal
error,
> > the
> > > > major superior grants an imprimi potest, translated as "it is
able
> > to be
> > > > printed." With this approval, the manuscript is then forwarded
to
> > the
> > > > bishop for his review and decision.
> > > >
> > > > If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal
error, he
> > > > grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to
impress
> > or to
> > > > stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, "let it be printed."
> > > > Technically, this is the bishop's official declaration that the
book
> > is
> > > > free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication
by a
> > > > censor.
> > >
> > > All three terms are called an Imprimatur as a collective term.
Three
> > > steps - Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. The book
can
> > have one
> > > of them, two of them, or all three. There are many books with
only an
> > > Imprimatur. Most, however, contain an Imprimatur and Nihil
Obstat,
> > without
> > > the Imprimi Potest. Probably the most well known to you is
Samuele
> > > Bacchiocchi's thesis, which has an Imprimatur with no Nihil Obstat
and
> > no
> > > Imprimi Potest ... if it really ever did have an Imprimatur, as he
> > claims it
> > > did. http://tinyurl.com/hbhbt and http://tinyurl.com/p82d5
> > >
> > > Bacchiocchi's thesis is certainly not free from doctrinal error -
> > which is
> > > why it got the Imprimatur without the Nihil Obstat or Imprimi
Potest.
> > >
> > > And even if your catechism DOES have a Nihil Obstat, it still
doesn't
> > mean
> > > it's officially approved as being accurate by the Vatican. It's
> > approval
> > > from the local bishop - NOT Rome. And even then, it would not be
an
> > > official Catholic document, merely a book by a member of the
Church,
> > NOT by
> > > the official teaching Church.
> > >
> > > > Keep in mind that the imprimatur is an official permission
> > pertaining to
> > > > works written by a member of the Church and not by the official
> > teaching
> > > > Church, such as a Church council, synod, bishop, etc.
> > >
> > > Note that it's official permission from the local bishop for a
work
> > written
> > > by a member of the Church.
> > >
> > > It is NOT a work by the official teaching Church.
> > >
> > > What part of that do you not understand?
> > >
> > > > The author can
> > > > seek the imprimatur from his own bishop or from the bishop of
the
> > > > diocese where the work will be published.
> > >
> > > The local bishop. Not Rome. And the local bishop doesn't even
have
> > to
> > > agree with the contents. The contents may be opinions that the
bishop
> > > disagrees with, but sees no reason to withhold publication because
the
> > > essential facts of the faith are not compromised.
> > >
> > > Nothing is compromised by making a mistake about Laodicaea. The
> > writer was
> > > ignorant, and so was the bishop. Neither had read the Catechism
of
> > the
> > > Council of Trent, it seems. Unless you're claiming infallibility
for
> > each
> > > individual bishop?
> > >
> > > You're being totally unreasonable with this claim of yours.
You're
> > > expecting each bishop to know everything, and that every miniscule
> > detail in
> > > a book he approves, whether relevant or not, must therefore be
100%
> > accurate
> > > according to the teachings of Rome.
> > >
> > > You're way out of line on that one - nobody claims that that is
what
> > an
> > > Imprimatur means.
> > >
> > > In Imprimatur means that the text is free from MORAL and
THEOLOGICAL
> > error -
> > > not HISTORICAL error.
> > >
> > > http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=268 says the
> > following:
> > >
> > > "They signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the
> > imprimatur,
> > > the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However,
the
> > nihil
> > > obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee
that
> > the
> > > entire contents of a work are true."
> > >
> > > "The bishop's authorization 'is an essentially negative judgment
of
> > > non-offensiveness.'"
> > >
> > > That quote within the quote is from The Code of Canon Law: A Text
and
> > > Commentary, 580.
> > >
> > > "The nihil obstat and imprimatur are not the equivalent of an
> > endorsement or
> > > recommendation. They do not affirm that the whole of a work's
contents
> > are
> > > true. Neither do the nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that the
> > censor or
> > > bishop necessarily agrees with the contents of a work. For
example, a
> > book
> > > on Catholic bioethics may have received the nihil obstat and
> > imprimatur.
> > > Such a book may discuss Church teachings, and it may also proffer
> > opinions
> > > in matters where the Church has not yet spoken (e.g., when new
> > technology
> > > raises new ethical concerns). Those opinions may be deemed "free
of
> > > doctrinal or moral error," but the bishop who granted the
imprimatur
> > may not
> > > agree with those opinions."
> > >
> > > "A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s)
did
> > not
> > > notice."
> > >
> > > "There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what
Church
> > > teaching is on a given subject."
> > >
> > > "Finally, a nihil obstat and imprimatur do not guarantee that a
book
> > is well
> > > written. They do not ensure that arguments are well presented,
that
> > > explanations are complete, or that topics are fully covered."
> > >
> > > From Wikipedia -
> > >
> > > "The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any
> > doctrinal
> > > or moral error is found to be contained in the work."
> > >
> > > Obviously an imprimatur cannot mean absolute truth. That's being
> > > ridiculous.
> > >
> > > From the US Catholic Bishops' Office for the Catechism:
> > >
> > > "The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a
work
> > is
> > > free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a
> > negative
> > > approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral
error. No
> > > implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by
> > those who
> > > have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with
the
> > > content, opinions or statements expressed in the work." -
> > > http://www.usccb.org/catechism/update/spring98.htm
> > >
> > > So your claim that an Imprimatur implies that the text is an
official
> > > teaching of the Catholic Church is bogus. Your claims that a text
> > with an
> > > Imprimatur has Rome's approval is bogus. Your claim that
> > >
> > > We've seen TWO *official* Catholic statements saying that Sunday
was
> > > instituted by the Apostles. Here's a third:
> > >
> > > CCC 2177 - The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his
Eucharist
> > is at
> > > the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the
> > paschal
> > > mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is
to be
> > > observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal
> > Church."
> > >
> > > And that is quoting the Code of Canon Law.
> > >
> > > Can. 1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal
> > mystery
> > > is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the
> > primordial
> > > holy day of obligation.
> > >
> > > So now you've been given FOUR official Catholic texts saying that
> > > Catholicism believes Sunday was instituted by the Apostles.
> > >
> > > And you've got ONE UNOFFICIAL text with only the approval in
matters
> > of
> > > faith and morals, not history, from a local bishop, NOT Rome, and
your
> > > unofficial text is contradicted by both official Catholic
statements
> > and
> > > historical evidence.
> > >
> > > So, which side has the evidence for the official view, and which
side
> > is
> > > misinterpreting?
> > >
> > > God bless,
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Korsman
> > > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> > >
> > > IC | XC
> > > ---------
> > > NI | KA
> > >
> > > add an s before .co.za
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-25 16:25:54 UTC

Permalink

"Donna" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jDbxg.55616$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
>>
>> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>> news:XD9xg.55579$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
>>> news:s9ydnU9Kwra-***@is.co.za...
>>> >
>>> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:XzYwg.55463$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>> >
>>> > Aside from the stuff I wrote below, I should note that you clearly
>>> don't
>>> > know what dogma is. It is the official view of the Catholic Church
>>> that
>>> > Sunday was instituted by the Apostles, but that is not Catholic dogma.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Where did I say it was?
>>
>> In the subject line. You wrote the subject line.
>>
>
> Mr. korsman,
>
> I am confused by your statements. First it appears you wrote the subject
> line.

I changed hers. She's the one who said I'm accusing her of misrepresenting
Catholic dogma. I just left the word in the subject line. She doesn't know
what the term means. I suggest you look it up, and find yourself a list of
Catholic dogmas.

> What official Catholic dogma are you accusing her of misrepresenting?

Aside from the many she has misrepresented in the past, what do you think
this current topic is about?

Is the Sabbath/Sunday issue Catholic dogma? No. Although I'm sure you'll
claim it is, or she will. The fact is, it's not. If Catholicism saw a good
Christian reason to drop Sunday and go to Wednesday, it could. Dogma cannot
change. Customs can. Including pious customs, such as celebrating Jesus'
resurrection weekly, an act you lot seem to object to us doing.

Is the Imprimatur issue Catholic dogma? No. Does it even define something
as dogma? No.

> In addition you make a long and somewhat confusing argument below.

Confusing? Well, if you don't want to be confused by the facts, don't read
it. It's what Cindy does.

> This seems un-necessary, unless you are trying to decieve us. This from
> the original quote:
>
> "While a Catholic author can certainly publish a manuscript without
> seeking the bishop's imprimatur, some works require this official
> approval before they can be used by the faithful. Prayer books for
> public or private use, and CATECHISMS or other catechetical materials
> (or their translations) require the bishop's permission for publication
> (Code of Canon Law, No. 826, 827.1). Books related to Sacred Scripture,
> theology, CANON LAW, CHURCH HISTORY, or religious or moral disciplines
> cannot be used as textbooks in education at any level unless they are
> published with the approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority,
> or receive such approval subsequently (No. 827.2). Finally, books or
> other writings which deal with faith or morals cannot be exhibited,
> sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they are published
> with the approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority or receive
> such approval subsequently (No. 827.4).
>
> In all, these official declarations state that a publication is true to
> the Church's teachings on faith and morals, and free of doctrinal error.
> Too many souls are in jeopardy because of the erroneous literature that
> is promoted as genuinely representing the Catholic faith. In an age
> where publications are abundant, a good Catholic must be on guard and
> look for the imprimatur before buying."
> "

Yes, so?

An imprimatur still doesn't mean the book is accurate on historical matters.
Historical books are assessed in terms of faith and morals. They can even
contain errors on matters of faith and morals - the bishop can be ignorant
of certain things, and things can be missed, in which case the imprimatur is
withdrawn (as was apparently the case with Bacchiocchi, who got it as a
favour arranged by a friend.) The imprimatur is given by the local bishop,
and in no way implies that Rome has given its approval to the book.

So to claim that a historical issue in a book given an imprimatur by the
bishop of New York has the approval of Rome and is the official Catholic
position on the matter is utterly absurd.

If you presented Cindy's opinion on imprimaturs to a group of Catholics,
you'd be laughed out of the room it's so twisted and absurd. The only
reason you can't hear everyone here laughing is because it's not common
practice to record ourselves laughing and post MP3s on the newsgroups.

> Lastly, is it HONESTLY your view that Canon 29 doesn't contradict God's
> Sabbath Commandment?

Yes. It doesn't. Because the commandment is no longer in effect. All this
has been explained to her, with biblical evidence to back it up. She
ignored the biblical evidence. I suggest you discuss it with her.

Furthermore, those who insist on Jewish laws not required under the New
Covenant (evidence supplied to and ignore by Cindy) are rejecting the grace
of Christ and the truth of the Gospel. Or at least some of it. I don't
believe Adventists are not Christians, or that they are without salvation.
They're just not very honest when it comes to dealing with Catholicism, the
Bible, and history.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> Exd 20:9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
>
>
> Exd 20:10But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it]
> thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
> manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
> [is] within thy gates:
>
>
> Exd 20:11For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and
> all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
> blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
>
> Canon XXIX
> "CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on
> that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting
> then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them
> be anathema from Christ."
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
> D
>
>>> You're the one who keeps bringing that up
>>> without any proof the apostles ever did so.
>>
>> I've cited evidence that you've refused to address.
>>
>>> Here is a clue Sherlock
>>> Hemlock. I am addressing your doctrines, laws and canons, based on your
>>> unbiblical traditions they are Catholic dogma.
>>
>> Like I said, you don't know what dogma means.
>>
>> I've obviously annoyed you. You don't write good English gramer when
>> you're
>> peeved.
>>
>>> I am addressing How the
>>> Catholic Church thinks to change God's times and laws.
>>
>> Why not address the evidence I've presented that the Apostles observed
>> Sunday?
>>
>>> I am addressing
>>> How in Jesus testimony which is through his prophets this was fortold
>>> long before in the book of Daniel,
>>
>> More errors of the English gramer.
>>
>>> as well as Rome's history written in
>>> the blood of the Saints and Martyrs. I am in the middle of an answer
>>> which is more in depth,
>>
>> I doubt it - you don't change just because your identity is known.
>>
>>> but Have to go pick my son up..
>>>
>>> please just sit on the edge of your seat and chomp on your bit - for a
>>> bit...
>>
>> No need ... now that we know who we're dealing with, it would be
>> pointless.
>> Your history here speaks for itself. It would be like waiting for a
>> profound piece of wisdom from Susan/Ted.
>>
>> God bless,
>> Stephen
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Korsman
>> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
>> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>>
>> IC | XC
>> ---------
>> NI | KA
>>
>> add an s before .co.za
>>
>>> ~ Cliff Hanger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
>>> > > news:***@is.co.za...
>>> > > >
>>> > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>>> > > > > Answer plainly.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
>>> > > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
>>> > > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
>>> > > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because
>>> the
>>> > > > > Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364),
>>> transferred
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
>>> > > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > KORSMAN:
>>> > > > Yes. It's incorrect. It contradicts official Catholic teaching,
>>> > > namely the
>>> > > > Council of Trent and Pope John Paul II.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > That book is incorrect. In no way can it claim to be more
>>> official in
>>> > > terms
>>> > > > of Catholic teaching than Trent and the Pope. You know it's
>>> > > incorrect, yet
>>> > > > you continue to pretend it's official Catholic teaching.
>>> > > --------------
>>> > >
>>> > > Why sell out your Mother Korsman?
>>> >
>>> > I'm not. You're just unwilling to deal with the biblical evidence.
>>> >
>>> > And you seem to make up the biblical evidence as you go along.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2
>>> >
>>> > > That is a Catechism with a imprimatur
>>> > > as required by your Church law. (see below) The Convert's Catechism
>>> of
>>> > > Catholic Doctrine by Rev. Peter Geirmann, C.SS.R., Imprimatur Joseph
>>> E.
>>> > > Ritter S.T.D. Archbishop of St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., St.
>>> Louis,
>>> > > MO.
>>> >
>>> > The Imprimatur says it can be printed. The Nihil Obstat says that the
>>> > bishop considers it to be free of error.
>>> >
>>> > Does it have a Nihil Obstat?
>>> >
>>> > > I can't help it if your official Church teaching contradicts your
>>> other
>>> > > official church teaching. My main point is your church has
>>> blasphemously
>>> > > thought to change times and laws just as prophesied in Dan
>>> 9.beginning
>>> > > by keeping and teaching manmade traditions instead of God's Sabbath
>>> > > Commandment. Which Christ identified as vain worship, and then as
>>> she
>>> > > gained power going on to make and enforce laws and claiming to have
>>> > > changed God's commandment regarding the Seventh day to the First
>>> day.
>>> > >
>>> > > And Here's what that Catechism is referring to specifically canon 29
>>> > > COUNCIL OF LAODICEA 364AD
>>> > >
>>> > > CANON XVI.
>>> > > THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the
>>> > > other Scriptures.
>>> >
>>> > Oh dear ... what a terrible thing to do!! They must be evil!
>>> >
>>> > >>> >
>>> > Judaiser were obviously a problem. But in no way does that even come
>>> close
>>> > to instituting Sunday observance.
>>> >
>>> > > CANON XLIX.
>>> > > DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day
>>> and
>>> > > on the Lord's Day only.
>>> >
>>> > Monday to Friday - no Eucharist.
>>> > Saturday and Sunday - Eucharist.
>>> >
>>> > That's hardly establishing a new day of worship.
>>> >
>>> > > CANON LI.
>>> > > The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
>>> > > commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths
>>> and
>>> > > Lord's days
>>> >
>>> > Ummm ... so they had Sabbaths? Dearie me ... I'm surprised you aren't
>>> > calling them Adventists.
>>> >
>>> > > Of course the laws got stricter as time went on as did the
>>> punishments
>>> > > when in 538 the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church and
>>> > > corrector of all heretics by decree of the Emperor Justinian, but
>>> that's
>>> > > another post.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > And before you start claiming that Catechism with it's imprimatur is
>>> > > not official Vatican teaching.
>>> >
>>> > Yes, your quote below says exactly that. Did you read it before you
>>> cut and
>>> > pasted it?
>>> >
>>> > > and declared free of doctrinal error.
>>> > > This is for the readers:
>>> > >
>>> > > From the Catholic Education Resourse Center
>>> > >
>>> > > The Magisterium's Imprimatur FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
>>> > >
>>> > > I have often noticed in Catholic books "imprimatur" and "nihil
>>> obstat."
>>> > > What do these terms mean? Do they show that a book teaches what the
>>> > > Church teaches?
>>> > >
>>> > > Before addressing the terms themselves, we must remember that the
>>> > > Magisterium, the teaching authority of our Church, has the duty to
>>> > > "preserve God's people from deviations and defections, and to
>>> guarantee
>>> > > them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without
>>> > > error" (Catechism, No. 890). Therefore, under the guidance of the
>>> Holy
>>> > > Spirit, whom our Lord called the Spirit of Truth, the Magisterium
>>> > > preserves, understands, teaches and proclaims the truth which leads
>>> to
>>> > > salvation.
>>> > >
>>> > > With this in mind, the Magisterium will examine those works,
>>> > > particularly books, on faith and morals and pronounce whether they
>>> are
>>> > > free from doctrinal error. On March 19, 1975, the Sacred
>>> Congregation
>>> > > for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following norms in this
>>> matter:
>>> > > "The Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be
>>> vigilant
>>> > > lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings; and
>>> > > consequently, even to demand that the publication of writing
>>> concerning
>>> > > the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's approval,
>>> and
>>> > > also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals."
>>> This
>>> > > mandate was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, No. 823.
>>> > >
>>> > > The review process would then begin with the author submitting the
>>> > > manuscript to the censor deputatus, who is appointed by the bishop
>>> or
>>> > > other ecclesiastical authority to make such examinations. If the
>>> censor
>>> > > deputatus finds no doctrinal error in the work, he grants a nihil
>>> obstat
>>> > > attesting to this. Translated as "nothing stands in the way," the
>>> nihil
>>> > > obstat indicates that the manuscript can be safely forwarded to the
>>> > > bishop for his review and decision.
>>> >
>>> > So, does your catechism contain the words "Nihil Obstat" in the front
>>> > somewhere? Please quote the entire section.
>>> >
>>> > > Similarly, a member of a religious community would submit his work
>>> to
>>> > > his major superior. If the work is found free of doctrinal error,
>>> the
>>> > > major superior grants an imprimi potest, translated as "it is able
>>> to be
>>> > > printed." With this approval, the manuscript is then forwarded to
>>> the
>>> > > bishop for his review and decision.
>>> > >
>>> > > If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he
>>> > > grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress
>>> or to
>>> > > stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, "let it be printed."
>>> > > Technically, this is the bishop's official declaration that the book
>>> is
>>> > > free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a
>>> > > censor.
>>> >
>>> > All three terms are called an Imprimatur as a collective term. Three
>>> > steps - Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. The book can
>>> have one
>>> > of them, two of them, or all three. There are many books with only an
>>> > Imprimatur. Most, however, contain an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat,
>>> without
>>> > the Imprimi Potest. Probably the most well known to you is Samuele
>>> > Bacchiocchi's thesis, which has an Imprimatur with no Nihil Obstat and
>>> no
>>> > Imprimi Potest ... if it really ever did have an Imprimatur, as he
>>> claims it
>>> > did. http://tinyurl.com/hbhbt and http://tinyurl.com/p82d5
>>> >
>>> > Bacchiocchi's thesis is certainly not free from doctrinal error -
>>> which is
>>> > why it got the Imprimatur without the Nihil Obstat or Imprimi Potest.
>>> >
>>> > And even if your catechism DOES have a Nihil Obstat, it still doesn't
>>> mean
>>> > it's officially approved as being accurate by the Vatican. It's
>>> approval
>>> > from the local bishop - NOT Rome. And even then, it would not be an
>>> > official Catholic document, merely a book by a member of the Church,
>>> NOT by
>>> > the official teaching Church.
>>> >
>>> > > Keep in mind that the imprimatur is an official permission
>>> pertaining to
>>> > > works written by a member of the Church and not by the official
>>> teaching
>>> > > Church, such as a Church council, synod, bishop, etc.
>>> >
>>> > Note that it's official permission from the local bishop for a work
>>> written
>>> > by a member of the Church.
>>> >
>>> > It is NOT a work by the official teaching Church.
>>> >
>>> > What part of that do you not understand?
>>> >
>>> > > The author can
>>> > > seek the imprimatur from his own bishop or from the bishop of the
>>> > > diocese where the work will be published.
>>> >
>>> > The local bishop. Not Rome. And the local bishop doesn't even have
>>> to
>>> > agree with the contents. The contents may be opinions that the bishop
>>> > disagrees with, but sees no reason to withhold publication because the
>>> > essential facts of the faith are not compromised.
>>> >
>>> > Nothing is compromised by making a mistake about Laodicaea. The
>>> writer was
>>> > ignorant, and so was the bishop. Neither had read the Catechism of
>>> the
>>> > Council of Trent, it seems. Unless you're claiming infallibility for
>>> each
>>> > individual bishop?
>>> >
>>> > You're being totally unreasonable with this claim of yours. You're
>>> > expecting each bishop to know everything, and that every miniscule
>>> detail in
>>> > a book he approves, whether relevant or not, must therefore be 100%
>>> accurate
>>> > according to the teachings of Rome.
>>> >
>>> > You're way out of line on that one - nobody claims that that is what
>>> an
>>> > Imprimatur means.
>>> >
>>> > In Imprimatur means that the text is free from MORAL and THEOLOGICAL
>>> error -
>>> > not HISTORICAL error.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=268 says the
>>> following:
>>> >
>>> > "They signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the
>>> imprimatur,
>>> > the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However, the
>>> nihil
>>> > obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that
>>> the
>>> > entire contents of a work are true."
>>> >
>>> > "The bishop's authorization 'is an essentially negative judgment of
>>> > non-offensiveness.'"
>>> >
>>> > That quote within the quote is from The Code of Canon Law: A Text and
>>> > Commentary, 580.
>>> >
>>> > "The nihil obstat and imprimatur are not the equivalent of an
>>> endorsement or
>>> > recommendation. They do not affirm that the whole of a work's contents
>>> are
>>> > true. Neither do the nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that the
>>> censor or
>>> > bishop necessarily agrees with the contents of a work. For example, a
>>> book
>>> > on Catholic bioethics may have received the nihil obstat and
>>> imprimatur.
>>> > Such a book may discuss Church teachings, and it may also proffer
>>> opinions
>>> > in matters where the Church has not yet spoken (e.g., when new
>>> technology
>>> > raises new ethical concerns). Those opinions may be deemed "free of
>>> > doctrinal or moral error," but the bishop who granted the imprimatur
>>> may not
>>> > agree with those opinions."
>>> >
>>> > "A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s) did
>>> not
>>> > notice."
>>> >
>>> > "There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what Church
>>> > teaching is on a given subject."
>>> >
>>> > "Finally, a nihil obstat and imprimatur do not guarantee that a book
>>> is well
>>> > written. They do not ensure that arguments are well presented, that
>>> > explanations are complete, or that topics are fully covered."
>>> >
>>> > From Wikipedia -
>>> >
>>> > "The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any
>>> doctrinal
>>> > or moral error is found to be contained in the work."
>>> >
>>> > Obviously an imprimatur cannot mean absolute truth. That's being
>>> > ridiculous.
>>> >
>>> > From the US Catholic Bishops' Office for the Catechism:
>>> >
>>> > "The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work
>>> is
>>> > free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a
>>> negative
>>> > approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No
>>> > implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by
>>> those who
>>> > have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the
>>> > content, opinions or statements expressed in the work." -
>>> > http://www.usccb.org/catechism/update/spring98.htm
>>> >
>>> > So your claim that an Imprimatur implies that the text is an official
>>> > teaching of the Catholic Church is bogus. Your claims that a text
>>> with an
>>> > Imprimatur has Rome's approval is bogus. Your claim that
>>> >
>>> > We've seen TWO *official* Catholic statements saying that Sunday was
>>> > instituted by the Apostles. Here's a third:
>>> >
>>> > CCC 2177 - The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist
>>> is at
>>> > the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the
>>> paschal
>>> > mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be
>>> > observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal
>>> Church."
>>> >
>>> > And that is quoting the Code of Canon Law.
>>> >
>>> > Can. 1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal
>>> mystery
>>> > is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the
>>> primordial
>>> > holy day of obligation.
>>> >
>>> > So now you've been given FOUR official Catholic texts saying that
>>> > Catholicism believes Sunday was instituted by the Apostles.
>>> >
>>> > And you've got ONE UNOFFICIAL text with only the approval in matters
>>> of
>>> > faith and morals, not history, from a local bishop, NOT Rome, and your
>>> > unofficial text is contradicted by both official Catholic statements
>>> and
>>> > historical evidence.
>>> >
>>> > So, which side has the evidence for the official view, and which side
>>> is
>>> > misinterpreting?
>>> >
>>> > God bless,
>>> > Stephen
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Stephen Korsman
>>> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
>>> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>>> >
>>> > IC | XC
>>> > ---------
>>> > NI | KA
>>> >
>>> > add an s before .co.za
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-25 16:39:48 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:MIpxg.72646$***@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:XD9xg.55579$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > news:s9ydnU9Kwra-***@is.co.za...
> > > >
> > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:XzYwg.55463$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > Aside from the stuff I wrote below, I should note that you clearly
> > > don't
> > > > know what dogma is. It is the official view of the Catholic
> Church
> > > that
> > > > Sunday was instituted by the Apostles, but that is not Catholic
> dogma.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Where did I say it was?
> >
> > In the subject line. You wrote the subject line.
> >
>
>
>
> Correction. YOU wrote the subject line.

Nope, you did. Andrew originally used the word "dogma" but you renamed it
to "Korsman is still lying. -- and falsely accusing others of
misrepresenting official Catholic dogma"

> > > You're the one who keeps bringing that up
> > > without any proof the apostles ever did so.
> >
> > I've cited evidence that you've refused to address.
> >
>
>
>
> WHERE IS IT? Link please.

I doubt you're interested. If you are really interested, go back and look.
I've given the evidence, repeatedly asked you to address it, and I'm not
wasting my time finding links each time you pretend it's not there.

> > > Here is a clue Sherlock
> > > Hemlock. I am addressing your doctrines, laws and canons, based on
> your
> > > unbiblical traditions they are Catholic dogma.
> >
> > Like I said, you don't know what dogma means.
> >
>
>
> Then may I suggest you not engage in a thread ABOUT CATHOLIC DOGMA and
> write (how many posts?) defending your dogma and accusing others of
> misrepresenting Catholic dogma without first clarifying what the meaning
> of IS, is, Mr Clinton???

The thread was started about Catholic dogma. The dogma referred to was the
Catholic view of the Bible. Not the Sabbath. Not Sunday. So get your
facts straight.

> Here's most people's definition, including mine, so you'll know what I
> am talking about in the future.

Yes, and Sunday doesn't fall into that category. Nor into the description
used by Catholicism.

> Merriam -Webster Dictionary
> Main Entry: dog·ma
> Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
> Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more
> at DECENT
> 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite
> authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a
> point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate
> grounds
> 2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally
> stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
>
> Catholic Encyclopedia:
> Dogma
> I. DEFINITION
> The word dogma (Gr. dogma from dokein) signifies, in the writings of the
> ancient classical authors, sometimes, an opinion or that which seems
> true to a person; sometimes, the philosophical doctrines or tenets, and
> especially the distinctive philosophical doctrines, of a particular
> school of philosophers (cf. Cic. Ac., ii, 9), and sometimes, a public
> decree or ordinance, as dogma poieisthai.
>
> In Sacred Scripture it is used, at one time, in the sense of a decree or
> edict of the civil authority, as in Luke, ii, 1: "And it came to pass,
> that in those days there went out a decree [edictum, dogma] from Caesar
> Augustus" (cf. Acts 17:7; Esther 3:3); at another time, in the sense of
> an ordinance of the Mosaic Law as in Eph., ii 15: "Making void the law
> of commandments contained in decrees" (dogmasin), and again, it is
> applied to the ordinances or decrees of the first Apostolic Council in
> Jerusalem: "And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto
> them the decrees [dogmata] for to keep, that were decreed by the
> apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
>
> Among the early Fathers the usage was prevalent of designating as dogmas
> the doctrines and moral precepts taught or promulgated by the Saviour or
> by the Apostles; and a distinction was sometimes made between Divine,
> Apostolical, and ecclesiastical dogmas, according as a doctrine was
> conceived as having been taught by Christ, by the Apostles, or as having
> been delivered to the faithful by the Church.
>
> But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a
> truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from
> the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the
> Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly
> as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do
> not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to
> doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a
> revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through
> her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a
> twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching
> of the Church.
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

So?

> > I've obviously annoyed you. You don't write good English gramer when
> you're
> > peeved.
> >
>
>
> Do you also forget how to spell when you are peeved?

Nope ... just a parody.

> Perhaps you could adjust your psycho analysis, oh Despotic Doctor? Ever
> since I first became aquainted with your jesuit babble and ridiculous
> denials and accusations I've thought you annoying.so that can't possibly
> be it.
>
> Maybe, my spellcheck won't work, and when I am in a hurry I make silly
> spelling and grammatical errors and I don't like taking the time to
> proof read, as I require sleep and have other responsibilities, and it
> seems you infiltrators on ARCA don't??
>
> And Most likely you are just focussing on who I am and how I write to
> the exclusion of what the issues are because that's what you internet
> soldiers of the pope have been trained to do when people start posting
> evidence and facts to you, and your unreasonable denials and circular
> arguments aren't accepted as fact?

You're confused again, it seems.

> > > I am addressing How the
> > > Catholic Church thinks to change God's times and laws.
> >
> > Why not address the evidence I've presented that the Apostles observed
> > Sunday?
> >
>
> Because there is NO EVIDENCE,

Yes there is. I've presented it all before.

> if you think you have evidence, present
> it! WHERE IS IT? Link please.

You've seen it and ignored it. That is now on record. If you are sincerely
interested, you can go and find it.

> And don't pretend obscure references to the first day prove this

They're not obscure.

> when
> you claim hundreds of references to the seventh day Sabbath don't prove
> Sabbath-keeping!!!!

They don't prove Sabbath keeping.

> And why pretend you have evidence when you will not supply the time,
> place, and words when they changed it, or even one of those things, as I
> have asked seveal times now in regard to your Vatican claims about this
> " The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: "The Jewish Sabbath
> Changed To Sunday By The Apostles "The Apostles therefore resolved to
> consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called
> it the Lord's day"
>
> STILL WAITING...

I didn't submit that as evidence that they kept Sunday. I submitted that as
evidence that the Catholic Church believes they kept Sunday, which you and
Andrew were denying ... and continue to deny.

> > > I am addressing
> > > How in Jesus testimony which is through his prophets this was
> fortold
> > > long before in the book of Daniel,
> >
> > More errors of the English gramer.
> >
>
> Did you know that grammer is spelled with 2 m's?

Yes, I did.

Did you know grammar is spelled with 2 a's? Or did you think that was a
Jesuit plot?

> Did you know this is the passage I am talking about?
>
> Dan 7:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and
> shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times
> and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times
> and the dividing of time.
>
> and this:
>
> Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not
> come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
> revealed, the son of perdition;
> 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
> that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
> shewing himself that he is God.
> 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
> things?
> 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his
> time.
> 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth
> [will let], until he be taken out of the way.
> 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
> with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of
> his coming:
>
>
>
> Do you know WHO & WHAT those passages are talking about?
> Can you notice you keep accusing me of not discussing scripture or
> addressing the evidence, while you do that yourself?

Nope. That has been addressed. You ignored it, as always.

> > > as well as Rome's history written in
> > > the blood of the Saints and Martyrs. I am in the middle of an answer
> > > which is more in depth,
> >
> > I doubt it - you don't change just because your identity is known.
> >
>
>
>
> You're right, I don't. I didn't even know my identity was in question,
> or even had any bearing on biblical issues and the sure word of prophecy
> and it's fulfillment till you all began to post your theories, and give
> me such power...

The name you've made for yourself is a very good reason to hide your
identity. Not that that means it was the reason you did so. And you have
no power, except what you imagine you have. Nobody is convinced by your
changing biblical texts to suit your beliefs, or by misrepresenting others,
or by ignoring the biblical evidence.

> > > but Have to go pick my son up..
> > >
> > > please just sit on the edge of your seat and chomp on your bit - for
> a
> > > bit...
> >
> > No need ... now that we know who we're dealing with, it would be
> pointless.
> > Your history here speaks for itself. It would be like waiting for a
> > profound piece of wisdom from Susan/Ted.
> >
>
>
> Does that mean you'll stop answering me now?

I'll do as I see fit. If I think it's necessary to demonstrate that your
claims are inaccurate, I'll do so. For now, I'll probably ignore your
nonsense, because there is enough of a record for now to show that that is
all it is.

> Doubtful, eh? Sorry,to
> disapoint you but I think there is a need..

For you, perhaps, if you ever intend to try to regain any credibility.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/238/I-B-Wonderin

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

>
> See ya.
>
>
>
>
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Korsman
> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> >
> > IC | XC
> > ---------
> > NI | KA
> >
> > add an s before .co.za
> >
> > > ~ Cliff Hanger
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > Answer plainly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you see what this says? Yes___ NO_____
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> > > > > > > Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> > > > > > > Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> > > > > > > -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday
> because
> > > the
> > > > > > > Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364),
> > > transferred
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> > > > > > > The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > KORSMAN:
> > > > > > Yes. It's incorrect. It contradicts official Catholic
> teaching,
> > > > > namely the
> > > > > > Council of Trent and Pope John Paul II.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That book is incorrect. In no way can it claim to be more
> > > official in
> > > > > terms
> > > > > > of Catholic teaching than Trent and the Pope. You know it's
> > > > > incorrect, yet
> > > > > > you continue to pretend it's official Catholic teaching.
> > > > > --------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Why sell out your Mother Korsman?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not. You're just unwilling to deal with the biblical
> evidence.
> > > >
> > > > And you seem to make up the biblical evidence as you go along.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2
> > > >
> > > > > That is a Catechism with a imprimatur
> > > > > as required by your Church law. (see below) The Convert's
> Catechism
> > > of
> > > > > Catholic Doctrine by Rev. Peter Geirmann, C.SS.R., Imprimatur
> Joseph
> > > E.
> > > > > Ritter S.T.D. Archbishop of St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co., St.
> > > Louis,
> > > > > MO.
> > > >
> > > > The Imprimatur says it can be printed. The Nihil Obstat says that
> the
> > > > bishop considers it to be free of error.
> > > >
> > > > Does it have a Nihil Obstat?
> > > >
> > > > > I can't help it if your official Church teaching contradicts
> your
> > > other
> > > > > official church teaching. My main point is your church has
> > > blasphemously
> > > > > thought to change times and laws just as prophesied in Dan
> > > 9.beginning
> > > > > by keeping and teaching manmade traditions instead of God's
> Sabbath
> > > > > Commandment. Which Christ identified as vain worship, and then
> as
> > > she
> > > > > gained power going on to make and enforce laws and claiming to
> have
> > > > > changed God's commandment regarding the Seventh day to the First
> > > day.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Here's what that Catechism is referring to specifically
> canon 29
> > > > > COUNCIL OF LAODICEA 364AD
> > > > >
> > > > > CANON XVI.
> > > > > THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with
> the
> > > > > other Scriptures.
> > > >
> > > > Oh dear ... what a terrible thing to do!! They must be evil!
> > > >
> > > > > CANON XXIX.
> > > > > CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must
> work
> > > on
> > > > > that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can,
> resting
> > > > > then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers,
> let
> > > them
> > > > > be anathema from Christ.
> > > >
> > > > Judaiser were obviously a problem. But in no way does that even
> come
> > > close
> > > > to instituting Sunday observance.
> > > >
> > > > > CANON XLIX.
> > > > > DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath
> Day
> > > and
> > > > > on the Lord's Day only.
> > > >
> > > > Monday to Friday - no Eucharist.
> > > > Saturday and Sunday - Eucharist.
> > > >
> > > > That's hardly establishing a new day of worship.
> > > >
> > > > > CANON LI.
> > > > > The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
> > > > > commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the
> Sabbaths
> > > and
> > > > > Lord's days
> > > >
> > > > Ummm ... so they had Sabbaths? Dearie me ... I'm surprised you
> aren't
> > > > calling them Adventists.
> > > >
> > > > > Of course the laws got stricter as time went on as did the
> > > punishments
> > > > > when in 538 the Bishop of Rome became the head of the Church and
> > > > > corrector of all heretics by decree of the Emperor Justinian,
> but
> > > that's
> > > > > another post.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And before you start claiming that Catechism with it's
> imprimatur is
> > > > > not official Vatican teaching.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, your quote below says exactly that. Did you read it before
> you
> > > cut and
> > > > pasted it?
> > > >
> > > > > and declared free of doctrinal error.
> > > > > This is for the readers:
> > > > >
> > > > > From the Catholic Education Resourse Center
> > > > >
> > > > > The Magisterium's Imprimatur FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
> > > > >
> > > > > I have often noticed in Catholic books "imprimatur" and "nihil
> > > obstat."
> > > > > What do these terms mean? Do they show that a book teaches what
> the
> > > > > Church teaches?
> > > > >
> > > > > Before addressing the terms themselves, we must remember that
> the
> > > > > Magisterium, the teaching authority of our Church, has the duty
> to
> > > > > "preserve God's people from deviations and defections, and to
> > > guarantee
> > > > > them the objective possibility of professing the true faith
> without
> > > > > error" (Catechism, No. 890). Therefore, under the guidance of
> the
> > > Holy
> > > > > Spirit, whom our Lord called the Spirit of Truth, the
> Magisterium
> > > > > preserves, understands, teaches and proclaims the truth which
> leads
> > > to
> > > > > salvation.
> > > > >
> > > > > With this in mind, the Magisterium will examine those works,
> > > > > particularly books, on faith and morals and pronounce whether
> they
> > > are
> > > > > free from doctrinal error. On March 19, 1975, the Sacred
> > > Congregation
> > > > > for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following norms in this
> > > matter:
> > > > > "The Pastors of the Church have the duty and the right to be
> > > vigilant
> > > > > lest the faith and morals of the faithful be harmed by writings;
> and
> > > > > consequently, even to demand that the publication of writing
> > > concerning
> > > > > the faith and morals should be submitted to the Church's
> approval,
> > > and
> > > > > also to condemn books and writings that attack faith or morals."
> > > This
> > > > > mandate was reiterated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, No. 823.
> > > > >
> > > > > The review process would then begin with the author submitting
> the
> > > > > manuscript to the censor deputatus, who is appointed by the
> bishop
> > > or
> > > > > other ecclesiastical authority to make such examinations. If the
> > > censor
> > > > > deputatus finds no doctrinal error in the work, he grants a
> nihil
> > > obstat
> > > > > attesting to this. Translated as "nothing stands in the way,"
> the
> > > nihil
> > > > > obstat indicates that the manuscript can be safely forwarded to
> the
> > > > > bishop for his review and decision.
> > > >
> > > > So, does your catechism contain the words "Nihil Obstat" in the
> front
> > > > somewhere? Please quote the entire section.
> > > >
> > > > > Similarly, a member of a religious community would submit his
> work
> > > to
> > > > > his major superior. If the work is found free of doctrinal
> error,
> > > the
> > > > > major superior grants an imprimi potest, translated as "it is
> able
> > > to be
> > > > > printed." With this approval, the manuscript is then forwarded
> to
> > > the
> > > > > bishop for his review and decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal
> error, he
> > > > > grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to
> impress
> > > or to
> > > > > stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, "let it be printed."
> > > > > Technically, this is the bishop's official declaration that the
> book
> > > is
> > > > > free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication
> by a
> > > > > censor.
> > > >
> > > > All three terms are called an Imprimatur as a collective term.
> Three
> > > > steps - Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. The book
> can
> > > have one
> > > > of them, two of them, or all three. There are many books with
> only an
> > > > Imprimatur. Most, however, contain an Imprimatur and Nihil
> Obstat,
> > > without
> > > > the Imprimi Potest. Probably the most well known to you is
> Samuele
> > > > Bacchiocchi's thesis, which has an Imprimatur with no Nihil Obstat
> and
> > > no
> > > > Imprimi Potest ... if it really ever did have an Imprimatur, as he
> > > claims it
> > > > did. http://tinyurl.com/hbhbt and http://tinyurl.com/p82d5
> > > >
> > > > Bacchiocchi's thesis is certainly not free from doctrinal error -
> > > which is
> > > > why it got the Imprimatur without the Nihil Obstat or Imprimi
> Potest.
> > > >
> > > > And even if your catechism DOES have a Nihil Obstat, it still
> doesn't
> > > mean
> > > > it's officially approved as being accurate by the Vatican. It's
> > > approval
> > > > from the local bishop - NOT Rome. And even then, it would not be
> an
> > > > official Catholic document, merely a book by a member of the
> Church,
> > > NOT by
> > > > the official teaching Church.
> > > >
> > > > > Keep in mind that the imprimatur is an official permission
> > > pertaining to
> > > > > works written by a member of the Church and not by the official
> > > teaching
> > > > > Church, such as a Church council, synod, bishop, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Note that it's official permission from the local bishop for a
> work
> > > written
> > > > by a member of the Church.
> > > >
> > > > It is NOT a work by the official teaching Church.
> > > >
> > > > What part of that do you not understand?
> > > >
> > > > > The author can
> > > > > seek the imprimatur from his own bishop or from the bishop of
> the
> > > > > diocese where the work will be published.
> > > >
> > > > The local bishop. Not Rome. And the local bishop doesn't even
> have
> > > to
> > > > agree with the contents. The contents may be opinions that the
> bishop
> > > > disagrees with, but sees no reason to withhold publication because
> the
> > > > essential facts of the faith are not compromised.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing is compromised by making a mistake about Laodicaea. The
> > > writer was
> > > > ignorant, and so was the bishop. Neither had read the Catechism
> of
> > > the
> > > > Council of Trent, it seems. Unless you're claiming infallibility
> for
> > > each
> > > > individual bishop?
> > > >
> > > > You're being totally unreasonable with this claim of yours.
> You're
> > > > expecting each bishop to know everything, and that every miniscule
> > > detail in
> > > > a book he approves, whether relevant or not, must therefore be
> 100%
> > > accurate
> > > > according to the teachings of Rome.
> > > >
> > > > You're way out of line on that one - nobody claims that that is
> what
> > > an
> > > > Imprimatur means.
> > > >
> > > > In Imprimatur means that the text is free from MORAL and
> THEOLOGICAL
> > > error -
> > > > not HISTORICAL error.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=268 says the
> > > following:
> > > >
> > > > "They signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the
> > > imprimatur,
> > > > the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However,
> the
> > > nihil
> > > > obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee
> that
> > > the
> > > > entire contents of a work are true."
> > > >
> > > > "The bishop's authorization 'is an essentially negative judgment
> of
> > > > non-offensiveness.'"
> > > >
> > > > That quote within the quote is from The Code of Canon Law: A Text
> and
> > > > Commentary, 580.
> > > >
> > > > "The nihil obstat and imprimatur are not the equivalent of an
> > > endorsement or
> > > > recommendation. They do not affirm that the whole of a work's
> contents
> > > are
> > > > true. Neither do the nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that the
> > > censor or
> > > > bishop necessarily agrees with the contents of a work. For
> example, a
> > > book
> > > > on Catholic bioethics may have received the nihil obstat and
> > > imprimatur.
> > > > Such a book may discuss Church teachings, and it may also proffer
> > > opinions
> > > > in matters where the Church has not yet spoken (e.g., when new
> > > technology
> > > > raises new ethical concerns). Those opinions may be deemed "free
> of
> > > > doctrinal or moral error," but the bishop who granted the
> imprimatur
> > > may not
> > > > agree with those opinions."
> > > >
> > > > "A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s)
> did
> > > not
> > > > notice."
> > > >
> > > > "There may, on occasion, be a difference of opinion as to what
> Church
> > > > teaching is on a given subject."
> > > >
> > > > "Finally, a nihil obstat and imprimatur do not guarantee that a
> book
> > > is well
> > > > written. They do not ensure that arguments are well presented,
> that
> > > > explanations are complete, or that topics are fully covered."
> > > >
> > > > From Wikipedia -
> > > >
> > > > "The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any
> > > doctrinal
> > > > or moral error is found to be contained in the work."
> > > >
> > > > Obviously an imprimatur cannot mean absolute truth. That's being
> > > > ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > From the US Catholic Bishops' Office for the Catechism:
> > > >
> > > > "The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a
> work
> > > is
> > > > free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a
> > > negative
> > > > approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral
> error. No
> > > > implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by
> > > those who
> > > > have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with
> the
> > > > content, opinions or statements expressed in the work." -
> > > > http://www.usccb.org/catechism/update/spring98.htm
> > > >
> > > > So your claim that an Imprimatur implies that the text is an
> official
> > > > teaching of the Catholic Church is bogus. Your claims that a text
> > > with an
> > > > Imprimatur has Rome's approval is bogus. Your claim that
> > > >
> > > > We've seen TWO *official* Catholic statements saying that Sunday
> was
> > > > instituted by the Apostles. Here's a third:
> > > >
> > > > CCC 2177 - The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his
> Eucharist
> > > is at
> > > > the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the
> > > paschal
> > > > mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is
> to be
> > > > observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal
> > > Church."
> > > >
> > > > And that is quoting the Code of Canon Law.
> > > >
> > > > Can. 1246 §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal
> > > mystery
> > > > is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the
> > > primordial
> > > > holy day of obligation.
> > > >
> > > > So now you've been given FOUR official Catholic texts saying that
> > > > Catholicism believes Sunday was instituted by the Apostles.
> > > >
> > > > And you've got ONE UNOFFICIAL text with only the approval in
> matters
> > > of
> > > > faith and morals, not history, from a local bishop, NOT Rome, and
> your
> > > > unofficial text is contradicted by both official Catholic
> statements
> > > and
> > > > historical evidence.
> > > >
> > > > So, which side has the evidence for the official view, and which
> side
> > > is
> > > > misinterpreting?
> > > >
> > > > God bless,
> > > > Stephen
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Stephen Korsman
> > > > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > > > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> > > >
> > > > IC | XC
> > > > ---------
> > > > NI | KA
> > > >
> > > > add an s before .co.za
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

teresita

2006-07-25 00:30:25 UTC

Permalink

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:19:48 +0200, Stephen Korsman wrote:

> Aside from the stuff I wrote below, I should note that you clearly don't
> know what dogma is. It is the official view of the Catholic Church that
> Sunday was instituted by the Apostles, but that is not Catholic dogma.

Only because Sunday vs. Saturday is a non-issue in the Sunday Church par
excellance.

--
Teresita

http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 22:51:54 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:UNuwg.177174$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> You are dancing all around the point AND MAKING CONFUSING ARGUMENTS TO
> DECEIVE - Jesuit tactics
>
> No one is saying that People didn't ever meet on the first day of the
> week. In fact they broke bread together daily and even met daily as the
> book of Acts records..There is no prophecy about anyone meeting together
> on a specific day. The prophecy is about making laws and changing them
> and the times. People can meet whenever they want this never makes a
> day Holy nor a law of the Church, nor does it mean there is a change in
> God's commandments.
>
> Daniel speaks of a little horn arising out the divisions of the Pagan
> Roman empire which persecutes and which has the names of blasphemy ,
> that power thinks to change times and laws. Paul speaks of this also
> calling him the man of sin is yet to appear.
>
> You are missing the point entirely.
>
> Rome changed the law concerning the Sabbath to the 1st day of the week.
> Rome made laws starting with Constantine and on up through the years.
> Just as those Catholic Catechism quotes I supplied said. The Catholic
> Church claims to have changed the law and the time of the observance of
> the Sabbath Commandment to the first day of the week. Rome says she did
> this in 364AD at the council of Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have
> done any of this lawmaking in the days of the apostles,.

The following quotes from the Catechism of the Council of Trent and Pope
John Paul II make it quite clear that you haven't got a clue what you're
talking about:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

"The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles

"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."

Pope John Paul II wrote in Dies Domini:

20. According to the common witness of the Gospels, the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead took place on "the first day after the Sabbath"
(Mk 16:2,9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). On the same day, the Risen Lord appeared to
the two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Lk 24:13-35) and to the eleven Apostles
gathered together (cf. Lk 24:36; Jn 20:19). A week later, as the Gospel of
John recounts (cf. 20:26), the disciples were gathered together once again,
when Jesus appeared to them and made himself known to Thomas by showing him
the signs of his Passion. The day of Pentecost, the first day of the eighth
week after the Jewish Passover (cf. Acts 2:1), when the promise made by
Jesus to the Apostles after the Resurrection was fulfilled by the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4-5), also fell on a Sunday. This
was the day of the first proclamation and the first baptisms: Peter
announced to the assembled crowd that Christ was risen and "those who
received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). This was the epiphany of the
Church, revealed as the people into which are gathered in unity, beyond all
their differences, the scattered children of God.

The first day of the week

21. It was for this reason that, from Apostolic times, "the first day after
the Sabbath", the first day of the week, began to shape the rhythm of life
for Christ's disciples (cf. 1 Cor 16:2). "The first day after the Sabbath"
was also the day upon which the faithful of Troas were gathered "for the
breaking of bread", when Paul bade them farewell and miraculously restored
the young Eutychus to life (cf. Acts 20:7-12). The Book of Revelation gives
evidence of the practice of calling the first day of the week "the Lord's
Day" (1:10). This would now be a characteristic distinguishing Christians
from the world around them. As early as the beginning of the second century,
it was noted by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, in his report on
the Christian practice "of gathering together on a set day before sunrise
and singing among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god".(19) And when
Christians spoke of the "Lord's Day", they did so giving to this term the
full sense of the Easter proclamation: "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil 2:11;
cf. Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 12:3). Thus Christ was given the same title which the
Septuagint used to translate what in the revelation of the Old Testament was
the unutterable name of God: YHWH.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 22:52:00 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:UNuwg.177174$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

> Rome changed the law concerning the Sabbath to the 1st day of the week.
> Rome made laws starting with Constantine and on up through the years.
> Just as those Catholic Catechism quotes I supplied said. The Catholic
> Church claims to have changed the law and the time of the observance of
> the Sabbath Commandment to the first day of the week. Rome says she did
> this in 364AD at the council of Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have
> done any of this lawmaking in the days of the apostles,.

You're really making a fool of yourself by saying things like that. Not
even your own church's scholars believe that any more. I suggest you e-mail
someone at Andrews University or the General Conference and ask if
Catholicism changed the Sabbath to Sunday at Laodicea. Ask them if Sunday
observance existed within Christianity prior to Constantine.

Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday

This is an e-mail I wrote in response to a request for commentary got from
Robert Sanders, who has a ministry for Adventists at his website
http://www.truthorfables.com/ - his words are in green, my reply is in
black.

Thanks for offering me the chance to explain how we Catholics feel about the
Sabbath / Sunday "change."

If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not
change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the
Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but
it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.

Yes, that is pretty much the Catholic position summed up. We do, however,
also hold to the idea that Sunday observance is biblical, and the origins
are referenced in the New Testament (texts like Heb 4, Col 2, Rom 14, Gal 4,
Acts 20, 1 Cor 16 and others.)

One must just be careful in defining one's terms.

One person might say, "The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath" and another
might say, "The Apostles changed the Sabbath" and depending on their
background, they might mean the same thing, or they might be disagreeing
with each other.

Some terms, as used by Catholicism in general, of interest:

- Catholic Church - this refers to the Church as begun by Christ and led by
the Apostles after Pentecost
- Apostolic Church - this is a synonym for the Catholic Church during the
time when the Apostles were alive
- post-Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church once the last Apostle had died
- papacy - the office of Peter instituted in Matt 16:18, and continued in
his successors
- pope - the occupant of the papacy, beginning with Peter in the first
century

I do not expect you to AGREE with these terms or accept the theology we
Catholics accept. All I ask is that when you read Catholic texts written by
Catholics, you TRY to understand what we are saying, instead of applying
YOUR definitions for these words to something WE have written.

For instance, if a Catholic said, "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION" (quotes
from the original e-mail I am responding to) then this needs to be
understood using Catholic definitions, in order to know what the Catholic
means and understands. He is, therefore, NOT saying that Sunday observance
began in 300 AD or 600 AD or whenever it might be that a Protestant feels
the "Roman Catholic Church" <incorrect name, in fact> came into existence.
What the Catholic is actually saying with "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION"
is that Sunday observance is something that came from the Catholic Church -
without specifying era - and he would, in good conscience, say EXACTLY the
same of the decision in Acts 15 about circumcision - he would claim that
THAT TOO was a "Catholic institution" because that IS how he sees the early
Christian Church - as Catholic.

What often happens, then, is that Catholics claim authorship to Sunday
observance because they believe the Apostles began Sunday observance and
they view the Apostles as the first Catholic leaders, but when Adventists
hear these words, they grab them and remove their context and actual
meaning, and make it seem as if the Catholic Church is claiming that Sunday
observance was begun by a group which the Adventists define as the Catholic
Church, and NOT the Apostolic Church.

That said, I must differentiate between THREE types of texts that can be
used as evidence.

1. Statements by Catholics that a) agree with Catholic teaching but b) are
not official sources of Catholic teaching
2. Statements by Catholics that disagree with Catholic teaching
3. Statements that constitute official Catholic teaching

I have almost NEVER seen Adventists quote official Catholic teaching on the
issue of the Sabbath. (Simply because it would destroy what they want people
to believe we teach.) On the rare occasion, one will quote the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, and even more rarely, they will quote it in context.
Virtually ALL of the quotes they offer to support their view, are quotes of
type 2 (not real Catholic teaching) or type 1 quotes where context and the
author's intent have been abused.

Examples of texts of type 3 (official Catholic teaching) include:
- the Bible (Catholics DO view the Bible as an official source of truth)
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church
- papal encyclicals
- Council documents (e.g. from the Council of Nicaea, or the Council of
Trent) - these include catechisms, decrees, canons, letters, etc produced by
the council in question
- other official Vatican documents intended to convey or explain Catholic
teaching

Examples of texts of type 1 (agree with Catholic teaching but the text
itself is not authoritative) include:
- ALL Catholic newspapers
- ALL Catholic periodicals not published by the Vatican (and most which are,
e.g. their tax report)
- books with "Imprimatur" printed in front (this is only permission to
print, and says nothing about accuracy of content)
- books with "Nihil obstat" printed in front (this means that the book is
considered to be faithful to Catholic teaching by the local bishop, NOT that
the book is an official source of Catholic doctrine)
- many books whose titles contain the word "Catechism"
- my website (hopefully, I try to make it agree with Catholic teaching as
far as I can)

Examples of type 2 texts, which disagree with Catholic teaching, include:
- the abundant quotes referenced from the Catholic Mirror newspaper
- other similar texts

Note: I have, on record, Adventist pastors who tell me that the Bible
contains errors, that a lot of what Paul said we need not obey, that it was
merely opinion. I have Adventist pastors who have told me that Ellen White
is indeed infallible and has not erred, that she was inspired by God and
that her writings CAN RIGHTLY be used to interpret difficult passages in the
Bible (and by logical extension, faulty ones if the Bible contains error.)
Do THESE quotes constitute "official Adventist teaching" just because they
come from the mouth of an Adventist pastor? I doubt it. These statements
would fall into the type 2 category I described above. By taking type 1 and
type 2 statements and removing context, a strong straw-man case can be made
for the opposing position - as long as the reader is kept ignorant of the
true nature of these texts, and never shown any type 3 (official) texts
which show authentic teaching of the respective denomination. I will send,
just after this, a case study I have put together on this, which will
hopefully demonstrate the error in the pseudo-Catholic propaganda that many
Sabbatarians spread.

For a full view of Catholic teaching on the origins of the observance of
Sunday, and the removal of the Sabbath observance, I recommend you read the
papal encyclical Dies Domini, written by the current Pope. It can be found
on my website, at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/jp2dies.html

If this is true, then Ellen White is wrong in saying it was changed by "THE
POPE."

Ellen White would have defined the term "the pope" differently to
Catholics - she would likely have meant someone other than the Apostle
Peter, someone who lived much later in Christian history. She should name
him, and she does not. See also the Catholic Insight web page Ellen White,
F.P. (False Prophet)
(http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/white.htm) to see how
Ellen White prophesied falsely on this matter of the imaginary 4th century
change to Sunday.

It is interesting that the SDA Church cannot put a name on the Pope that
made the change.

That IS interesting :-> Certainly it shows that they are prepared to make
claims, but can't give details when the claims are questioned by informed
questioners.

Please visit the following site to view actual historical Christian quotes
about their Sunday observance dating to long before 300 AD:
ttp://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 22:52:03 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:UNuwg.177174$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

> Daniel speaks of a little horn arising out the divisions of the Pagan
> Roman empire which persecutes and which has the names of blasphemy ,
> that power thinks to change times and laws. Paul speaks of this also
> calling him the man of sin is yet to appear.

Did the papacy really uproot the 3 horns of Daniel 7:8,24 ?

I received an e-mail from an Adventist (contact details below) saying the
following:

[Dan 7:24] The Roman Empire fell apart in 476AD. In 538AD, pagan rome gave
all authority over to papal rome. which began the "Time of papal supremecy"

He followed that statement with the following:

In AD 265, the Heruli were crushingly defeated by a Roman emperor after
intructions from the pope. Vandals and the Ostrogoths were also destroyed.
This can easily be verified.

I pointed out to him that his statements were inconsistent - he was
admitting that the papacy not only existed, but had political power as early
as 265 AD, if it was indeed the pope that instructed the Roman Emperor to
defeat the Heruli. That was inconsistent with his first statement, and
general SDA "history", which say that the papacy came into power in 538 AD.
He backed off briefly, and then sent me a fresh file with the dates and
information changed, corrected. This is what he said:

[Dan 7:24] The Roman Empire fell apart in 476AD. In 538AD, pagan rome gave
all authority over to papal rome. which began the "Time of papal supremecy".
Let us note proof of this fact because of the time of its appearance. it
must appear after the division of the Roman Empire. "And the ten horns out
of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after
them;" [Daniel 7:24.] The Papacy was established in A.D. 538 when it subdued
the Ostrogoths. The ten horns, or the divided kingdom, was established in
A.D. 476. Thus you can see at a glance that the Papacy arose immediately
after the ten kingdoms, exactly as the prophecy states, "and another shall
rise after them." NO other system or power fits in here besides the papacy.
Not to then acknowledge the papacy as this system or power, would then doubt
God's Word of prophecies which have time after time proven to be 100%
ACCURATE.

... History reveals that the Papacy destroyed three of the ten kingdoms,
which were as follows. (1) The Heruli in A.D. 493, (2) the Vandals in A.D.
534, (3) the Ostrogoths in A.D. 538.

In what follows, I would like to try to prove two things - a) the three
tribes were NOT defeated by the papacy, and were NOT the only three tribes
to be defeated like they were, and b) the most essential part of this SDA
prophetic scenario will be debunked when it is shown that the neither the
Western Roman Empire, nor the nations of Western Europe, fit into the "10
horn" image of Daniel/Revelation. Because there were NOT 10 "horns" or
kingdoms in this area at this time, it is totally ridiculous to say that
these 15-20 nations represent a 10-horned beast !!!

Without that, none of the SDA's claims can be applied to the papacy, simply
because they have found the papacy in entirely the wrong place, and have
grossly misunderstood what the Bible, specifically the book of Daniel, is
saying. It is obvious to me from the study I have made into the SDA theory
that the SDA Church simply has no clue about what the facts really are.

The SDA who wrote the above to me insisted that I give him good references
for what I claimed - probably because he was shocked at learning the truth,
and could not believe that such information could come from real sources.
He, on the other hand, did not provide the sources he expected me to
provide, except one or two here or there that were SDA sources anyway, and
which are all easily proved to be the same distortion of history that I am
going to demonstrate. For this reason I have listed my sources. below.

The encyclopedic references I have used are as follows:

1. Encyclopedia Britannica
2. The World Book Encyclopedia
3. The New Book of Knowledge
4. Purnell's new English Encyclopedia
5. Collier's Encyclopedia
6. Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary of the English Language

Please see the articles: Papal States, Rome, Pope, papacy, Catholicism,
Roman Empire, Belisarius, Pius VI, Pius VII, Stephen II, Stephen III, Pepin,
Franks, Lombards, Burgundians, Vandals, Heruli, Goths, Orthogoths,
Visigoths, Celts, Saxons, Germani, Teutonics, Huns, Suebi (Suevi), Quodi,
Helveti, Belgi, Gauls, Cimbri, Alemanni, Dacians, Walloons, Venetians,
Iberians, Marcomanni, Magyars, Basques, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Italy,
Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Austria, England, Rumania, France, Germany,
Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania.

The books I looked into are:

1. E Gibbon - The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
2. P De Rosa - Vicars of Christ - The Dark Side of the Papacy
3. A Momigliano (ed.) - Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century
4. Millar - The Roman Empire and its neighbours
5. AHM Jones - The Later Roman Empire: 284-602AD
6. J Pelikan - The Excellent Empire - The Fall of Rome and the Triumph of
the Church
7. S Bullough - Roman Catholicism
8. J Richards - The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages: 476-752AD

These references will be adequate to provide all the information I claim.
Basically all of the data was taken from encyclopedias, and the books are
merely there for backup proof. Further references which contain still the
same information, but which I won't quote as references, as they are not as
extensive and all-encompassing, are:

1. G Barraclough - The Origins of Modern Germany
2. H Chadwick - The Early Christian Church
3. O Chadwick - Catholicism and History
4. JG Davies - The Early Christian Church
5. L Duchesne - The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes
6. L Duchesne - The Early History of the Christian Church
7. Gregory of Tours - The History of the Franks
8. PA Hughes - A Short History of the Catholic Church
9. P Johnson - A History of Christianity
10. KS Latourette - A History of Christianity

I hope that is sufficient. If you want to look stuff up, I would suggest you
go to the encyclopedias first. They contain all the relevant information.
The rest contain it too, but it is more difficult to locate. Encyclopedias
are easier to obtain in libraries too.

The dates given by the SDA for the destruction of the Heruli, Ostrogoths,
and Vandals are as follows:

- Heruli - 265 AD. I pointed out that this was wrong, and he subsequently
changed his story. He then gave the more correct date of 493 AD.
- Vandals in 534 AD
- Ostrogoths in 538 AD

I accept the two dates for the first two (493 and 534). They are correct.
The date for the defeat of the Ostrogoths was NOT 538 AD, but rather 555 AD.
A minor defeat occurred previously, but my sources give me the date of 540
AD for that one, two years AFTER Adventism's required date. However, that is
irrelevant - the Bible says that the three horns were uprooted - history
shows that the uprootment of the final of these three horns, the Ostrogoths,
was not complete until 555 AD. So either one must count from 555 AD, or one
must not count at all from the defeat of the Ostrogoths. To count their
defeat from 2 years before a minor irrelevant defeat and 17 years before
their actual defeat and annihilation is dishonest manipulation of history,
something very typical of SDAs and people like them who have a prophetic
agenda to force the facts into.

It is interesting to note that the Visigoths (the western split of the
Gothic kingdom) suffered the same type of defeat the SDAs classify as the
uprooting of the Ostrogoths (the eastern part) - but they don't say they are
also a horn that was uprooted. Why ? Is it because it is invonvenient to
have more that the biblically required 3 horns to deal with ? In fact, if
one includes the Visigoths' defeat in Aquitania (equivalent to what the
Adventists want to call the Ostrogoths' defeat) then there are SIX horns
that were uprooted, NOT THREE. (see later.)

The next point is that Dan 7:24 says that it is the 11th horn that uproots
or puts down the three kings. However, in all three cases at hand, the
papacy had NOTHING to do with their uprootment !!! The person who defeated
the Ostrogoths and the Vandals was Belisarius, a general in the army of
Justinian, emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Justinian was a Christian,
but his political actions were clearly not influenced by the bishop of a
foreign city, Rome. It is yet another SDA untruthful distortion of the facts
to say this.

But that is all irrelevant. Let's turn to the Heruli, and see what influence
the papacy had in their uprootment. All my sources say they were uprooted by
the Lombards in 493 AD. Which is very interesting, because the Lombards were
NOT Catholic - they were Arians, enemies of the Catholic Church and of the
papacy, and CERTAINLY NOT influenced in their political decisions by their
enemy the pope. So, completely contrary to Daniel 7:24, the Heruli were NOT
put down by the papacy at all, but by the Lombards. Either the SDA
interpretation of Daniel 7:24 is incorrect, or, if the SDAs are right, the
actual prophecy given by God to Daniel was faulty.

It is interesting to note that these Arian Lombards were to rule Italy, and
Rome, thus allowing the pope no political power in Rome or Italy, from 568 -
774 AD. It was only after a request by Pope Stephen II to King Pepin of the
Franks, that caused the Lombards to be kicked out of Rome in 755-6. Pepin
then gave land to the papacy - this was the first land the papacy owned, and
it is from this point that the temporal rule of the papacy began - NOT as
Adventists claim in 538 AD. And what is more, the papal political power did
no begin in 538 either - history clearly shows that it began under
Constantine the Great, when Christianity became the official religion of the
Empire - 380 AD. Some say it started before this, as is evidenced by the
activities of the Council of Nicaea in 324-5 AD, but either way, the date
cannot be set as late as 538 AD. So here we have incontrivertible proof that
the political power of the papacy began in the 300's, and the temporal reign
over people and land began in the 700's, and between those dates other
people, Arians and Romans, held rule over the land where the pope lived.

Furthermore, the ending of the papal political power (which Adventists claim
is the mortal wound) occurred in the 1870's. The papal states were restored
to the papacy after 1798 when Napoleon took them away - thus that was NOT a
mortal wound, for it was only temporary. The ACTUAL wound, or permanent
event, occurred in 1870.

In summary, SDA dates are wrong, and the three horns were finished being
uprooted only in 555 AD. Also, your theory blatantly contradicts the Bible
(Dan 7:24) because the papacy could NOT have had any influence in the
Lombardish decision to wipe out the Heruli.

Furthermore, the SDA theory is wrong because Adventists have failed to
accurately identify a 10 horned beast, with 3 horns that get uprooted. The
Huns (455 AD) were also a people who were uprooted - this time by the waning
Roman Empire, and later finally by the other tribes, the Eastern Empire, and
by civil war. Also uprooted were the Alemanni (495 AD). So one has a problem
of FIVE horns (SIX if you count the Visigoths) that were uprooted, NOT
THREE. One cannot ignore the Huns or the Alemanni, because they were just
like the other barbarian tribes that tried to invade Western Rome, e.g.
Lombards, Heruli, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, etc. Nor can you call the
Huns the present day Hungarians - these are the descendants of the Magyars;
the Huns were absorbed into the surrounding peoples after their defeat, just
like the Heruli were, never to be a tribe on their own again.

One SDA source (Marvin Moore) says that the 10 horns are 10 barbarian
nations that tried to invade the Western Roman Empire. The three that were
uprooted, he claims were uprooted by the papacy (I have shown that to be a
lie) because they were Arian, and not Catholic. But the Franks were ALSO
Arian - they converted to Catholicism in 486. The Lombards were Arian, and
only converted long after Pepin kicked them out of Rome in 755 AD. So it is
a lie to say that Catholics ruled Italy and the city of Rome from 538
onwards - they did not. The Visigoths were Arian, and converted in 589 AD.
So here we have several more Arian tribes that invaded the Western Empire,
yet Moore claims that what made these three horns (Ostrogoths, Vandals,
Heruli) different, unique, and worthy of uprooting was that they were the
only Arian tribes. Yet another obvious SDA distortion of the truth.

Summary - there were more than 3 Arian horns, and there were more than three
uprooted horns.

Let's now count the number of horns in the whole of the Western Empire.

The SDA who wrote to me counted the following: Germany, England, France,
Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Switzerland. And obviously the three uprooted
ones - Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Vandals. It appears that Adventists are not
united on this matter (see above, where Marvin Moore claims that the 10
tribes were barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire - something the English
and the Roman Italians were not. But anything that appears to add up to 10
and looks good and is anti-Catholic, is acceptable to the Adventist Church,
it seems.

But here they have made an obvious fallacy - the countries today were NOT
the same countries or nations that were around in the days of the Empire.
Borders were completely different, and people were completely different. The
Spanish and French did not even exist (as single entities) in 538 AD - how
on earth could they make up an existing horn of a beast that was current in
538 AD ??? Furthermore, it is dishonest to classify Italy as only one
country, because at that time, and for a long time afterwards, they were
made up of different peoples - a least three - the Venetians, the Lombards,
and the Italians/Romans themselves. And once again the SDA has conveniently
left out the Huns. And if you want to include Switzerland (the Helvetians),
a very minor group in those times, you have to include the more prominent
Belgium (made up of the Flemings and the Belgians) as well - they were part
of the Western Empire just as much as the rest of the countries were. And
since the SDA wants to include parts of North Africa (the Vandals - Algeria
and Tunisia) I feel free to insert Libya and Mauritania as well. So already,
counting as the Adventists want us to count, if we look at history and
geography honestly, we have more than 10 horns or tribes or nations.

In order to find out who precisely the 10 (or more) horns were, we must look
at who the distinct and separate tribes/nations of people were at that time.

I don't know whether the Adventists want to count the nations of the Western
Roman Empire, or just the nations that invaded the Western Roman Empire.
Since the one who wrote to me included England, who never invaded the
Western Roman Empire, but who was part of it, as a horn, I assume that he
meant the former grouping. So I'll deal with that fallacy first.

Let's list the nations/tribes who were to be found within the borders of the
Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, the time when the SDA claims they were all
present (including the three he claims were uprooted.)

England (i.e. the Saxons.)
Franks
Lombards
Burgundians
Gauls (French Gauls)
Belgi
Helvetii (Swiss)
Italians (i.e. Romans)
Iberians
Visigoths
Basques
Libyans
Mauritanians (North Africa, next to where the Vandals were located)
Dacians (Rumania, a Roman province)
Assorted Slavic peoples
Alemanni
And then the 3 the Adventists want uprooted - Ostrogoths, Vandals, and
Heruli

Well, that is more than 10 horns/peoples, so I will stop there. If we wanted
to get technical, we could go on.

Notice that I leave out the Germans (specifically the Germani tribe to which
the SDA must be referring), who did not form part of the Western Roman
Empire, but were to be found north of the Empire's borders. Some of the
Teutonic Germans were found in the Roman Empire (e.g. the Heruli, to name
but one) but specifically the Teutonic tribe called the Germani, which was
later to become Germany, was outside of the Empire.

Well, that proves that the Western Empire simply cannot be a 10 horned
beast.

Let's take a look at the alternative view of this confused group of people,
the one used by Moore - that the horns are kingdoms that invaded Rome. First
I think it appropriate to note that the Papacy was not a kingdom until 755
AD, and therefore it is dishonest to classify it as a horn here. But we'll
let that slip by for now. But note that we can't include England because it
never invaded the Empire - it was part of it, though.

Here are a list of barbarian tribes that invaded the Western Roman Empire:

Huns
Heruli
Ostrogoths
Visigoths
Vandals
Franks
Burgundians
Lombards
Allemanni
Germani (they DID invade, they just weren't part of it)
Suevi
Quodi
Gauls (still on the go at that time)
Celts (in England)
Moors (in North Africa)

Well, here again we have more than 10 horns to this beast. Personally I
don't think this is what you mean, so we won't go any further.

Summary - there were more than 10 horns to the Western Empire (or her
invaders), therefore the biblical prophecy is clearly misplaced. There were
more than 3 uprootions, hence again the biblical prophecy is misapplied to
these people. Furthermore, the papacy was NOT responsible for the uprootions
(as required by Dan 7:24), and thus it is even more clear that the Adventist
idea of prophecy is false and deluded.

Personally I feel that this type of prophecy interpretation is clearly what
follows on in the followers of false prophets like William Miller, and Ellen
White. These two individuals predicted events that quite clearly did not
come to pass. Miller, one could say, was merely deceived - he did not claim
to be a prophet. Ellen White, on the other hand, is clearly what the Bible
calls a False Prophet - her predictions did not come to pass, and she even
contradicted herself and the Bible. I feel that a church should be honest
with the facts of history when trying to dabble in prophecy - something the
Seventh-day Adventist Church clearly is not doing.

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:27:51 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:U9awg.128343$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:SH6wg.52160$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > In Latin the official language of the Roman Catholic hierchy, the
> word
> > > for Sunday is "Dies solis" - day of the Sun. From the Egyptian
> pagans.
> > > and it is from the Latin dies solis thar the Germans adapter their
> word
> > > for Sunday. So these arguments are fascitious.
> > >
> > > Look up "Sunday" and "Constantine the great" in the Catholic
> > > encyclopedia for the history of Sun worship in Rome and it's name...
> >
> > The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
> >
> > "The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
>
> Dear readers, Does that false and unproven claim somehow INVALIDATE
> WHAT HIS CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA also says about Sol ivictus and sun
> worship? Somebody's practicing deceit, and contradicting his own Church
> again. Half his truth of what Rome claims is still half a lie....

Whether that is a false and unproven claim is irrelevant. What is NOT false
or unproven is that that is official Catholic teaching. You might not
accept official Catholic teaching, but if you're honest, you will
acknowledge that those quotes from Trent and Pope John Paul II are in fact
official Catholic teaching.

> See:
> SUNDAY: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm

Sorry, that proves me right and you wrong concerning official Catholic
teaching:

"Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of
reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish
Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn
worship of God."

> CONSTANTINE THE GREAT http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

"Constantine moreover placed Sunday under the protection of the State. It is
true that the believers in Mithras also observed Sunday as well as
Christmas. Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord, but
of the everlasting day of the sun."

So Sunday observance existed before Constantine ... and his act was only to
appease the Mithra followers.

We know that Sunday observance began long before Constantine - so don't even
try to bring up that claim.

Finally, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible, and gets changed as
knowledge advances. Whether they're correct on Mithraism is debatable, but
whether Sunday observance was adopted from Mithraism is not. It wasn't.
All you can point to is a similarity - not an origin.

> Check this out:
>
>
> Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
> Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
> Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
> -------> Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the
> Catholic
> Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the
> solemnity from
> Saturday to Sunday." <-------
> The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50,3rd ed.
>
>
> Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to
> institute festivals of precept?
> A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all
> modern religionists agree with her;-she could not have substituted
> the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance
> of Saturday the seventh day, ------->a change for which there is no
> Scriptural authority. <-------------
> - Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by
> John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Copyright 1876
> by T. W. Strong, p. 174.
>
>
> "Sunday is our MARK or authority. . .the church is above the Bible,
> and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact"
> Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923
>
>
> Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath
> to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical
> authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal
> Gibbons.

And you have to acknowledge that Catholicism teaches that Sunday observance
was instituted by the Apostles. It is an undisputable fact that Catholicism
teaches this. Your quotes have to be taken in that context.

So your quotes are really irrelevant to the Sabbath issue, and shouldn't
convince any Protestant of anything, since they believe exactly the same
thing - that the Apostles began Sunday keeping.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 16:53:56 UTC

Permalink

"bam" <***@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:JU8wg.11379$***@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:j07wg.52171$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >> > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >> > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >> > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >>
> >> There is no evidence of this, however.
> >
> >
> > Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN
> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
> > day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
> > after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
> > inquisitions.
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> What have you been reading?

He has been conned by Andrew's newspaper clippings. Reading official
Catholic teaching is not on for him - he'd have to change his arguments and
stop misrepresenting Catholicism.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

bam

2006-07-22 19:42:44 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "bam" <***@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
> news:JU8wg.11379$***@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>> news:j07wg.52171$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >> > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
>> >> > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
>> >> > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
>> >> > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
>> >>
>> >> There is no evidence of this, however.
>> >
>> >
>> > Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE
>> > IN
>> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
>> > day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and traditions,
>> > after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
>> > inquisitions.
>>
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> What have you been reading?
>
> He has been conned by Andrew's newspaper clippings. Reading official
> Catholic teaching is not on for him - he'd have to change his arguments
> and
> stop misrepresenting Catholicism.

He doesn't even honor the heretics whose ideas he palgiarizes by giving them
the proper credit. (As if he were innocently reading the Bible one day and
said, "Hey lookee here - this doesn't agree with the Catholic Church!")

BAM

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 16:58:21 UTC

Permalink

"bam" <***@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:C2gwg.19536$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:53fwg.3023$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "bam" wrote in message
news:dpdwg.12643$***@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >> "I. B. Wonderin" wrote:
> >>> "bam" wrote:
> >>>> "I. B. Wonderin" wrote:
> >>>> > <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>> > news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> >> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> >> > The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >>>> >> > early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra,"
whom
> >>>> >> > they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >>>> >> > day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> There is no evidence of this, however.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO
EVIDENCE
> >>>> > IN
> >>>> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the
Lord's
> >>>> > day. That is an assumption based on Rome's teachings and
traditions,
> >>>> > after 100's of years of darkness and ignorance, bible banning, and
> >>>> > inquisitions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> What have you been reading?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is that how you prove a point?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>> The Bible..
> >>>
> >>> Then mine is also proved. ;-)
> >>
> >> Yep - the Bible tells us all about the Inquisition, Bible banning, etc.
> >>
> >> BAM
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 2 Thess 2:3-4
> > 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
> > except
> > there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed,
the
> > son of
> > perdition;
> >
> > 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
> > that is
> > worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing
> > him-
> > self that he is God.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > John 16:2-4
> > 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh,
that
> > whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
> >
> > 16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not
known
> > the Father, nor me.
> >
> > 16:4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come,
ye
> > may
> > remember that I told you of them.
>
> And Andrew, who repudiates his own patron saint, takes Bible snippets and
> applies them to anyone he wants. I'm sure that when he reads the
beatitudes
> he thinks only of himself.

Out of context, half the time. He does the same with newspaper clippings.

He defends the claim that Lev 23:32 refers to the weekly Sabbath - just one
of many examples. http://tinyurl.com/kmzru

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:03:44 UTC

Permalink

"Dennis Gairdner" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1hittgz.1075letzu1armN%***@gmail.com...
> I. B. Wonderin <***@groups.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > Is that important? Then consider that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE IN
> > THE BIBLE of anyone ever calling the first day of the week the Lord's
> > day.
>
> The majority reading of Rev 1:10 disagrees with you:
>
> "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a
> loud voice like a trumpet"
> (Rev 1:10 RSV)
>
> The Jewish New Testament Commentary disagrees with this reading though
> noting it is the majority view. But it also concedes that:
>
> ...Ignatius, who claimed to be a disciple of the emissary
> Yochanan [read Apostle John], wrote letters only two decades or
> so after Revelation was written, in which he uses "kuriakê" to
> mean Sunday -- as does modern Greek.
>
> So a disciple of the author of Revelations uses the Greek equivalent of
> the term "the Lord's Day" for the first day of the week somewhere
> between five and twenty-five years after the writing of Revelations. If
> that isn't evidence, what is?

His previous response to the fact that there was no evidence for a claim:

> Is that important?

He's accused me of contradicting Catholic teaching, but ignores the evidence
I gave him from official Catholic sources. Then he accuses me again.
Obviously evidence means nothing; propaganda is what counts. As they say,
never let the facts confuse you.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:07:44 UTC

Permalink

<***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
> > <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Andrew wrote:
> > >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> > >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of this, however.
> >
> > "His [Mithra's] sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of
years
> > before the appearance of Christ."
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
>
> That is a very odd 'quote' and 'reference'! J.P.Holding quotes that
> statement only to disagree with it...
>
> As I said, there is in fact no evidence of such a thing.

Snippets out of context are Andrew's forté.

I wonder what Andrew thinks of the claims on the same page (also refuted,
but as we can see, Andrew isn't confused by the facts) that Mithra had 12
Apostles, was buried and rose after 3 days, etc.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:10:51 UTC

Permalink

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
news:Ia9wg.1116$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >
> > There is no evidence of this, however.
>
> "His [Mithra's] sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years
> before the appearance of Christ."
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Thanks for providing evidence that your claim is wrong ;-)

> But if we are talking about the LORD who made heaven and earth,
> HIS ''Lord's Day'' is the seventh-day, holy Sabbath which HE has
> sanctified and blessed.
>
> If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
> and from doing as you please on MY HOLY DAY,
> if you call the Sabbath a delight
> and THE LORD'S HOLY DAY honorable,
> and if you honor it by not going your own way
> and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
>
> Then you will find your joy in the LORD ,
> and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
> and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
> The mouth of the LORD has spoken."
>
> Isaiah 58:13-14 NIV

That refers to Israel, not the entire world, and not Christians.

The Sabbath prior to Moses

Before I discuss whether or not the Sabbath was known to any part of mankind
prior to the time of Moses, we should take a look at certain key passages.

(Exod 31:12) And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
(Exod 31:13) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my
sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your
generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
(Exod 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you:
every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth
any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
(Exod 31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of
rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he
shall surely be put to death.
(Exod 31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to
observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
(Exod 31:17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for
in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he
rested, and was refreshed.
(Exod 31:18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing
with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written
with the finger of God.

(Deut 5:1) And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel,
the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may
learn them, and keep, and do them.
(Deut 5:2) The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
(Deut 5:3) The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us,
even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
(Deut 5:4) The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the
midst of the fire,
(Deut 5:5) (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to show you the
word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up
into the mount;) saying,
(Deut 5:6) I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, from the house of bondage.
(Deut 5:7) Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
(Deut 5:8) Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the waters beneath the earth:
(Deut 5:9) Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I
the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
(Deut 5:10) And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep
my commandments.
(Deut 5:11) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for
the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
(Deut 5:12) Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath
commanded thee.
(Deut 5:13) Six days thou shalt labor, and do all thy work:
(Deut 5:14) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy
cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and
thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
(Deut 5:15) And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and
that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a
stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the
sabbath day.
(Deut 5:16) Honor thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath
commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with
thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
(Deut 5:17) Thou shalt not kill.
(Deut 5:18) Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
(Deut 5:19) Neither shalt thou steal.
(Deut 5:20) Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
(Deut 5:21) Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt
thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his
maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
(Deut 5:22) These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the mount
out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with
a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of
stone, and delivered them unto me.

(Neh 9:6) Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven
of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein,
the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the
host of heaven worshipeth thee.
(Neh 9:7) Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest
him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;
(Neh 9:8) And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant
with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and
the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say,
to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:
(Neh 9:9) And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heardest
their cry by the Red sea;
(Neh 9:10) And showedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his
servants, and on all the people of his land: for thou knewest that they
dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a name, as it is this
day.
(Neh 9:11) And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went
through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou
threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.
(Neh 9:12) Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in
the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they
should go.
(Neh 9:13) Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them
from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes
and commandments:
(Neh 9:14) And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them
precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

(Ezek 20:9) But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted
before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known
unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.
(Ezek 20:10) Wherefore I caused them to go out of the land of Egypt, and
brought them into the wilderness.
(Ezek 20:11) And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments,
which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
(Ezek 20:12) Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me
and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
(Ezek 20:13) But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness:
they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a
man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted:
then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to
consume them.

A sign between God and whom?

Exod 31:12-17 - this text clearly states between which two parties the
Covenant is, and what the sign of the covenant is. The covenant is between
God and Israel, according to the text. That means it was not a sign between
mankind and God - there were other humans besides Israel, and the covenant
was not with them. The Sabbath was to be the sign of this covenant God made
with them at Sinai.

Deut 5:2-3, speaking of the same covenant, says that that covenant was not
made with their fathers - it was made with them for the first time. Moses
states explicitly that it was not with anyone before this time that God made
this covenant. This covenant began at this time, at the time of Moses.

Ezek 20:12 shows that God gave the Sabbath to Israel in the time of Moses.
It was then that God revealed the Sabbath to them. We see God contrasting
Israel with the other nations - and he says it was to Israel that he
revealed his principles, including the Sabbath. So he obviously did not
reveal the Sabbath to other nations.

Neh 9:9-14 tells us that the Sabbath was made known to Israel through Moses.
We know it is Israel of which Ezekiel and Nehemiah speak because of the
description given - these were the people God took out of Egypt, through the
Red Sea. The text says nothing about any other people, and it says nothing
about the Sabbath being known before this time.

So, if the Sabbath is a sign of the Old Covenant (Deut 5:2-3, Exod 31:17),
and the Old Covenant was given to Israel (Ex 31:17) and not anyone else
(Deut 5:2-3), then why are Adventists claiming that the Sabbath needs to be
kept by all mankind?

Where in the Bible does God EVER criticise anyone not of the chosen nation
of Israel for not observing the Sabbath? Nowhere.

Where in the Bible does God ever say that people not of the chosen nation of
Israel should keep the Sabbath? Nowhere.

These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign between GOD and ISRAEL,
that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that this covenant was
NOT made with their fathers. Scripture speaks of God giving ISRAEL the
Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to the
people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath. With
these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without an agenda to
push the Sabbath would come to the obvious conclusion that the Sabbath was
given first to Moses.

If the Old Covenant was given to Israel at the time of Moses, and we can see
that above, and if the Sabbath was made known to them at this time, and it
was the sign of the Old Covenant, it is impossible for the Sabbath to have
been given by God to any human prior to the time of Moses. Deuteronomy is
clear - this covenant was not a pre-existing covenant that was handed down
from their fathers, and ratified again at Sinai. This was a totally new
covenant, never before given to any human.

The 10 commandments are called the tablets of that covenant. The Sabbath is
the sign of that covenant. If you read about the nature of this covenant -
what it was, what the sign of it was, to whom it was given, and to whom it
was NOT given - it is clear that the Sabbath was part of this covenant, and
was therefore not revealed before the time this covenant came - the life of
Moses, the coming out of Egypt.

Prior covenants had their signs - Noah's covenant had the rainbow, Abraham's
had circumcision. With the Mosaic Covenant, God revealed the Sabbath to
them. The two go hand in hand.

That doesn't mean that the Sabbath could not point back to creation - it did
(Exod 31:17.) It also pointed back to the exodus from Egypt (Deut 2:15.) It
also pointed forward in time to the rest we as Christians have found in
Christ.

Yes, it was mentioned at creation by God the Father, addressing the Son, the
Spirit, and the angelic host. But it was first revealed to human beings in
the days of Moses, according to the passages of Scripture above. There is no
evidence anywhere in the Bible to state otherwise, no evidence that Adam,
Noah, Abraham or anyone else before the time of Moses ever knew abut, or
kept, the 7th day Sabbath - and so this, as a clear statement in the Bible,
goes uncontradicted by other biblical texts.

All I am asking you to do is this: do not add your own wishes to the Bible
and expect others to accept them, when the Bible actually says that this is
not the case. These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign between GOD
and ISRAEL, that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that this
covenant was NOT made with their fathers. It speaks of God giving ISRAEL the
Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to the
people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath. With
these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without a
Sabbath-promoting agenda would come to the obvious conclusion that the
Sabbath was given first to Moses.

For New Testament confirmation, see Gal 3:17, which says that the law only
came to men 430 years AFTER Abraham - that is the law that contained the
Sabbath.

Some Adventists will deny that the Sabbath pictures Christ's rest, because
Col 2:16 talks about a shadow of the reality we find in Christ. For the
purposes of getting around Col 2:16, they make the Sabbath look back to the
original creation, and the other annual holy days look forward to Christ.
They then state that we must look back in time to the original Sabbath Adam
and Eve kept in the Garden of Eden, forgetting that the Bible doesn't state
anywhere that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath - and denying what the passages
listed above clearly state.

To get this right, they play a word game - they confuse the meaning of the
term "remember." "Remember" is also a synonym for "observe." Consider the
following: when you ask your friends, your husband or wife, your children
definitely, to remember your birthday, are you asking them to cast their
minds back to the day you were born? Your children cannot do that for sure.
But you use the word "remember" anyway. It means that they must remember
it - remember to observe it - when the time comes. And that is what the
Sabbath commandment says.

A perpetual covenant?

Adventists also argue that the Sabbath is called a perpetual sign for all
generations, and therefore it can never pass away. But God also refers to
circumcision as a perpetual covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one
in Exod 30:8, to the Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these
so-called perpetual covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just
because they are called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose
will never come to an end. They have been fulfilled. The covenant they
symbolised was fulfilled, and came to a close. Circumcision was for ALL
Abraham's generations, yet although we are part of that people, circumcision
if not necessary for Christians. The same goes for the Sabbath.

The Sabbath shall cease

Speaking of the New Covenant, the Old Testament prophesies of a time when
the Sabbath shall cease - Isa 1:13-16, Hosea 2:11, Jer 31:31-4.

(Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new
moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

(Isa 1:13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;
the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with;
it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
(Isa 1:14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are
a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
(Isa 1:15) And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from
you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of
blood.
(Isa 1:16) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from
before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

(Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in
the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the
LORD:
(Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house
of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they
shall be my people.
(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every
man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

St Paul tells us that the law has indeed been written on our hearts (2 Cor
3:6-14) - we are a New Covenent people. Our nature has been changed through
baptism, we are a new creation in Christ.

Someone who understands what the Bible is telling us will realise that the
Sabbath and circumcision are merely signs of the Old Covenant, and since the
New Covenant is now in place, we must follow the signs of the New Covenant
and NOT the Old Covenant. Therefore modern Christians baptise instead of
circumcise, and they gather together on Sunday (1 Cor 16:2) instead of
Saturday.

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 12:46:44 UTC

Permalink

To man in the garden of Eden. That's why Jesus said The Sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

See the prophecy and promise in Isa 56: where God promises his blessing
to all(including Gentiles) who tke hold of his covenant and keep his
Sabbaths, and promises them a name better then sons and daughters which
will NEVER be cut off..Just as he promised Abraham to bless all nations
through his seed.

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:Ia9wg.1116$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Andrew wrote:
> > >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> > >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence of this, however.
> >
> > "His [Mithra's] sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of
years
> > before the appearance of Christ."
> http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
>
> Thanks for providing evidence that your claim is wrong ;-)
>
> > But if we are talking about the LORD who made heaven and earth,
> > HIS ''Lord's Day'' is the seventh-day, holy Sabbath which HE has
> > sanctified and blessed.
> >
> > If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
> > and from doing as you please on MY HOLY DAY,
> > if you call the Sabbath a delight
> > and THE LORD'S HOLY DAY honorable,
> > and if you honor it by not going your own way
> > and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
> >
> > Then you will find your joy in the LORD ,
> > and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
> > and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
> > The mouth of the LORD has spoken."
> >
> > Isaiah 58:13-14 NIV
>
> That refers to Israel, not the entire world, and not Christians.
>
> The Sabbath prior to Moses
>
> Before I discuss whether or not the Sabbath was known to any part of
mankind
> prior to the time of Moses, we should take a look at certain key
passages.
>
> (Exod 31:12) And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
> (Exod 31:13) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying,
Verily my
> sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout
your
> generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify
you.
> (Exod 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto
you:
> every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever
doeth
> any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
> (Exod 31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the
sabbath of
> rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day,
he
> shall surely be put to death.
> (Exod 31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath,
to
> observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual
covenant.
> (Exod 31:17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel
forever: for
> in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he
> rested, and was refreshed.
> (Exod 31:18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of
communing
> with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone,
written
> with the finger of God.
>
> (Deut 5:1) And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O
Israel,
> the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that
ye may
> learn them, and keep, and do them.
> (Deut 5:2) The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
> (Deut 5:3) The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with
us,
> even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
> (Deut 5:4) The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of
the
> midst of the fire,
> (Deut 5:5) (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to show you
the
> word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went
not up
> into the mount;) saying,
> (Deut 5:6) I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land
of
> Egypt, from the house of bondage.
> (Deut 5:7) Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
> (Deut 5:8) Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness
of any
> thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is
> in the waters beneath the earth:
> (Deut 5:9) Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them:
for I
> the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon
> the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate
me,
> (Deut 5:10) And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and
keep
> my commandments.
> (Deut 5:11) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain:
for
> the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
> (Deut 5:12) Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God
hath
> commanded thee.
> (Deut 5:13) Six days thou shalt labor, and do all thy work:
> (Deut 5:14) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in
it
> thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor
thy
> manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any
of thy
> cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant
and
> thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
> (Deut 5:15) And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of
Egypt, and
> that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand
and by a
> stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep
the
> sabbath day.
> (Deut 5:16) Honor thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath
> commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go
well with
> thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
> (Deut 5:17) Thou shalt not kill.
> (Deut 5:18) Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
> (Deut 5:19) Neither shalt thou steal.
> (Deut 5:20) Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy
neighbor.
> (Deut 5:21) Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither
shalt
> thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his
> maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
> (Deut 5:22) These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the
mount
> out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness,
with
> a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables
of
> stone, and delivered them unto me.
>
> (Neh 9:6) Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the
heaven
> of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are
therein,
> the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and
the
> host of heaven worshipeth thee.
> (Neh 9:7) Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and
broughtest
> him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of
Abraham;
> (Neh 9:8) And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a
covenant
> with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the
Amorites, and
> the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I
say,
> to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:
> (Neh 9:9) And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and
heardest
> their cry by the Red sea;
> (Neh 9:10) And showedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his
> servants, and on all the people of his land: for thou knewest that
they
> dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a name, as it is
this
> day.
> (Neh 9:11) And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they
went
> through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors
thou
> threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.
> (Neh 9:12) Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar;
and in
> the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein
they
> should go.
> (Neh 9:13) Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with
them
> from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good
statutes
> and commandments:
> (Neh 9:14) And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and
commandedst them
> precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:
>
> (Ezek 20:9) But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be
polluted
> before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself
known
> unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.
> (Ezek 20:10) Wherefore I caused them to go out of the land of Egypt,
and
> brought them into the wilderness.
> (Ezek 20:11) And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my
judgments,
> which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
> (Ezek 20:12) Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign
between me
> and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
> (Ezek 20:13) But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the
wilderness:
> they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which
if a
> man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly
polluted:
> then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to
> consume them.
>
> A sign between God and whom?
>
> Exod 31:12-17 - this text clearly states between which two parties the
> Covenant is, and what the sign of the covenant is. The covenant is
between
> God and Israel, according to the text. That means it was not a sign
between
> mankind and God - there were other humans besides Israel, and the
covenant
> was not with them. The Sabbath was to be the sign of this covenant God
made
> with them at Sinai.
>
> Deut 5:2-3, speaking of the same covenant, says that that covenant was
not
> made with their fathers - it was made with them for the first time.
Moses
> states explicitly that it was not with anyone before this time that
God made
> this covenant. This covenant began at this time, at the time of Moses.
>
> Ezek 20:12 shows that God gave the Sabbath to Israel in the time of
Moses.
> It was then that God revealed the Sabbath to them. We see God
contrasting
> Israel with the other nations - and he says it was to Israel that he
> revealed his principles, including the Sabbath. So he obviously did
not
> reveal the Sabbath to other nations.
>
> Neh 9:9-14 tells us that the Sabbath was made known to Israel through
Moses.
> We know it is Israel of which Ezekiel and Nehemiah speak because of
the
> description given - these were the people God took out of Egypt,
through the
> Red Sea. The text says nothing about any other people, and it says
nothing
> about the Sabbath being known before this time.
>
> So, if the Sabbath is a sign of the Old Covenant (Deut 5:2-3, Exod
31:17),
> and the Old Covenant was given to Israel (Ex 31:17) and not anyone
else
> (Deut 5:2-3), then why are Adventists claiming that the Sabbath needs
to be
> kept by all mankind?
>
> Where in the Bible does God EVER criticise anyone not of the chosen
nation
> of Israel for not observing the Sabbath? Nowhere.
>
> Where in the Bible does God ever say that people not of the chosen
nation of
> Israel should keep the Sabbath? Nowhere.
>
> These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign between GOD and
ISRAEL,
> that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that this
covenant was
> NOT made with their fathers. Scripture speaks of God giving ISRAEL the
> Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to
the
> people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath.
With
> these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
> anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without an agenda
to
> push the Sabbath would come to the obvious conclusion that the Sabbath
was
> given first to Moses.
>
> If the Old Covenant was given to Israel at the time of Moses, and we
can see
> that above, and if the Sabbath was made known to them at this time,
and it
> was the sign of the Old Covenant, it is impossible for the Sabbath to
have
> been given by God to any human prior to the time of Moses. Deuteronomy
is
> clear - this covenant was not a pre-existing covenant that was handed
down
> from their fathers, and ratified again at Sinai. This was a totally
new
> covenant, never before given to any human.
>
> The 10 commandments are called the tablets of that covenant. The
Sabbath is
> the sign of that covenant. If you read about the nature of this
covenant -
> what it was, what the sign of it was, to whom it was given, and to
whom it
> was NOT given - it is clear that the Sabbath was part of this
covenant, and
> was therefore not revealed before the time this covenant came - the
life of
> Moses, the coming out of Egypt.
>
> Prior covenants had their signs - Noah's covenant had the rainbow,
Abraham's
> had circumcision. With the Mosaic Covenant, God revealed the Sabbath
to
> them. The two go hand in hand.
>
> That doesn't mean that the Sabbath could not point back to creation -
it did
> (Exod 31:17.) It also pointed back to the exodus from Egypt (Deut
2:15.) It
> also pointed forward in time to the rest we as Christians have found
in
> Christ.
>
> Yes, it was mentioned at creation by God the Father, addressing the
Son, the
> Spirit, and the angelic host. But it was first revealed to human
beings in
> the days of Moses, according to the passages of Scripture above. There
is no
> evidence anywhere in the Bible to state otherwise, no evidence that
Adam,
> Noah, Abraham or anyone else before the time of Moses ever knew abut,
or
> kept, the 7th day Sabbath - and so this, as a clear statement in the
Bible,
> goes uncontradicted by other biblical texts.
>
> All I am asking you to do is this: do not add your own wishes to the
Bible
> and expect others to accept them, when the Bible actually says that
this is
> not the case. These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign
between GOD
> and ISRAEL, that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that
this
> covenant was NOT made with their fathers. It speaks of God giving
ISRAEL the
> Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to
the
> people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath.
With
> these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
> anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without a
> Sabbath-promoting agenda would come to the obvious conclusion that the
> Sabbath was given first to Moses.
>
> For New Testament confirmation, see Gal 3:17, which says that the law
only
> came to men 430 years AFTER Abraham - that is the law that contained
the
> Sabbath.
>
> Some Adventists will deny that the Sabbath pictures Christ's rest,
because
> Col 2:16 talks about a shadow of the reality we find in Christ. For
the
> purposes of getting around Col 2:16, they make the Sabbath look back
to the
> original creation, and the other annual holy days look forward to
Christ.
> They then state that we must look back in time to the original Sabbath
Adam
> and Eve kept in the Garden of Eden, forgetting that the Bible doesn't
state
> anywhere that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath - and denying what the
passages
> listed above clearly state.
>
> To get this right, they play a word game - they confuse the meaning of
the
> term "remember." "Remember" is also a synonym for "observe." Consider
the
> following: when you ask your friends, your husband or wife, your
children
> definitely, to remember your birthday, are you asking them to cast
their
> minds back to the day you were born? Your children cannot do that for
sure.
> But you use the word "remember" anyway. It means that they must
remember
> it - remember to observe it - when the time comes. And that is what
the
> Sabbath commandment says.
>
> A perpetual covenant?
>
> Adventists also argue that the Sabbath is called a perpetual sign for
all
> generations, and therefore it can never pass away. But God also refers
to
> circumcision as a perpetual covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense
as one
> in Exod 30:8, to the Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All
these
> so-called perpetual covenants have been done away with at the cross.
Just
> because they are called perpetual covenants does not mean that their
purpose
> will never come to an end. They have been fulfilled. The covenant they
> symbolised was fulfilled, and came to a close. Circumcision was for
ALL
> Abraham's generations, yet although we are part of that people,
circumcision
> if not necessary for Christians. The same goes for the Sabbath.
>
> The Sabbath shall cease
>
> Speaking of the New Covenant, the Old Testament prophesies of a time
when
> the Sabbath shall cease - Isa 1:13-16, Hosea 2:11, Jer 31:31-4.
>
> (Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days,
her new
> moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
>
> (Isa 1:13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination
unto me;
> the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away
with;
> it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
> (Isa 1:14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth:
they are
> a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
> (Isa 1:15) And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes
from
> you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are
full of
> blood.
> (Isa 1:16) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings
from
> before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
>
> (Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a
new
> covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
> (Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in
> the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of
Egypt;
> which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them,
saith the
> LORD:
> (Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the
house
> of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in
their
> inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
they
> shall be my people.
> (Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and
every
> man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me,
from the
> least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will
forgive
> their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
>
> St Paul tells us that the law has indeed been written on our hearts (2
Cor
> 3:6-14) - we are a New Covenent people. Our nature has been changed
through
> baptism, we are a new creation in Christ.
>
> Someone who understands what the Bible is telling us will realise that
the
> Sabbath and circumcision are merely signs of the Old Covenant, and
since the
> New Covenant is now in place, we must follow the signs of the New
Covenant
> and NOT the Old Covenant. Therefore modern Christians baptise instead
of
> circumcise, and they gather together on Sunday (1 Cor 16:2) instead of
> Saturday.
>
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
>
>

teresita

2006-07-23 13:38:26 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:46:44 +0000, I. B. Wonderin wrote:

> See the prophecy and promise in Isa 56: where God promises his blessing
> to all(including Gentiles) who tke hold of his covenant and keep his
> Sabbaths, and promises them a name better then sons and daughters which
> will NEVER be cut off..Just as he promised Abraham to bless all nations
> through his seed.

Then he changed his plan and now all blessings come in the name of Jesus
our Lord, for the written ordinances have been nailed to the cross, and
the new Covenant is written "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables
of the heart."

--
Teresita

http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 19:46:06 UTC

Permalink

"teresita" <***@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:***@localhost.localdomain...
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:46:44 +0000, I. B. Wonderin wrote:
>
> > See the prophecy and promise in Isa 56: where God promises his
blessing
> > to all(including Gentiles) who tke hold of his covenant and keep his
> > Sabbaths, and promises them a name better then sons and daughters
which
> > will NEVER be cut off..Just as he promised Abraham to bless all
nations
> > through his seed.
>
> Then he changed his plan and now all blessings come in the name of
Jesus
> our Lord, for the written ordinances have been nailed to the cross,
and
> the new Covenant is written "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy
tables
> of the heart."
>

You mean God said " I will write my law in their hearts"
He also said " I am the Lord I change not.

And that was always the plan:
Gen 3:15 [To the serpent]And I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith
not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
Christ.

> --
> Teresita
>
> http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 20:38:00 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:2mQwg.71279$***@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "teresita" <***@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:***@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:46:44 +0000, I. B. Wonderin wrote:
> >
> > > See the prophecy and promise in Isa 56: where God promises his
> blessing
> > > to all(including Gentiles) who tke hold of his covenant and keep his
> > > Sabbaths, and promises them a name better then sons and daughters
> which
> > > will NEVER be cut off..Just as he promised Abraham to bless all
> nations
> > > through his seed.
> >
> > Then he changed his plan and now all blessings come in the name of
> Jesus
> > our Lord, for the written ordinances have been nailed to the cross,
> and
> > the new Covenant is written "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy
> tables
> > of the heart."
> >
>
> You mean God said " I will write my law in their hearts"
> He also said " I am the Lord I change not.

However, the Sabbath is not the Lord, in spite of how Adventists treat it,
and therefore can change or be abolished.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
change also of the law.

Obviously some things changed.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 18:34:16 UTC

Permalink

"teresita" <***@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:***@localhost.localdomain...
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:46:44 +0000, I. B. Wonderin wrote:
>
> > See the prophecy and promise in Isa 56: where God promises his blessing
> > to all(including Gentiles) who tke hold of his covenant and keep his
> > Sabbaths, and promises them a name better then sons and daughters which
> > will NEVER be cut off..Just as he promised Abraham to bless all nations
> > through his seed.
>
> Then he changed his plan and now all blessings come in the name of Jesus
> our Lord, for the written ordinances have been nailed to the cross, and
> the new Covenant is written "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables
> of the heart."

Someone must have copied the laws about menstruation onto tablets of stone,
because the Adventists, who have the Spirit of Prophecy, have spoken, and
they say that that doesn't refer to the 10 Commandments.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 14:11:24 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:UcKwg.133766$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> To man in the garden of Eden.

Actually, the Bible tells us otherwise. I've already shown you the
evidence - in fact, you kept it quoted in this message. Those verses tell
us that the Sabbath was NOT given prior to Moses. Ignore it if you like.

> That's why Jesus said The Sabbath was made
> for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

The context was the whole law. Nothing about Sabbath keeping for
Christians.

> See the prophecy and promise in Isa 56: where God promises his blessing
> to all(including Gentiles) who tke hold of his covenant and keep his
> Sabbaths, and promises them a name better then sons and daughters which
> will NEVER be cut off..Just as he promised Abraham to bless all nations
> through his seed.

Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths,
and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

Yes, the Old Covenant. It was written during that period, and meant that
covenant.

Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful
in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be
accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer
for all people.

Your proof text collapsed on you just there. Christians do not offer burnt
offerings and sacrifices. This is obviously not referring to the Christian
era.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:Ia9wg.1116$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Andrew wrote:
> > > >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> > > >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> > > >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> > > >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> > > >
> > > > There is no evidence of this, however.
> > >
> > > "His [Mithra's] sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of
> years
> > > before the appearance of Christ."
> > http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html
> >
> > Thanks for providing evidence that your claim is wrong ;-)
> >
> > > But if we are talking about the LORD who made heaven and earth,
> > > HIS ''Lord's Day'' is the seventh-day, holy Sabbath which HE has
> > > sanctified and blessed.
> > >
> > > If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
> > > and from doing as you please on MY HOLY DAY,
> > > if you call the Sabbath a delight
> > > and THE LORD'S HOLY DAY honorable,
> > > and if you honor it by not going your own way
> > > and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
> > >
> > > Then you will find your joy in the LORD ,
> > > and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
> > > and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
> > > The mouth of the LORD has spoken."
> > >
> > > Isaiah 58:13-14 NIV
> >
> > That refers to Israel, not the entire world, and not Christians.
> >
> > The Sabbath prior to Moses
> >
> > Before I discuss whether or not the Sabbath was known to any part of
> mankind
> > prior to the time of Moses, we should take a look at certain key
> passages.
> >
> > (Exod 31:12) And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
> > (Exod 31:13) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying,
> Verily my
> > sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout
> your
> > generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify
> you.
> > (Exod 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto
> you:
> > every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever
> doeth
> > any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
> > (Exod 31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the
> sabbath of
> > rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day,
> he
> > shall surely be put to death.
> > (Exod 31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath,
> to
> > observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual
> covenant.
> > (Exod 31:17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel
> forever: for
> > in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he
> > rested, and was refreshed.
> > (Exod 31:18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of
> communing
> > with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone,
> written
> > with the finger of God.
> >
> > (Deut 5:1) And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O
> Israel,
> > the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that
> ye may
> > learn them, and keep, and do them.
> > (Deut 5:2) The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
> > (Deut 5:3) The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with
> us,
> > even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
> > (Deut 5:4) The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of
> the
> > midst of the fire,
> > (Deut 5:5) (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to show you
> the
> > word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went
> not up
> > into the mount;) saying,
> > (Deut 5:6) I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land
> of
> > Egypt, from the house of bondage.
> > (Deut 5:7) Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
> > (Deut 5:8) Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness
> of any
> > thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
> that is
> > in the waters beneath the earth:
> > (Deut 5:9) Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them:
> for I
> > the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
> fathers upon
> > the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate
> me,
> > (Deut 5:10) And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and
> keep
> > my commandments.
> > (Deut 5:11) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain:
> for
> > the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
> > (Deut 5:12) Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God
> hath
> > commanded thee.
> > (Deut 5:13) Six days thou shalt labor, and do all thy work:
> > (Deut 5:14) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in
> it
> > thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor
> thy
> > manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any
> of thy
> > cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant
> and
> > thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
> > (Deut 5:15) And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of
> Egypt, and
> > that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand
> and by a
> > stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep
> the
> > sabbath day.
> > (Deut 5:16) Honor thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath
> > commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go
> well with
> > thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
> > (Deut 5:17) Thou shalt not kill.
> > (Deut 5:18) Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
> > (Deut 5:19) Neither shalt thou steal.
> > (Deut 5:20) Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy
> neighbor.
> > (Deut 5:21) Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither
> shalt
> > thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his
> > maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
> > (Deut 5:22) These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the
> mount
> > out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness,
> with
> > a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables
> of
> > stone, and delivered them unto me.
> >
> > (Neh 9:6) Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the
> heaven
> > of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are
> therein,
> > the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and
> the
> > host of heaven worshipeth thee.
> > (Neh 9:7) Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and
> broughtest
> > him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of
> Abraham;
> > (Neh 9:8) And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a
> covenant
> > with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the
> Amorites, and
> > the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I
> say,
> > to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:
> > (Neh 9:9) And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and
> heardest
> > their cry by the Red sea;
> > (Neh 9:10) And showedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his
> > servants, and on all the people of his land: for thou knewest that
> they
> > dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a name, as it is
> this
> > day.
> > (Neh 9:11) And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they
> went
> > through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors
> thou
> > threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.
> > (Neh 9:12) Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar;
> and in
> > the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein
> they
> > should go.
> > (Neh 9:13) Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with
> them
> > from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good
> statutes
> > and commandments:
> > (Neh 9:14) And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and
> commandedst them
> > precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:
> >
> > (Ezek 20:9) But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be
> polluted
> > before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself
> known
> > unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.
> > (Ezek 20:10) Wherefore I caused them to go out of the land of Egypt,
> and
> > brought them into the wilderness.
> > (Ezek 20:11) And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my
> judgments,
> > which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
> > (Ezek 20:12) Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign
> between me
> > and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
> > (Ezek 20:13) But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the
> wilderness:
> > they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which
> if a
> > man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly
> polluted:
> > then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to
> > consume them.
> >
> > A sign between God and whom?
> >
> > Exod 31:12-17 - this text clearly states between which two parties the
> > Covenant is, and what the sign of the covenant is. The covenant is
> between
> > God and Israel, according to the text. That means it was not a sign
> between
> > mankind and God - there were other humans besides Israel, and the
> covenant
> > was not with them. The Sabbath was to be the sign of this covenant God
> made
> > with them at Sinai.
> >
> > Deut 5:2-3, speaking of the same covenant, says that that covenant was
> not
> > made with their fathers - it was made with them for the first time.
> Moses
> > states explicitly that it was not with anyone before this time that
> God made
> > this covenant. This covenant began at this time, at the time of Moses.
> >
> > Ezek 20:12 shows that God gave the Sabbath to Israel in the time of
> Moses.
> > It was then that God revealed the Sabbath to them. We see God
> contrasting
> > Israel with the other nations - and he says it was to Israel that he
> > revealed his principles, including the Sabbath. So he obviously did
> not
> > reveal the Sabbath to other nations.
> >
> > Neh 9:9-14 tells us that the Sabbath was made known to Israel through
> Moses.
> > We know it is Israel of which Ezekiel and Nehemiah speak because of
> the
> > description given - these were the people God took out of Egypt,
> through the
> > Red Sea. The text says nothing about any other people, and it says
> nothing
> > about the Sabbath being known before this time.
> >
> > So, if the Sabbath is a sign of the Old Covenant (Deut 5:2-3, Exod
> 31:17),
> > and the Old Covenant was given to Israel (Ex 31:17) and not anyone
> else
> > (Deut 5:2-3), then why are Adventists claiming that the Sabbath needs
> to be
> > kept by all mankind?
> >
> > Where in the Bible does God EVER criticise anyone not of the chosen
> nation
> > of Israel for not observing the Sabbath? Nowhere.
> >
> > Where in the Bible does God ever say that people not of the chosen
> nation of
> > Israel should keep the Sabbath? Nowhere.
> >
> > These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign between GOD and
> ISRAEL,
> > that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that this
> covenant was
> > NOT made with their fathers. Scripture speaks of God giving ISRAEL the
> > Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to
> the
> > people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath.
> With
> > these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
> > anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without an agenda
> to
> > push the Sabbath would come to the obvious conclusion that the Sabbath
> was
> > given first to Moses.
> >
> > If the Old Covenant was given to Israel at the time of Moses, and we
> can see
> > that above, and if the Sabbath was made known to them at this time,
> and it
> > was the sign of the Old Covenant, it is impossible for the Sabbath to
> have
> > been given by God to any human prior to the time of Moses. Deuteronomy
> is
> > clear - this covenant was not a pre-existing covenant that was handed
> down
> > from their fathers, and ratified again at Sinai. This was a totally
> new
> > covenant, never before given to any human.
> >
> > The 10 commandments are called the tablets of that covenant. The
> Sabbath is
> > the sign of that covenant. If you read about the nature of this
> covenant -
> > what it was, what the sign of it was, to whom it was given, and to
> whom it
> > was NOT given - it is clear that the Sabbath was part of this
> covenant, and
> > was therefore not revealed before the time this covenant came - the
> life of
> > Moses, the coming out of Egypt.
> >
> > Prior covenants had their signs - Noah's covenant had the rainbow,
> Abraham's
> > had circumcision. With the Mosaic Covenant, God revealed the Sabbath
> to
> > them. The two go hand in hand.
> >
> > That doesn't mean that the Sabbath could not point back to creation -
> it did
> > (Exod 31:17.) It also pointed back to the exodus from Egypt (Deut
> 2:15.) It
> > also pointed forward in time to the rest we as Christians have found
> in
> > Christ.
> >
> > Yes, it was mentioned at creation by God the Father, addressing the
> Son, the
> > Spirit, and the angelic host. But it was first revealed to human
> beings in
> > the days of Moses, according to the passages of Scripture above. There
> is no
> > evidence anywhere in the Bible to state otherwise, no evidence that
> Adam,
> > Noah, Abraham or anyone else before the time of Moses ever knew abut,
> or
> > kept, the 7th day Sabbath - and so this, as a clear statement in the
> Bible,
> > goes uncontradicted by other biblical texts.
> >
> > All I am asking you to do is this: do not add your own wishes to the
> Bible
> > and expect others to accept them, when the Bible actually says that
> this is
> > not the case. These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign
> between GOD
> > and ISRAEL, that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that
> this
> > covenant was NOT made with their fathers. It speaks of God giving
> ISRAEL the
> > Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to
> the
> > people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath.
> With
> > these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
> > anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without a
> > Sabbath-promoting agenda would come to the obvious conclusion that the
> > Sabbath was given first to Moses.
> >
> > For New Testament confirmation, see Gal 3:17, which says that the law
> only
> > came to men 430 years AFTER Abraham - that is the law that contained
> the
> > Sabbath.
> >
> > Some Adventists will deny that the Sabbath pictures Christ's rest,
> because
> > Col 2:16 talks about a shadow of the reality we find in Christ. For
> the
> > purposes of getting around Col 2:16, they make the Sabbath look back
> to the
> > original creation, and the other annual holy days look forward to
> Christ.
> > They then state that we must look back in time to the original Sabbath
> Adam
> > and Eve kept in the Garden of Eden, forgetting that the Bible doesn't
> state
> > anywhere that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath - and denying what the
> passages
> > listed above clearly state.
> >
> > To get this right, they play a word game - they confuse the meaning of
> the
> > term "remember." "Remember" is also a synonym for "observe." Consider
> the
> > following: when you ask your friends, your husband or wife, your
> children
> > definitely, to remember your birthday, are you asking them to cast
> their
> > minds back to the day you were born? Your children cannot do that for
> sure.
> > But you use the word "remember" anyway. It means that they must
> remember
> > it - remember to observe it - when the time comes. And that is what
> the
> > Sabbath commandment says.
> >
> > A perpetual covenant?
> >
> > Adventists also argue that the Sabbath is called a perpetual sign for
> all
> > generations, and therefore it can never pass away. But God also refers
> to
> > circumcision as a perpetual covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense
> as one
> > in Exod 30:8, to the Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All
> these
> > so-called perpetual covenants have been done away with at the cross.
> Just
> > because they are called perpetual covenants does not mean that their
> purpose
> > will never come to an end. They have been fulfilled. The covenant they
> > symbolised was fulfilled, and came to a close. Circumcision was for
> ALL
> > Abraham's generations, yet although we are part of that people,
> circumcision
> > if not necessary for Christians. The same goes for the Sabbath.
> >
> > The Sabbath shall cease
> >
> > Speaking of the New Covenant, the Old Testament prophesies of a time
> when
> > the Sabbath shall cease - Isa 1:13-16, Hosea 2:11, Jer 31:31-4.
> >
> > (Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days,
> her new
> > moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
> >
> > (Isa 1:13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination
> unto me;
> > the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away
> with;
> > it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
> > (Isa 1:14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth:
> they are
> > a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
> > (Isa 1:15) And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes
> from
> > you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are
> full of
> > blood.
> > (Isa 1:16) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings
> from
> > before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
> >
> > (Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a
> new
> > covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
> > (Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their
> fathers in
> > the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of
> Egypt;
> > which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them,
> saith the
> > LORD:
> > (Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the
> house
> > of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in
> their
> > inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
> they
> > shall be my people.
> > (Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and
> every
> > man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me,
> from the
> > least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will
> forgive
> > their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
> >
> > St Paul tells us that the law has indeed been written on our hearts (2
> Cor
> > 3:6-14) - we are a New Covenent people. Our nature has been changed
> through
> > baptism, we are a new creation in Christ.
> >
> > Someone who understands what the Bible is telling us will realise that
> the
> > Sabbath and circumcision are merely signs of the Old Covenant, and
> since the
> > New Covenant is now in place, we must follow the signs of the New
> Covenant
> > and NOT the Old Covenant. Therefore modern Christians baptise instead
> of
> > circumcise, and they gather together on Sunday (1 Cor 16:2) instead of
> > Saturday.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Korsman
> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> >
> > IC | XC
> > ---------
> > NI | KA
> >
> > add an s before .co.za
> >
> >
> >
>

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 18:25:53 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:0ZudnQP-***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:UcKwg.133766$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > To man in the garden of Eden.
>
> Actually, the Bible tells us otherwise.

Way to throw genesis 2 out of the bible!

> I've already shown you the
> evidence - in fact, you kept it quoted in this message. Those verses
tell
> us that the Sabbath was NOT given prior to Moses. Ignore it if you
like.
>

"How long refuse you to keep my Sabbaths?" - EX 16. That's the Lord
Jesus speaking and He hadn't even coomanded "Remember the Sabbath" from
Sinai yet...

> > That's why Jesus said The Sabbath was made
> > for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
>
> The context was the whole law. Nothing about Sabbath keeping for
> Christians.
>

But for those who make Jesus their Lord and follow his example it has a
great deal to do with everything...

> > See the prophecy and promise in Isa 56: where God promises his
blessing
> > to all(including Gentiles) who tke hold of his covenant and keep his
> > Sabbaths, and promises them a name better then sons and daughters
which
> > will NEVER be cut off..Just as he promised Abraham to bless all
nations
> > through his seed.
>
> Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my
sabbaths,
> and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
>
> Yes, the Old Covenant. It was written during that period, and meant
that
> covenant.

Even Matthew Henry knew better: I don't have time for all this. Can you
read this or do you need me to copy and paste it for you? And actually
I'm not really writing to you anyway, having done so for years, to no
avail. So here you go readers:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1153678317-9645.html

>
> Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them
joyful
> in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
shall be
> accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of
prayer
> for all people.
>
> Your proof text collapsed on you just there. Christians do not offer
burnt
> offerings and sacrifices. This is obviously not referring to the
Christian
> era.

Isa 56- "My salvation is near to come"----> Christ is the offering and
sacrifice.
Also there is a spiritual interpretation for the literal burnt offerings
and sacrifices were types.
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an
holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by
Jesus Christ.

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that
ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God,
[which is] your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the
renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and
acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a
good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats,
which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the
tabernacle.
11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the
sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own
blood, suffered without the gate.
13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his
reproach.
14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God
continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name.
16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such
sacrifices God is well pleased.

>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>

teresita

2006-07-23 19:00:35 UTC

Permalink

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:25:53 +0000, I. B. Wonderin wrote:

> "How long refuse you to keep my Sabbaths?" - EX 16. That's the Lord
> Jesus speaking and He hadn't even coomanded "Remember the Sabbath" from
> Sinai yet...

You must have a funky translation. Here are all the instances of the word
"Sabbath" in the KJV Exodus 16:

Exod.16

[23] And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To
morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye
will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth
over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.

[25] And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the
LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field.

[26] Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the
sabbath, in it there shall be none.

[29] See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he
giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in
his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

--
Teresita

http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 19:36:55 UTC

Permalink

"teresita" <***@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:***@localhost.localdomain...
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:25:53 +0000, I. B. Wonderin wrote:
>
> > "How long refuse you to keep my Sabbaths?" - EX 16. That's the Lord
> > Jesus speaking and He hadn't even commanded "Remember the Sabbath"
from
> > Sinai yet...
>
> You must have a funky translation.

excuse me.

Quoting;

Exd 16:27 And it came to pass, [that] there went out [some] of the
people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.
:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my
commandments and my laws?
28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my
commandments and my laws?
:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he
giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in
his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 21:40:52 UTC

Permalink

"teresita" <***@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:***@localhost.localdomain...
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:25:53 +0000, I. B. Wonderin wrote:
>
> > "How long refuse you to keep my Sabbaths?" - EX 16. That's the Lord
> > Jesus speaking and He hadn't even coomanded "Remember the Sabbath" from
> > Sinai yet...
>
> You must have a funky translation.

The Clear Word Bible?

http://tinyurl.com/prsvm

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/238/I-B-Wonderin

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 21:40:38 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:RaPwg.71251$***@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:0ZudnQP-***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:UcKwg.133766$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > To man in the garden of Eden.
> >
> > Actually, the Bible tells us otherwise.
>
> Way to throw genesis 2 out of the bible!

No, you're adding a whole lot into Genesis 2. Nothing in Genesis 2 says MAN
rested on the Sabbath.

> > I've already shown you the
> > evidence - in fact, you kept it quoted in this message. Those verses
> tell
> > us that the Sabbath was NOT given prior to Moses. Ignore it if you
> like.
> >
>
> "How long refuse you to keep my Sabbaths?" - EX 16. That's the Lord
> Jesus speaking and He hadn't even coomanded "Remember the Sabbath" from
> Sinai yet...

Actually, that's verse 28, and the Sabbath was first mentioned in verse 23.

Prior to that, there is no mention of the word "Sabbath" in the Old
Testament.

Not to mention the fact that you've actually changed the text to say
"Sabbaths" instead of "commandments." And you accuse Catholicism, falsely
no less, of altering the Bible?

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/238/I-B-Wonderin

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2

Since the Bible says (evidence already given - you've snipped it from this
post, but it was in the previous one) that it was to Israel that God
revealed the Sabbath, it couldn't have existed prior to Israel.

(Deut 5:3) The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us,
even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

What covenant? The one mentioned in the verses immediately following - the
10 Commandments.

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to
perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

(Neh 9:14) And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them
precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant

By Moses thy servant. Not by Adam or by Abraham.

(Ezek 20:12) Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me
and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

Who? Those he led out of Egypt.

> > > That's why Jesus said The Sabbath was made
> > > for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
> >
> > The context was the whole law. Nothing about Sabbath keeping for
> > Christians.
> >
>
> But for those who make Jesus their Lord and follow his example it has a
> great deal to do with everything...

Not according to Paul.

> > > See the prophecy and promise in Isa 56: where God promises his
> blessing
> > > to all(including Gentiles) who tke hold of his covenant and keep his
> > > Sabbaths, and promises them a name better then sons and daughters
> which
> > > will NEVER be cut off..Just as he promised Abraham to bless all
> nations
> > > through his seed.
> >
> > Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my
> sabbaths,
> > and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
> >
> > Yes, the Old Covenant. It was written during that period, and meant
> that
> > covenant.
>
> Even Matthew Henry knew better: I don't have time for all this.

I'm sure you don't. You have time for misrepresenting what the Catholic
Church teaches - plenty of time for that. But no time for actually
discussing what the Bible says.

> Can you
> read this or do you need me to copy and paste it for you? And actually
> I'm not really writing to you anyway, having done so for years, to no
> avail. So here you go readers:
>
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1153678317-9645.html

He approaches it from a spiritual point of view, which is the correct one.
However, he wasn't a Sabbath keeper, so your literal approach wouldn't work
with him either. The passage has spiritual implications for Christians
under the New Covenant. As do most verses.

> > Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them
> joyful
> > in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
> shall be
> > accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of
> prayer
> > for all people.
> >
> > Your proof text collapsed on you just there. Christians do not offer
> burnt
> > offerings and sacrifices. This is obviously not referring to the
> Christian
> > era.
>
> Isa 56- "My salvation is near to come"----> Christ is the offering and
> sacrifice.
> Also there is a spiritual interpretation for the literal burnt offerings
> and sacrifices were types.
> 1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an
> holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by
> Jesus Christ.

Spiritual burnt sacrifices? Yeah right.

> Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that
> ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God,
> [which is] your reasonable service.
> 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the
> renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and
> acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Living burnt sacrifices? Yeah right.

> Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
> :9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a
> good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats,
> which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
> 10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the
> tabernacle.
> 11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the
> sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
> 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own
> blood, suffered without the gate.
> 13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his
> reproach.
> 14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
> 15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God
> continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name.
> 16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such
> sacrifices God is well pleased.

Burnt sacrifices of praise? Yeah, right.

Old Testament analogies can, yes, be interpreted in light of the New
Testament. But in such a case, burnt offerings are not literally burnt
offerings. They merely represent something else - in this case, spiritual
offerings.

So you are really grasping at straws if you're telling us that the offerings
are not literally burnt, but we have to keep the Sabbath. That's a flimsy
interpretation at best, and obviously a faulty interpretation if we compare
it to Paul's statements on the Sabbath issue.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 14:11:26 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:UcKwg.133766$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> To man in the garden of Eden. That's why Jesus said The Sabbath was made
> for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

Mark 2, Matt 12, Luke 6

(Mar 2:23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the
sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of
corn.
(Mar 2:24) And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the
sabbath day that which is not lawful?
(Mar 2:25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he
had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?
(Mar 2:26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the
high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for
the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
(Mar 2:27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the sabbath:
(Mar 2:28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

(Mat 12:1) At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and
his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
(Mat 12:2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy
disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
(Mat 12:3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he
was hungry, and they that were with him;
(Mat 12:4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread,
which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him,
but only for the priests
(Mat 12:5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the
priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless
(Mat 12:6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the
temple.
(Mat 12:7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
(Mat 12:8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
(Mat 12:9) And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
(Mat 12:10) And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And
they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they
might accuse him.
(Mat 12:11) And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that
shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he
not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
(Mat 12:12) How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is
lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

(Luk 6:5) And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the
sabbath.
(Luk 6:9) Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful
on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy
it?

Adventists claim that these passages show that the Sabbath is still in
effect, and Christians are obliged to keep it. They claim that Mark 2:27, in
saying that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, proves
that the Sabbath was not given to Israel alone, but to all mankind.

They are taking the verse out of context. If one goes back and read the
entire passage along with verse 27, one sees that Jesus was not speaking
about whether or not the Sabbath was made for Jews or for all mankind for
all ages and in all places. Jesus was accused of breaking the law in many
places in the Bible, and the Sabbath was one they often picked on him for -
here he is pointing out that the purpose of the Sabbath is to serve man, not
a case of man being made to glorify the Sabbath. By removing the verse from
its context, Sabbath keepers turn the meaning around. This is a
well-documented logical fallacy, called the false dichotomy. The verse, out
of context, is presented as presenting two points (the false dichotomy) -
the Sabbath was made for man, or the Sabbath was made for Jews. But in
context, the actual dichotomy is between the legalist/Pharisee perspective
(the Sabbath was more important than those keeping it) and Jesus'
perspective (the Sabbath was made to serve those keeping it.)

When Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, he was NOT contrasting
mankind with Judaism. He was contrasting the LAW with MAN ... what he was
saying is that the LAW was made to serve MAN, NOT man being made to keep the
law. There is NOTHING about Jews or Israel AT ALL in this text ...
Adventists are reading something into the text that is not there, and, by
removing a statement from its context, making it say something that doesn't
even fit into the actual context at all. The Old Testament is explicit - the
Sabbath was made for Israel, and is explicitly called the sign of the Old
Covenant. We all know that this was abolished at the Cross. And the Old
Testament also tells us clearly that the Sabbath was given to MOSES, and NOT
before the time of Moses. That alone proves that the Sabbath was not given
to ALL mankind, because Adam, Noah, and Abraham never knew of it or kept it.
See the article here for more info on that.

Jesus is not saying that Christians must keep the Sabbath. That is taking
Jesus' words out of context. Does Jesus actually preach anywhere about the
future Christian Church and the laws it must keep? Such an idea is not found
ANYWHERE in this passage, or in the New Testament. What Jesus is doing is
instructing the Sabbath-keeping Jews of his day on how to deal with God's
law. They were legalistic, and put the law above love and mercy. Jesus is
turning that around, and saying that the Sabbath God gave them is not meant
as an end in its own right, but as a means to serve mankind. Jesus is
explaining that the Sabbath is a means for grace and mercy, and not what the
Pharisees made it into - the holy of holies, the final end of Jewish
worship. This principle is equally valid in ALL Christian denominations.
There is nothing at all in the text to suggest that Jesus is proclaiming
that the Sabbath will continue. He is merely using a real problem of the
time to expound a principle of mercy.

Jesus is actually discussing the law as a whole here - my reasoning is
twofold. First, the Pharisees were always trying to find him breaking the
law - the Sabbath, hand-washing, and so forth - and so this is just one of
the several instances where Jesus gives us insight into the true nature and
purpose of the law. Second, Jesus actually gives another example of
law-breaking unrelated to the Sabbath - David was so hungry he ate a certain
bread that could not be eaten by anyone other than the high priest. This has
nothing to do with the Sabbath, yet Jesus uses this example to prove that
the law exists to serve man, not man to serve the law. Based on this, I feel
that Jesus is not promoting the Sabbath at all here, and this passage
actually does not deal with the Sabbath's implications for Christians. All
that Jesus is doing is showing, using two contemporary examples, how the law
is meant to be used. So he is not making a statement at all about who the
Sabbath was given to - Israel versus mankind. The Bible has already spoken
on that - the Sabbath was for Israel. What Jesus is saying - as I see it -
is not about mankind's relationship with the Sabbath, but the relationship
between PEOPLE and the Sabbath - did people have to serve the Sabbath or did
the Sabbath exist to serve the people Jesus was speaking to? And this is
just one of several examples used to show the nature of the law.

What of the statements that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath? Adventists want
the text so say that because Jesus is "Lord even of the Sabbath", it means
that it is his special day. But just go back and read the entire passage -
it actually is saying that Jesus is ABOVE the law, that it is HE who
determines when a law is applicable, and when it is legalistic. Basically,
the text is saying NOT that Jesus' special day is the Sabbath, but that
Jesus is Lord OVER the Sabbath JUST as he is Lord over every other aspect of
nature, the law, and the universe, and he controls it completely.

Circumcision too was made for man, and not man for circumcision.

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 15:30:25 UTC

Permalink

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
that was made.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are
in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him,
and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and
he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it
he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the
heavens,

Exd 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it]
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
[is] within thy gates:
11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the
everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to
every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the
hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and
earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Yes the Sabbath was made for man and the Lord Jesus made both.

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:0ZudnQL-***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:UcKwg.133766$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > To man in the garden of Eden. That's why Jesus said The Sabbath was
made
> > for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
>
> Mark 2, Matt 12, Luke 6
>
> (Mar 2:23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields
on the
> sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears
of
> corn.
> (Mar 2:24) And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the
> sabbath day that which is not lawful?
> (Mar 2:25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did,
when he
> had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?
> (Mar 2:26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar
the
> high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but
for
> the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
> (Mar 2:27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and
not man
> for the sabbath:
> (Mar 2:28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
>
> (Mat 12:1) At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the
corn; and
> his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to
eat.
> (Mat 12:2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold,
thy
> disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
> (Mat 12:3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did,
when he
> was hungry, and they that were with him;
> (Mat 12:4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the
shewbread,
> which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with
him,
> but only for the priests
> (Mat 12:5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath
days the
> priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless
> (Mat 12:6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than
the
> temple.
> (Mat 12:7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy,
and not
> sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
> (Mat 12:8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
> (Mat 12:9) And when he was departed thence, he went into their
synagogue:
> (Mat 12:10) And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered.
And
> they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that
they
> might accuse him.
> (Mat 12:11) And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you,
that
> shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day,
will he
> not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
> (Mat 12:12) How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it
is
> lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
>
> (Luk 6:5) And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of
the
> sabbath.
> (Luk 6:9) Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it
lawful
> on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to
destroy
> it?
>
>
> Adventists claim that these passages show that the Sabbath is still in
> effect, and Christians are obliged to keep it. They claim that Mark
2:27, in
> saying that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath,
proves
> that the Sabbath was not given to Israel alone, but to all mankind.
>
> They are taking the verse out of context. If one goes back and read
the
> entire passage along with verse 27, one sees that Jesus was not
speaking
> about whether or not the Sabbath was made for Jews or for all mankind
for
> all ages and in all places. Jesus was accused of breaking the law in
many
> places in the Bible, and the Sabbath was one they often picked on him
for -
> here he is pointing out that the purpose of the Sabbath is to serve
man, not
> a case of man being made to glorify the Sabbath. By removing the verse
from
> its context, Sabbath keepers turn the meaning around. This is a
> well-documented logical fallacy, called the false dichotomy. The
verse, out
> of context, is presented as presenting two points (the false
dichotomy) -
> the Sabbath was made for man, or the Sabbath was made for Jews. But in
> context, the actual dichotomy is between the legalist/Pharisee
perspective
> (the Sabbath was more important than those keeping it) and Jesus'
> perspective (the Sabbath was made to serve those keeping it.)
>
> When Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, he was NOT
contrasting
> mankind with Judaism. He was contrasting the LAW with MAN ... what he
was
> saying is that the LAW was made to serve MAN, NOT man being made to
keep the
> law. There is NOTHING about Jews or Israel AT ALL in this text ...
> Adventists are reading something into the text that is not there, and,
by
> removing a statement from its context, making it say something that
doesn't
> even fit into the actual context at all. The Old Testament is
explicit - the
> Sabbath was made for Israel, and is explicitly called the sign of the
Old
> Covenant. We all know that this was abolished at the Cross. And the
Old
> Testament also tells us clearly that the Sabbath was given to MOSES,
and NOT
> before the time of Moses. That alone proves that the Sabbath was not
given
> to ALL mankind, because Adam, Noah, and Abraham never knew of it or
kept it.
> See the article here for more info on that.
>
> Jesus is not saying that Christians must keep the Sabbath. That is
taking
> Jesus' words out of context. Does Jesus actually preach anywhere about
the
> future Christian Church and the laws it must keep? Such an idea is not
found
> ANYWHERE in this passage, or in the New Testament. What Jesus is doing
is
> instructing the Sabbath-keeping Jews of his day on how to deal with
God's
> law. They were legalistic, and put the law above love and mercy. Jesus
is
> turning that around, and saying that the Sabbath God gave them is not
meant
> as an end in its own right, but as a means to serve mankind. Jesus is
> explaining that the Sabbath is a means for grace and mercy, and not
what the
> Pharisees made it into - the holy of holies, the final end of Jewish
> worship. This principle is equally valid in ALL Christian
denominations.
> There is nothing at all in the text to suggest that Jesus is
proclaiming
> that the Sabbath will continue. He is merely using a real problem of
the
> time to expound a principle of mercy.
>
> Jesus is actually discussing the law as a whole here - my reasoning is
> twofold. First, the Pharisees were always trying to find him breaking
the
> law - the Sabbath, hand-washing, and so forth - and so this is just
one of
> the several instances where Jesus gives us insight into the true
nature and
> purpose of the law. Second, Jesus actually gives another example of
> law-breaking unrelated to the Sabbath - David was so hungry he ate a
certain
> bread that could not be eaten by anyone other than the high priest.
This has
> nothing to do with the Sabbath, yet Jesus uses this example to prove
that
> the law exists to serve man, not man to serve the law. Based on this,
I feel
> that Jesus is not promoting the Sabbath at all here, and this passage
> actually does not deal with the Sabbath's implications for Christians.
All
> that Jesus is doing is showing, using two contemporary examples, how
the law
> is meant to be used. So he is not making a statement at all about who
the
> Sabbath was given to - Israel versus mankind. The Bible has already
spoken
> on that - the Sabbath was for Israel. What Jesus is saying - as I see
it -
> is not about mankind's relationship with the Sabbath, but the
relationship
> between PEOPLE and the Sabbath - did people have to serve the Sabbath
or did
> the Sabbath exist to serve the people Jesus was speaking to? And this
is
> just one of several examples used to show the nature of the law.
>
> What of the statements that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath? Adventists
want
> the text so say that because Jesus is "Lord even of the Sabbath", it
means
> that it is his special day. But just go back and read the entire
passage -
> it actually is saying that Jesus is ABOVE the law, that it is HE who
> determines when a law is applicable, and when it is legalistic.
Basically,
> the text is saying NOT that Jesus' special day is the Sabbath, but
that
> Jesus is Lord OVER the Sabbath JUST as he is Lord over every other
aspect of
> nature, the law, and the universe, and he controls it completely.
>
> Circumcision too was made for man, and not man for circumcision.
>
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
>
>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 18:34:15 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:lCMwg.134392$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
> the Word was God.
> 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
> 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
> that was made.
> Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
> creature:
> 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are
> in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
> dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him,
> and for him:
> 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Nothing about man being given the Sabbath in those verses.

> Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and
> he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
> 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it
> he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
> 4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
> were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the
> heavens,

Nothing about man being given the Sabbath in those verses. God rested then,
but it says nothing about man.

> Exd 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> :9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
> 10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it]
> thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
> manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
> [is] within thy gates:
> 11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
> that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
> blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Nothing about man being given the Sabbath in those verses.

> Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the
> everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to
> every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
> 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the
> hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and
> earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Nothing about man being given the Sabbath in those verses.

> Yes the Sabbath was made for man and the Lord Jesus made both.

Nobody is denying that.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:0ZudnQL-***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:UcKwg.133766$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > To man in the garden of Eden. That's why Jesus said The Sabbath was
> made
> > > for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
> >
> > Mark 2, Matt 12, Luke 6
> >
> > (Mar 2:23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields
> on the
> > sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears
> of
> > corn.
> > (Mar 2:24) And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the
> > sabbath day that which is not lawful?
> > (Mar 2:25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did,
> when he
> > had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?
> > (Mar 2:26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar
> the
> > high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but
> for
> > the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
> > (Mar 2:27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and
> not man
> > for the sabbath:
> > (Mar 2:28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
> >
> > (Mat 12:1) At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the
> corn; and
> > his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to
> eat.
> > (Mat 12:2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold,
> thy
> > disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
> > (Mat 12:3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did,
> when he
> > was hungry, and they that were with him;
> > (Mat 12:4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the
> shewbread,
> > which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with
> him,
> > but only for the priests
> > (Mat 12:5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath
> days the
> > priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless
> > (Mat 12:6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than
> the
> > temple.
> > (Mat 12:7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy,
> and not
> > sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
> > (Mat 12:8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
> > (Mat 12:9) And when he was departed thence, he went into their
> synagogue:
> > (Mat 12:10) And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered.
> And
> > they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that
> they
> > might accuse him.
> > (Mat 12:11) And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you,
> that
> > shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day,
> will he
> > not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
> > (Mat 12:12) How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it
> is
> > lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
> >
> > (Luk 6:5) And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of
> the
> > sabbath.
> > (Luk 6:9) Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it
> lawful
> > on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to
> destroy
> > it?
> >
> >
> > Adventists claim that these passages show that the Sabbath is still in
> > effect, and Christians are obliged to keep it. They claim that Mark
> 2:27, in
> > saying that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath,
> proves
> > that the Sabbath was not given to Israel alone, but to all mankind.
> >
> > They are taking the verse out of context. If one goes back and read
> the
> > entire passage along with verse 27, one sees that Jesus was not
> speaking
> > about whether or not the Sabbath was made for Jews or for all mankind
> for
> > all ages and in all places. Jesus was accused of breaking the law in
> many
> > places in the Bible, and the Sabbath was one they often picked on him
> for -
> > here he is pointing out that the purpose of the Sabbath is to serve
> man, not
> > a case of man being made to glorify the Sabbath. By removing the verse
> from
> > its context, Sabbath keepers turn the meaning around. This is a
> > well-documented logical fallacy, called the false dichotomy. The
> verse, out
> > of context, is presented as presenting two points (the false
> dichotomy) -
> > the Sabbath was made for man, or the Sabbath was made for Jews. But in
> > context, the actual dichotomy is between the legalist/Pharisee
> perspective
> > (the Sabbath was more important than those keeping it) and Jesus'
> > perspective (the Sabbath was made to serve those keeping it.)
> >
> > When Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, he was NOT
> contrasting
> > mankind with Judaism. He was contrasting the LAW with MAN ... what he
> was
> > saying is that the LAW was made to serve MAN, NOT man being made to
> keep the
> > law. There is NOTHING about Jews or Israel AT ALL in this text ...
> > Adventists are reading something into the text that is not there, and,
> by
> > removing a statement from its context, making it say something that
> doesn't
> > even fit into the actual context at all. The Old Testament is
> explicit - the
> > Sabbath was made for Israel, and is explicitly called the sign of the
> Old
> > Covenant. We all know that this was abolished at the Cross. And the
> Old
> > Testament also tells us clearly that the Sabbath was given to MOSES,
> and NOT
> > before the time of Moses. That alone proves that the Sabbath was not
> given
> > to ALL mankind, because Adam, Noah, and Abraham never knew of it or
> kept it.
> > See the article here for more info on that.
> >
> > Jesus is not saying that Christians must keep the Sabbath. That is
> taking
> > Jesus' words out of context. Does Jesus actually preach anywhere about
> the
> > future Christian Church and the laws it must keep? Such an idea is not
> found
> > ANYWHERE in this passage, or in the New Testament. What Jesus is doing
> is
> > instructing the Sabbath-keeping Jews of his day on how to deal with
> God's
> > law. They were legalistic, and put the law above love and mercy. Jesus
> is
> > turning that around, and saying that the Sabbath God gave them is not
> meant
> > as an end in its own right, but as a means to serve mankind. Jesus is
> > explaining that the Sabbath is a means for grace and mercy, and not
> what the
> > Pharisees made it into - the holy of holies, the final end of Jewish
> > worship. This principle is equally valid in ALL Christian
> denominations.
> > There is nothing at all in the text to suggest that Jesus is
> proclaiming
> > that the Sabbath will continue. He is merely using a real problem of
> the
> > time to expound a principle of mercy.
> >
> > Jesus is actually discussing the law as a whole here - my reasoning is
> > twofold. First, the Pharisees were always trying to find him breaking
> the
> > law - the Sabbath, hand-washing, and so forth - and so this is just
> one of
> > the several instances where Jesus gives us insight into the true
> nature and
> > purpose of the law. Second, Jesus actually gives another example of
> > law-breaking unrelated to the Sabbath - David was so hungry he ate a
> certain
> > bread that could not be eaten by anyone other than the high priest.
> This has
> > nothing to do with the Sabbath, yet Jesus uses this example to prove
> that
> > the law exists to serve man, not man to serve the law. Based on this,
> I feel
> > that Jesus is not promoting the Sabbath at all here, and this passage
> > actually does not deal with the Sabbath's implications for Christians.
> All
> > that Jesus is doing is showing, using two contemporary examples, how
> the law
> > is meant to be used. So he is not making a statement at all about who
> the
> > Sabbath was given to - Israel versus mankind. The Bible has already
> spoken
> > on that - the Sabbath was for Israel. What Jesus is saying - as I see
> it -
> > is not about mankind's relationship with the Sabbath, but the
> relationship
> > between PEOPLE and the Sabbath - did people have to serve the Sabbath
> or did
> > the Sabbath exist to serve the people Jesus was speaking to? And this
> is
> > just one of several examples used to show the nature of the law.
> >
> > What of the statements that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath? Adventists
> want
> > the text so say that because Jesus is "Lord even of the Sabbath", it
> means
> > that it is his special day. But just go back and read the entire
> passage -
> > it actually is saying that Jesus is ABOVE the law, that it is HE who
> > determines when a law is applicable, and when it is legalistic.
> Basically,
> > the text is saying NOT that Jesus' special day is the Sabbath, but
> that
> > Jesus is Lord OVER the Sabbath JUST as he is Lord over every other
> aspect of
> > nature, the law, and the universe, and he controls it completely.
> >
> > Circumcision too was made for man, and not man for circumcision.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Korsman
> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> >
> > IC | XC
> > ---------
> > NI | KA
> >
> > add an s before .co.za
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-26 04:58:34 UTC

Permalink

"john w" <***@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:34:15 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
> <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote:
> copyright 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of
> this article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of
> the author
> >
> >"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> >news:lCMwg.134392$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >> Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
> >> the Word was God.
> >> 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
> >> 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
> >> that was made.
> >> Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
> >> creature:
> >> 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are
> >> in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
> >> dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him,
> >> and for him:
> >> 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
> >
> >Nothing about man being given the Sabbath in those verses.
> >
> >> Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
and
> >> he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
> >> 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in
it
> >> he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
> >> 4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
> >> were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the
> >> heavens,
> >
> >Nothing about man being given the Sabbath in those verses. God rested
then,
> >but it says nothing about man.
> >
> >> Exd 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> >> :9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
> >> 10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it]
> >> thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
> >> manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
> >> [is] within thy gates:
> >> 11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all
> >> that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
> >> blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
> >
> >Nothing about man being given the Sabbath in those verses.
> >
> >> Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the
> >> everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to
> >> every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
> >> 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the
> >> hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and
> >> earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
> >
> >Nothing about man being given the Sabbath in those verses.
> >
> >> Yes the Sabbath was made for man and the Lord Jesus made both.
> >
> >Nobody is denying that.
>
> I am denying it. Jesus didn't make the Sabbath,

Who made the Sabbath then, if not God?

> and if either of you
> actually knew the Old Testament (I realize that Roman Catholics are
> not Bible readers...)

Nor are you.

> Ex 31 says very clearly that Sabbath was made FOR THE JEWS.

Correct.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 18:39:40 UTC

Permalink

The Sabbath prior to Moses

Before I discuss whether or not the Sabbath was known to any part of mankind
prior to the time of Moses, we should take a look at certain key passages.

(Exod 31:12) And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
(Exod 31:13) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my
sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your
generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
(Exod 31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you:
every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth
any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
(Exod 31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of
rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he
shall surely be put to death.
(Exod 31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to
observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
(Exod 31:17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for
in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he
rested, and was refreshed.
(Exod 31:18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing
with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written
with the finger of God.

(Deut 5:1) And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel,
the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may
learn them, and keep, and do them.
(Deut 5:2) The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
(Deut 5:3) The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us,
even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
(Deut 5:4) The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the
midst of the fire,
(Deut 5:5) (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to show you the
word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up
into the mount;) saying,
(Deut 5:6) I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of
Egypt, from the house of bondage.
(Deut 5:7) Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
(Deut 5:8) Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the waters beneath the earth:
(Deut 5:9) Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I
the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
(Deut 5:10) And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep
my commandments.
(Deut 5:11) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for
the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
(Deut 5:12) Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath
commanded thee.
(Deut 5:13) Six days thou shalt labor, and do all thy work:
(Deut 5:14) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy
cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and
thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
(Deut 5:15) And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and
that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a
stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the
sabbath day.
(Deut 5:16) Honor thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath
commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with
thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
(Deut 5:17) Thou shalt not kill.
(Deut 5:18) Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
(Deut 5:19) Neither shalt thou steal.
(Deut 5:20) Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
(Deut 5:21) Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt
thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his
maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
(Deut 5:22) These words the LORD spoke unto all your assembly in the mount
out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with
a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of
stone, and delivered them unto me.

(Neh 9:6) Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven
of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein,
the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the
host of heaven worshipeth thee.
(Neh 9:7) Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest
him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;
(Neh 9:8) And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant
with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and
the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say,
to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:
(Neh 9:9) And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heardest
their cry by the Red sea;
(Neh 9:10) And showedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his
servants, and on all the people of his land: for thou knewest that they
dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a name, as it is this
day.
(Neh 9:11) And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went
through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou
threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.
(Neh 9:12) Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in
the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they
should go.
(Neh 9:13) Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them
from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes
and commandments:
(Neh 9:14) And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them
precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

(Ezek 20:9) But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted
before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known
unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.
(Ezek 20:10) Wherefore I caused them to go out of the land of Egypt, and
brought them into the wilderness.
(Ezek 20:11) And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments,
which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
(Ezek 20:12) Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me
and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
(Ezek 20:13) But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness:
they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a
man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted:
then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to
consume them.

A sign between God and whom?

Exod 31:12-17 - this text clearly states between which two parties the
Covenant is, and what the sign of the covenant is. The covenant is between
God and Israel, according to the text. That means it was not a sign between
mankind and God - there were other humans besides Israel, and the covenant
was not with them. The Sabbath was to be the sign of this covenant God made
with them at Sinai.

Deut 5:2-3, speaking of the same covenant, says that that covenant was not
made with their fathers - it was made with them for the first time. Moses
states explicitly that it was not with anyone before this time that God made
this covenant. This covenant began at this time, at the time of Moses.

Ezek 20:12 shows that God gave the Sabbath to Israel in the time of Moses.
It was then that God revealed the Sabbath to them. We see God contrasting
Israel with the other nations - and he says it was to Israel that he
revealed his principles, including the Sabbath. So he obviously did not
reveal the Sabbath to other nations.

Neh 9:9-14 tells us that the Sabbath was made known to Israel through Moses.
We know it is Israel of which Ezekiel and Nehemiah speak because of the
description given - these were the people God took out of Egypt, through the
Red Sea. The text says nothing about any other people, and it says nothing
about the Sabbath being known before this time.

So, if the Sabbath is a sign of the Old Covenant (Deut 5:2-3, Exod 31:17),
and the Old Covenant was given to Israel (Ex 31:17) and not anyone else
(Deut 5:2-3), then why are Adventists claiming that the Sabbath needs to be
kept by all mankind?

Where in the Bible does God EVER criticise anyone not of the chosen nation
of Israel for not observing the Sabbath? Nowhere.

Where in the Bible does God ever say that people not of the chosen nation of
Israel should keep the Sabbath? Nowhere.

These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign between GOD and ISRAEL,
that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that this covenant was
NOT made with their fathers. Scripture speaks of God giving ISRAEL the
Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to the
people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath. With
these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without an agenda to
push the Sabbath would come to the obvious conclusion that the Sabbath was
given first to Moses.

If the Old Covenant was given to Israel at the time of Moses, and we can see
that above, and if the Sabbath was made known to them at this time, and it
was the sign of the Old Covenant, it is impossible for the Sabbath to have
been given by God to any human prior to the time of Moses. Deuteronomy is
clear - this covenant was not a pre-existing covenant that was handed down
from their fathers, and ratified again at Sinai. This was a totally new
covenant, never before given to any human.

The 10 commandments are called the tablets of that covenant. The Sabbath is
the sign of that covenant. If you read about the nature of this covenant -
what it was, what the sign of it was, to whom it was given, and to whom it
was NOT given - it is clear that the Sabbath was part of this covenant, and
was therefore not revealed before the time this covenant came - the life of
Moses, the coming out of Egypt.

Prior covenants had their signs - Noah's covenant had the rainbow, Abraham's
had circumcision. With the Mosaic Covenant, God revealed the Sabbath to
them. The two go hand in hand.

That doesn't mean that the Sabbath could not point back to creation - it did
(Exod 31:17.) It also pointed back to the exodus from Egypt (Deut 2:15.) It
also pointed forward in time to the rest we as Christians have found in
Christ.

Yes, it was mentioned at creation by God the Father, addressing the Son, the
Spirit, and the angelic host. But it was first revealed to human beings in
the days of Moses, according to the passages of Scripture above. There is no
evidence anywhere in the Bible to state otherwise, no evidence that Adam,
Noah, Abraham or anyone else before the time of Moses ever knew abut, or
kept, the 7th day Sabbath - and so this, as a clear statement in the Bible,
goes uncontradicted by other biblical texts.

All I am asking you to do is this: do not add your own wishes to the Bible
and expect others to accept them, when the Bible actually says that this is
not the case. These verses point out that the Sabbath was a sign between GOD
and ISRAEL, that it was given as a sign of the OLD COVENANT, and that this
covenant was NOT made with their fathers. It speaks of God giving ISRAEL the
Sabbath, not MAN, and NOT anyone before the time of Moses. It was to the
people at the time of Moses that God first made known his Sabbath. With
these verses, and a total lack of any text in the Bible that indicates
anyone prior to Moses knew about the Sabbath, anyone without a
Sabbath-promoting agenda would come to the obvious conclusion that the
Sabbath was given first to Moses.

For New Testament confirmation, see Gal 3:17, which says that the law only
came to men 430 years AFTER Abraham - that is the law that contained the
Sabbath.

Some Adventists will deny that the Sabbath pictures Christ's rest, because
Col 2:16 talks about a shadow of the reality we find in Christ. For the
purposes of getting around Col 2:16, they make the Sabbath look back to the
original creation, and the other annual holy days look forward to Christ.
They then state that we must look back in time to the original Sabbath Adam
and Eve kept in the Garden of Eden, forgetting that the Bible doesn't state
anywhere that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath - and denying what the passages
listed above clearly state.

To get this right, they play a word game - they confuse the meaning of the
term "remember." "Remember" is also a synonym for "observe." Consider the
following: when you ask your friends, your husband or wife, your children
definitely, to remember your birthday, are you asking them to cast their
minds back to the day you were born? Your children cannot do that for sure.
But you use the word "remember" anyway. It means that they must remember
it - remember to observe it - when the time comes. And that is what the
Sabbath commandment says.

A perpetual covenant?

Adventists also argue that the Sabbath is called a perpetual sign for all
generations, and therefore it can never pass away. But God also refers to
circumcision as a perpetual covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one
in Exod 30:8, to the Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these
so-called perpetual covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just
because they are called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose
will never come to an end. They have been fulfilled. The covenant they
symbolised was fulfilled, and came to a close. Circumcision was for ALL
Abraham's generations, yet although we are part of that people, circumcision
if not necessary for Christians. The same goes for the Sabbath.

The Sabbath shall cease

Speaking of the New Covenant, the Old Testament prophesies of a time when
the Sabbath shall cease - Isa 1:13-16, Hosea 2:11, Jer 31:31-4.

(Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new
moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

(Isa 1:13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;
the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with;
it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
(Isa 1:14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are
a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
(Isa 1:15) And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from
you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of
blood.
(Isa 1:16) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from
before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

(Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in
the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the
LORD:
(Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house
of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they
shall be my people.
(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every
man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

St Paul tells us that the law has indeed been written on our hearts (2 Cor
3:6-14) - we are a New Covenent people. Our nature has been changed through
baptism, we are a new creation in Christ.

Someone who understands what the Bible is telling us will realise that the
Sabbath and circumcision are merely signs of the Old Covenant, and since the
New Covenant is now in place, we must follow the signs of the New Covenant
and NOT the Old Covenant. Therefore modern Christians baptise instead of
circumcise, and they gather together on Sunday (1 Cor 16:2) instead of
Saturday.

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 18:45:26 UTC

Permalink

"AngeloB" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:11:26 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
> <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote:
>
>
> >They are taking the verse out of context. If one goes back and read the
> >entire passage along with verse 27, one sees that Jesus was not speaking
> >about whether or not the Sabbath was made for Jews or for all mankind for
> >all ages and in all places. Jesus was accused of breaking the law in many
> >places in the Bible, and the Sabbath was one they often picked on him
for -
> >here he is pointing out that the purpose of the Sabbath is to serve man,
not
> >a case of man being made to glorify the Sabbath.
>
> I think that's pretty obvious. Although I have no religious filiation,
> most of my slef-teaching was inspired and helped by adventist friends.
> And they never used that passage out of context for anything. To tell
> the truth, they just never get tired about telling out context is
> important. Not only the text's context, but also the whole biblical
> context, history/culture/society context, etc.

They do that all the time. They tell us that Isaiah 56 and 66 refer to
Christians keeping the Sabbath ... but the same passages talk about
Levitical priests and burnt offerings. Do Christians have those?

How about Leviticus 23:32? Does it refer to the Day of Atonement, or does
it refer to the weekly Sabbath?

Some Adventists will tell you it refers to the weekly Sabbath.

Lev 23:32 KJV It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict
your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even,
shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

Adventism says it does refer to the weekly Sabbath -
http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/Read_Media.asp?ID=652 - "This explains why
the Sabbath is described in these words, "It shall be unto you a sabbath of
rest, ... from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath." Leviticus
23:32."

Lev 23:27-32 says it refers to the day beginning at the end of the 9th day
of the 7th month. Notice the convenient deletion in the above quote from
Amazing Facts.

> >The Old Testament is explicit - the
> >Sabbath was made for Israel, and is explicitly called the sign of the Old
> >Covenant.
>
> Explicit? Show me. Then read the New Testament and what they say about
> the "gentiles". Even if, before Jesus, God's people we the Jews, after
> that all mankind is God's people, have the same "rights" and "duties".

I will post it as a separate message.

> >We all know that this was abolished at the Cross. And the Old
> >Testament also tells us clearly that the Sabbath was given to MOSES, and
NOT
> >before the time of Moses.
>
> It's not true, Stephen. Example: the mana food. ;)

It is true - Moses was around then. And that was the very first time the
Sabbath was made known to man.

> (...) snipped some text, still about the dicothomy. I think we all
> agree with that (except that adventists use the verse out of context
> to pass a different message).

So was Jesus teaching that the Sabbath was made for all mankind to keep? Or
was he talking about the whole law? What in the passage shows you that it's
not the whole law, and it is about all mankind keeping the Sabbath?

> >What of the statements that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath? Adventists want
> >the text so say that because Jesus is "Lord even of the Sabbath", it
means
> >that it is his special day. But just go back and read the entire
passage -
> >it actually is saying that Jesus is ABOVE the law, that it is HE who
> >determines when a law is applicable, and when it is legalistic.
Basically,
> >the text is saying NOT that Jesus' special day is the Sabbath, but that
> >Jesus is Lord OVER the Sabbath JUST as he is Lord over every other aspect
of
> >nature, the law, and the universe, and he controls it completely.
>
> Humm... What about S. Mat. 5:17-20, for example?

Matt 5:18, Luke 16:16-17

(Matt 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
(Matt 5:18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Matt 5:19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matt 5:20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven.

(Luke 16:16) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the
kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
(Luke 16:17) And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle
of the law to fail.

Matt 5:17-19 is actually a key verse for refuting the Adventist position.
Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law UNTIL all is
fulfilled. This implies that a point WILL come when ALL IS fulfilled. Let's
look at texts like Heb 7:12, 2 Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:12; John 19:28-3, and Acts
15 (where a law given directly by God to Abraham, and called a perpetual law
for ALL Abraham's generations, is abolished by a council of the Church.)
Here we get told directly that the law HAS changed (those are the words
straight from Hebrews,) so we HAVE to wonder what Jesus meant. He said the
heavens and the earth would be replaced with a NEW heaven and a NEW earth in
that text, and only THEN could the law change, and here we see the law has
changed ALREADY ... so what he said MUST have come to pass ... so, did we
just miss the end of the world, or not?

Well, we need to understand what this expression MEANT - not what we assume
it means when we, in the 21st century, read it with no background in the
linguistic expressions of the first century. So, we turn to John 19:28-30,
where Jesus actually states that ALL IS FULFILLED. So, if all was fulfilled
THEN, we can expect to see the law changing, falling away - and that is
exactly what happens. If we turn to Heb 9:26, we see that Jesus came at the
END of an age ... so, if this was the end of an age, surely we can interpret
the new heavens and new earth to mean exactly what the people of that time
understood by it - that a new age began, starting from the Cross. A new
creation began then, as we are told in 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, 1 Cor 15:22+45,
and Eph 2:10.

2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new
creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come." Galatians 6:15
"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new
creation." 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 "For as in Adam all die, so also in
Christ shall all be made alive. (45) Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam
became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus." (RSV)

So, if we ask the crucial question, have the heavens and the earth really
passed away, the answer is - YES IT HAS!! Those who want to promote the
Sabbath conveniently ignore the real meaning of this phrase, and try to
mislead us by making us read the English literally, while knowing that the
original was not written in English, and the people of the time did not have
the same idiomatic expressions.

For those who disagree, either Heb 7:12 is wrong and Matt 5:17-19 is wrong
... OR Jesus is right in John 19 when he says that his saving work IS indeed
completed. See also Luke 16:16, which says that the law and the prophets
lasted until John the Baptist.

Just a note on Acts 15 - God also refers to circumcision as a perpetual
covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one in Exod 30:8, to the
Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these so-called perpetual
covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just because they are
called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose will never come
to an end. Circumcision was for ALL Abraham's generations, yet although we
are part of that people, circumcision if not necessary for Christians. The
same goes for the Sabbath.

So we can take all the criteria for the passing of the law, and prove from
the New Testament that these criteria ARE fulfilled, and that the law HAS
passed away. It's right there in the Bible, if you look around a bit, and
place things in the broader context of the entire Bible.

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-26 05:01:00 UTC

Permalink

"john w" <***@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:11:26 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
> <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote:
> copyright 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of
> this article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of
> the author
> >
> >"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> >news:UcKwg.133766$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >> To man in the garden of Eden. That's why Jesus said The Sabbath was
made
> >> for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
> >
> >Mark 2, Matt 12, Luke 6
> >
> >(Mar 2:23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on
the
> >sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of
> >corn.
>
> Um, Steve! You seem to have lost your way again!

Nope, not really.

> This is the Baptist group.
>
> The Roman Catholic group is
>
> <---------------------
>
> that way!

Where does it say that in the Bible? Near the passage that says Jesus used
full immersion when he personally baptised people?

Or near the passage that mentions the 1st century AD church building that
says 1st century AD on it?

> :-)

;-)

> john w

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> >(Mar 2:24) And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the
> >sabbath day that which is not lawful?
> >(Mar 2:25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when
he
> >had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?
> >(Mar 2:26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the
> >high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but
for
> >the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
> >(Mar 2:27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not
man
> >for the sabbath:
> >(Mar 2:28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
> >
> >(Mat 12:1) At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn;
and
> >his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to
eat.
> >(Mat 12:2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy
> >disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
> >(Mat 12:3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when
he
> >was hungry, and they that were with him;
> >(Mat 12:4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the
shewbread,
> >which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with
him,
> >but only for the priests
> >(Mat 12:5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days
the
> >priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless
> >(Mat 12:6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the
> >temple.
> >(Mat 12:7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and
not
> >sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
> >(Mat 12:8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
> >(Mat 12:9) And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
> >(Mat 12:10) And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And
> >they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that
they
> >might accuse him.
> >(Mat 12:11) And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you,
that
> >shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will
he
> >not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
> >(Mat 12:12) How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is
> >lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
> >
> >(Luk 6:5) And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the
> >sabbath.
> >(Luk 6:9) Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it
lawful
> >on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to
destroy
> >it?
> >
> >
> >Adventists claim that these passages show that the Sabbath is still in
> >effect, and Christians are obliged to keep it. They claim that Mark 2:27,
in
> >saying that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, proves
> >that the Sabbath was not given to Israel alone, but to all mankind.
> >
> >They are taking the verse out of context. If one goes back and read the
> >entire passage along with verse 27, one sees that Jesus was not speaking
> >about whether or not the Sabbath was made for Jews or for all mankind for
> >all ages and in all places. Jesus was accused of breaking the law in many
> >places in the Bible, and the Sabbath was one they often picked on him
for -
> >here he is pointing out that the purpose of the Sabbath is to serve man,
not
> >a case of man being made to glorify the Sabbath. By removing the verse
from
> >its context, Sabbath keepers turn the meaning around. This is a
> >well-documented logical fallacy, called the false dichotomy. The verse,
out
> >of context, is presented as presenting two points (the false dichotomy) -
> >the Sabbath was made for man, or the Sabbath was made for Jews. But in
> >context, the actual dichotomy is between the legalist/Pharisee
perspective
> >(the Sabbath was more important than those keeping it) and Jesus'
> >perspective (the Sabbath was made to serve those keeping it.)
> >
> >When Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, he was NOT contrasting
> >mankind with Judaism. He was contrasting the LAW with MAN ... what he was
> >saying is that the LAW was made to serve MAN, NOT man being made to keep
the
> >law. There is NOTHING about Jews or Israel AT ALL in this text ...
> >Adventists are reading something into the text that is not there, and, by
> >removing a statement from its context, making it say something that
doesn't
> >even fit into the actual context at all. The Old Testament is explicit -
the
> >Sabbath was made for Israel, and is explicitly called the sign of the Old
> >Covenant. We all know that this was abolished at the Cross. And the Old
> >Testament also tells us clearly that the Sabbath was given to MOSES, and
NOT
> >before the time of Moses. That alone proves that the Sabbath was not
given
> >to ALL mankind, because Adam, Noah, and Abraham never knew of it or kept
it.
> >See the article here for more info on that.
> >
> >Jesus is not saying that Christians must keep the Sabbath. That is taking
> >Jesus' words out of context. Does Jesus actually preach anywhere about
the
> >future Christian Church and the laws it must keep? Such an idea is not
found
> >ANYWHERE in this passage, or in the New Testament. What Jesus is doing is
> >instructing the Sabbath-keeping Jews of his day on how to deal with God's
> >law. They were legalistic, and put the law above love and mercy. Jesus is
> >turning that around, and saying that the Sabbath God gave them is not
meant
> >as an end in its own right, but as a means to serve mankind. Jesus is
> >explaining that the Sabbath is a means for grace and mercy, and not what
the
> >Pharisees made it into - the holy of holies, the final end of Jewish
> >worship. This principle is equally valid in ALL Christian denominations.
> >There is nothing at all in the text to suggest that Jesus is proclaiming
> >that the Sabbath will continue. He is merely using a real problem of the
> >time to expound a principle of mercy.
> >
> >Jesus is actually discussing the law as a whole here - my reasoning is
> >twofold. First, the Pharisees were always trying to find him breaking the
> >law - the Sabbath, hand-washing, and so forth - and so this is just one
of
> >the several instances where Jesus gives us insight into the true nature
and
> >purpose of the law. Second, Jesus actually gives another example of
> >law-breaking unrelated to the Sabbath - David was so hungry he ate a
certain
> >bread that could not be eaten by anyone other than the high priest. This
has
> >nothing to do with the Sabbath, yet Jesus uses this example to prove that
> >the law exists to serve man, not man to serve the law. Based on this, I
feel
> >that Jesus is not promoting the Sabbath at all here, and this passage
> >actually does not deal with the Sabbath's implications for Christians.
All
> >that Jesus is doing is showing, using two contemporary examples, how the
law
> >is meant to be used. So he is not making a statement at all about who the
> >Sabbath was given to - Israel versus mankind. The Bible has already
spoken
> >on that - the Sabbath was for Israel. What Jesus is saying - as I see
it -
> >is not about mankind's relationship with the Sabbath, but the
relationship
> >between PEOPLE and the Sabbath - did people have to serve the Sabbath or
did
> >the Sabbath exist to serve the people Jesus was speaking to? And this is
> >just one of several examples used to show the nature of the law.
> >
> >What of the statements that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath? Adventists want
> >the text so say that because Jesus is "Lord even of the Sabbath", it
means
> >that it is his special day. But just go back and read the entire
passage -
> >it actually is saying that Jesus is ABOVE the law, that it is HE who
> >determines when a law is applicable, and when it is legalistic.
Basically,
> >the text is saying NOT that Jesus' special day is the Sabbath, but that
> >Jesus is Lord OVER the Sabbath JUST as he is Lord over every other aspect
of
> >nature, the law, and the universe, and he controls it completely.
> >
> >Circumcision too was made for man, and not man for circumcision.
>

Whazit Tooyah

2006-07-26 05:39:44 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "john w" <***@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:11:26 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
>> <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote:
>> copyright 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of
>> this article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of
>> the author
>> >
>> >"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
>> >news:UcKwg.133766$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> To man in the garden of Eden. That's why Jesus said The Sabbath was
> made
>> >> for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
>> >
>> >Mark 2, Matt 12, Luke 6
>> >
>> >(Mar 2:23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on
> the
>> >sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of
>> >corn.
>>
>> Um, Steve! You seem to have lost your way again!
>
> Nope, not really.
>
>> This is the Baptist group.
>>
>> The Roman Catholic group is
>>
>> <---------------------
>>
>> that way!
>
> Where does it say that in the Bible? Near the passage that says Jesus
> used
> full immersion when he personally baptised people?

Hmm, I don't think Jesus baptized any that I can remember. However, on the
subject of baptism, it seems that it usually required much water, i.e. John
The Baptizer in the Jordan and Phillip with the Ethiopian. (Yep, I'm a
dunker) It also seems that scripturally baptism was done in response to
salvation and there is no scriptural record of anyone being baptized unless
it was their desire to be baptized. Having said this, while I still disagree
with infant baptism and I believe that immersion is clearly the method of
biblical times, I would not reject someone because they were baptized by
another method as a believer. Real baptism is not a matter of form as much
as it is a matter of the condition of the heart of the one being baptized.

>
> Or near the passage that mentions the 1st century AD church building that
> says 1st century AD on it?

Just drove by an Apostolic church a few days ago. I was hoping to drop by
on Sunday to hear Peter, James, John or maybe Paul give the message ;-)

--
WT

By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:12:38 UTC

Permalink

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 12:38:08 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
> Also, the text mentioned "from one new moon until the next" as well.
>
> If the text proves that Christians should keep the Sabbath, then
surely the
> same text also proves that Christians should keep the new moon.

NEW MOON ALSO MEANS MONTH.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life,
which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may
have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into
the city.
15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and
murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and
morning star

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as
crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river,
[was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits,
[and] yielded her fruit EVERY MONTH and the leaves of the tree [were]
for the healing of the nations.
:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the
Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4 And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their
foreheads.

>.Yet there is sufficient evidence in the New
> Testament to prove quite reasonably that the new heavens and new earth
HAVE
> already come! That I've discussed in a different section.

AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count
slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are
therein shall be burned up.
11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner
[of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein
the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent
that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

>
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
>
>
>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 14:27:10 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:Q4Kwg.133732$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> > Also, the text mentioned "from one new moon until the next" as well.
> >
> > If the text proves that Christians should keep the Sabbath, then
> surely the
> > same text also proves that Christians should keep the new moon.
>
> NEW MOON ALSO MEANS MONTH.

> Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as
> crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
> :2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river,
> [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits,
> [and] yielded her fruit EVERY MONTH

Nowhere in the New Testament is the Greek word used there translated as new
moon.

And if you're going to claim this, how do you keep months? What sort of
church service do you have to welcome the new moon, or the start of the
Gregorian month?

Note: you can't say that merely by using the calendar, you keep months.
Then merely by using the calendar, we keep the Sabbath as well.

So, how do you keep months? In what way do you observe new moons (or
months, or whatever way you wish to translate it) in the way you claim this
verse tells us we will keep the Sabbath? Your argument stands or falls with
that. Either you keep months (new moons, whatever you like) or this verse
is not saying what Adventists tell us it is.

Also, please comment on the "from ... to" issue.

If worshipping from one Sabbath to the next Sabbath does not mean 7 days of
worship, then working from Monday to Friday does not mean 5 days of work.

> and the leaves of the tree [were]
> for the healing of the nations.
> :3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the
> Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
> 4 And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their
> foreheads.
>
>
> >.Yet there is sufficient evidence in the New
> > Testament to prove quite reasonably that the new heavens and new earth
> HAVE
> > already come! That I've discussed in a different section.
>
>
> AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.

Not at all. Show me why my interpretation is wrong. The verse you cite
below doesn't affect it - it speaks of the age that came AFTER the
pre-Christian age that we are discussing. The pre-Christian age ended, as
signified by the passing away of heavens and earth (a phrase never meant
literally.) The next age began, and 2 Peter refers to the ending of that
age. Two separate events. One happened, the other has not.

Again, I note that you're running around in circles. I haven't seen a
command for Christians to keep the Sabbath yet, or an example of them doing
so.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count
> slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should
> perish, but that all should come to repentance.
> 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
> which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
> shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are
> therein shall be burned up.
> 11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner
> [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
> 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein
> the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
> melt with fervent heat?
> 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a
> new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
> 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent
> that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Korsman
> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> >
> > IC | XC
> > ---------
> > NI | KA
> >
> > add an s before .co.za
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 15:06:33 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:Q4Kwg.133732$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > Also, the text mentioned "from one new moon until the next" as
well.
> > >
> > > If the text proves that Christians should keep the Sabbath, then
> > surely the
> > > same text also proves that Christians should keep the new moon.
> >
> > NEW MOON ALSO MEANS MONTH.
>
> > Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as
> > crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
> > :2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the
river,
> > [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits,
> > [and] yielded her fruit EVERY MONTH
>
> Nowhere in the New Testament is the Greek word used there translated
as new
> moon.

So? It is the very meaning of the word translated as month in that
verse!
Greek for 3376

Pronunciation Guide
men {mane}
Part of Speech n m
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a month
2) the time of the new moon, new moon (the first day of each month, when
the new moon appeared was a festival among the Hebrews)

authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count - Total: 18
AV - month 18; 18

Compare:
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon[chodesh] to
another,[chodesh] and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come
to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Hebrew for 02320 chodesh {kho'-desh}
Part of Speech
n m
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) the new moon, month, monthly
a) the first day of the month
b) the lunar month

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count - Total: 276
AV - month 254, new moon 20, monthly 1, another 1; 276

snipped fascitious arguments.

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 18:34:15 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:ZfMwg.134303$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:Q4Kwg.133732$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > news:***@is.co.za...
> > > > Also, the text mentioned "from one new moon until the next" as
> well.
> > > >
> > > > If the text proves that Christians should keep the Sabbath, then
> > > surely the
> > > > same text also proves that Christians should keep the new moon.
> > >
> > > NEW MOON ALSO MEANS MONTH.
> >
> > > Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as
> > > crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
> > > :2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the
> river,
> > > [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits,
> > > [and] yielded her fruit EVERY MONTH
> >
> > Nowhere in the New Testament is the Greek word used there translated
> as new
> > moon.
>
> So? It is the very meaning of the word translated as month in that
> verse!
> Greek for 3376
>
> Pronunciation Guide
> men {mane}
> Part of Speech n m
> Outline of Biblical Usage
> 1) a month
> 2) the time of the new moon, new moon (the first day of each month, when
> the new moon appeared was a festival among the Hebrews)
>
> authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count - Total: 18
> AV - month 18; 18
>
> Compare:
> Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon[chodesh] to
> another,[chodesh] and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come
> to worship before me, saith the LORD.
>
> Hebrew for 02320 chodesh {kho'-desh}
> Part of Speech
> n m
> Outline of Biblical Usage
> 1) the new moon, month, monthly
> a) the first day of the month
> b) the lunar month
>
> Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count - Total: 276
> AV - month 254, new moon 20, monthly 1, another 1; 276
>
>
> snipped fascitious arguments.

All that is really irrelevant. And you demonstrated that it's not used for
new moon, only month.

What IS relevant is why you don't keep the new moon, when the exact same
verse Adventists tell us shows that we must keep the Sabbath, says exactly
the same thing about the new moon.

How do you keep months? What sort of church service do you have to welcome
the new moon, or the start of the Gregorian month?

Note: you can't say that merely by using the calendar, you keep months.
Then merely by using the calendar, we keep the Sabbath as well.

So, how do you keep months? In what way do you observe new moons (or
months, or whatever way you wish to translate it) in the way you claim this
verse tells us we will keep the Sabbath? Your argument stands or falls with
that. Either you keep months (new moons, whatever you like) or this verse
is not saying what Adventists tell us it is.

Also, please comment on the "from ... to" issue.

If worshipping from one Sabbath to the next Sabbath does not mean 7 days of
worship, then working from Monday to Friday does not mean 5 days of work.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 14:27:13 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:Q4Kwg.133732$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...

> >.Yet there is sufficient evidence in the New
> > Testament to prove quite reasonably that the new heavens and new earth
> HAVE
> > already come! That I've discussed in a different section.
>
>
> AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.

Matt 5:18, Luke 16:16-17

(Matt 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
(Matt 5:18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Matt 5:19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matt 5:20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter
into the kingdom of heaven.

(Luke 16:16) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the
kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
(Luke 16:17) And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle
of the law to fail.

Matt 5:17-19 is actually a key verse for refuting the Adventist position.
Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law UNTIL all is
fulfilled. This implies that a point WILL come when ALL IS fulfilled. Let's
look at texts like Heb 7:12, 2 Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:12; John 19:28-3, and Acts
15 (where a law given directly by God to Abraham, and called a perpetual law
for ALL Abraham's generations, is abolished by a council of the Church.)
Here we get told directly that the law HAS changed (those are the words
straight from Hebrews,) so we HAVE to wonder what Jesus meant. He said the
heavens and the earth would be replaced with a NEW heaven and a NEW earth in
that text, and only THEN could the law change, and here we see the law has
changed ALREADY ... so what he said MUST have come to pass ... so, did we
just miss the end of the world, or not?

Well, we need to understand what this expression MEANT - not what we assume
it means when we, in the 21st century, read it with no background in the
linguistic expressions of the first century. So, we turn to John 19:28-30,
where Jesus actually states that ALL IS FULFILLED. So, if all was fulfilled
THEN, we can expect to see the law changing, falling away - and that is
exactly what happens. If we turn to Heb 9:26, we see that Jesus came at the
END of an age ... so, if this was the end of an age, surely we can interpret
the new heavens and new earth to mean exactly what the people of that time
understood by it - that a new age began, starting from the Cross. A new
creation began then, as we are told in 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, 1 Cor 15:22+45,
and Eph 2:10.

2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new
creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come." Galatians 6:15
"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new
creation." 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 "For as in Adam all die, so also in
Christ shall all be made alive. (45) Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam
became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus." (RSV)

So, if we ask the crucial question, have the heavens and the earth really
passed away, the answer is - YES IT HAS!! Those who want to promote the
Sabbath conveniently ignore the real meaning of this phrase, and try to
mislead us by making us read the English literally, while knowing that the
original was not written in English, and the people of the time did not have
the same idiomatic expressions.

For those who disagree, either Heb 7:12 is wrong and Matt 5:17-19 is wrong
... OR Jesus is right in John 19 when he says that his saving work IS indeed
completed. See also Luke 16:16, which says that the law and the prophets
lasted until John the Baptist.

Just a note on Acts 15 - God also refers to circumcision as a perpetual
covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one in Exod 30:8, to the
Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these so-called perpetual
covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just because they are
called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose will never come
to an end. Circumcision was for ALL Abraham's generations, yet although we
are part of that people, circumcision if not necessary for Christians. The
same goes for the Sabbath.

So we can take all the criteria for the passing of the law, and prove from
the New Testament that these criteria ARE fulfilled, and that the law HAS
passed away. It's right there in the Bible, if you look around a bit, and
place things in the broader context of the entire Bible.

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 14:48:01 UTC

Permalink

Till heaven and earth pass, Korsman, This earth will be destroyed at the
second coming. The new earth will be righteous and sin will not rise the
second time. That hasn't happened, just look at yourself.

If the law passed at the cross, why did jesus fuflfill the feast of
unleavened bread as he lay in the tomb, why did he rise to become the
wave sheath offering, and fulfill the first fruits at his resurrection,
why was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the fulfilling of pentecost,
the anniversary of the giving of the law... Why is he ministering in
heaven as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary pleading his blood
on our behalf in fuflfillment of the law now??? ALL after the cross!!

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:Q4Kwg.133732$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:***@is.co.za...
>
> > >.Yet there is sufficient evidence in the New
> > > Testament to prove quite reasonably that the new heavens and new
earth
> > HAVE
> > > already come! That I've discussed in a different section.
> >
> >
> > AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
>
> Matt 5:18, Luke 16:16-17
>
> (Matt 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I
> am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
> (Matt 5:18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot
> or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled.
> (Matt 5:19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments,
> and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
> heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
called
> great in the kingdom of heaven.
> (Matt 5:20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall
exceed
> the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case
enter
> into the kingdom of heaven.
>
> (Luke 16:16) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time
the
> kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
> (Luke 16:17) And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
tittle
> of the law to fail.
>
> Matt 5:17-19 is actually a key verse for refuting the Adventist
position.
> Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law UNTIL all
is
> fulfilled. This implies that a point WILL come when ALL IS fulfilled.
Let's
> look at texts like Heb 7:12, 2 Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:12; John 19:28-3, and
Acts
> 15 (where a law given directly by God to Abraham, and called a
perpetual law
> for ALL Abraham's generations, is abolished by a council of the
Church.)
> Here we get told directly that the law HAS changed (those are the
words
> straight from Hebrews,) so we HAVE to wonder what Jesus meant. He said
the
> heavens and the earth would be replaced with a NEW heaven and a NEW
earth in
> that text, and only THEN could the law change, and here we see the law
has
> changed ALREADY ... so what he said MUST have come to pass ... so, did
we
> just miss the end of the world, or not?
>
> Well, we need to understand what this expression MEANT - not what we
assume
> it means when we, in the 21st century, read it with no background in
the
> linguistic expressions of the first century. So, we turn to John
19:28-30,
> where Jesus actually states that ALL IS FULFILLED. So, if all was
fulfilled
> THEN, we can expect to see the law changing, falling away - and that
is
> exactly what happens. If we turn to Heb 9:26, we see that Jesus came
at the
> END of an age ... so, if this was the end of an age, surely we can
interpret
> the new heavens and new earth to mean exactly what the people of that
time
> understood by it - that a new age began, starting from the Cross. A
new
> creation began then, as we are told in 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, 1 Cor
15:22+45,
> and Eph 2:10.
>
> 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new
> creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come."
Galatians 6:15
> "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but
a new
> creation." 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 "For as in Adam all die, so also in
> Christ shall all be made alive. (45) Thus it is written, 'The first
man Adam
> became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
> Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus."
(RSV)
>
> So, if we ask the crucial question, have the heavens and the earth
really
> passed away, the answer is - YES IT HAS!! Those who want to promote
the
> Sabbath conveniently ignore the real meaning of this phrase, and try
to
> mislead us by making us read the English literally, while knowing that
the
> original was not written in English, and the people of the time did
not have
> the same idiomatic expressions.
>
> For those who disagree, either Heb 7:12 is wrong and Matt 5:17-19 is
wrong
> ... OR Jesus is right in John 19 when he says that his saving work IS
indeed
> completed. See also Luke 16:16, which says that the law and the
prophets
> lasted until John the Baptist.
>
> Just a note on Acts 15 - God also refers to circumcision as a
perpetual
> covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one in Exod 30:8, to the
> Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these so-called
perpetual
> covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just because they are
> called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose will never
come
> to an end. Circumcision was for ALL Abraham's generations, yet
although we
> are part of that people, circumcision if not necessary for Christians.
The
> same goes for the Sabbath.
>
> So we can take all the criteria for the passing of the law, and prove
from
> the New Testament that these criteria ARE fulfilled, and that the law
HAS
> passed away. It's right there in the Bible, if you look around a bit,
and
> place things in the broader context of the entire Bible.
>
>
> --
> Stephen Korsman
> website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
>
> IC | XC
> ---------
> NI | KA
>
> add an s before .co.za
>
>
>
>

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 18:34:16 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:B_Lwg.134232$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Till heaven and earth pass, Korsman, This earth will be destroyed at the
> second coming. The new earth will be righteous and sin will not rise the
> second time. That hasn't happened, just look at yourself.

That's not what it means. Obviously.

> If the law passed at the cross, why did jesus fuflfill the feast of
> unleavened bread as he lay in the tomb, why did he rise to become the
> wave sheath offering, and fulfill the first fruits at his resurrection,
> why was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the fulfilling of pentecost,
> the anniversary of the giving of the law... Why is he ministering in
> heaven as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary pleading his blood
> on our behalf in fuflfillment of the law now??? ALL after the cross!!

All to fulfil the prophecies, the types and antitypes.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:Q4Kwg.133732$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> > > news:***@is.co.za...
> >
> > > >.Yet there is sufficient evidence in the New
> > > > Testament to prove quite reasonably that the new heavens and new
> earth
> > > HAVE
> > > > already come! That I've discussed in a different section.
> > >
> > >
> > > AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
> >
> > Matt 5:18, Luke 16:16-17
> >
> > (Matt 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
> prophets: I
> > am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
> > (Matt 5:18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one
> jot
> > or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
> fulfilled.
> > (Matt 5:19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
> commandments,
> > and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
> > heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
> called
> > great in the kingdom of heaven.
> > (Matt 5:20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall
> exceed
> > the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case
> enter
> > into the kingdom of heaven.
> >
> > (Luke 16:16) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time
> the
> > kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
> > (Luke 16:17) And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
> tittle
> > of the law to fail.
> >
> > Matt 5:17-19 is actually a key verse for refuting the Adventist
> position.
> > Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law UNTIL all
> is
> > fulfilled. This implies that a point WILL come when ALL IS fulfilled.
> Let's
> > look at texts like Heb 7:12, 2 Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:12; John 19:28-3, and
> Acts
> > 15 (where a law given directly by God to Abraham, and called a
> perpetual law
> > for ALL Abraham's generations, is abolished by a council of the
> Church.)
> > Here we get told directly that the law HAS changed (those are the
> words
> > straight from Hebrews,) so we HAVE to wonder what Jesus meant. He said
> the
> > heavens and the earth would be replaced with a NEW heaven and a NEW
> earth in
> > that text, and only THEN could the law change, and here we see the law
> has
> > changed ALREADY ... so what he said MUST have come to pass ... so, did
> we
> > just miss the end of the world, or not?
> >
> > Well, we need to understand what this expression MEANT - not what we
> assume
> > it means when we, in the 21st century, read it with no background in
> the
> > linguistic expressions of the first century. So, we turn to John
> 19:28-30,
> > where Jesus actually states that ALL IS FULFILLED. So, if all was
> fulfilled
> > THEN, we can expect to see the law changing, falling away - and that
> is
> > exactly what happens. If we turn to Heb 9:26, we see that Jesus came
> at the
> > END of an age ... so, if this was the end of an age, surely we can
> interpret
> > the new heavens and new earth to mean exactly what the people of that
> time
> > understood by it - that a new age began, starting from the Cross. A
> new
> > creation began then, as we are told in 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, 1 Cor
> 15:22+45,
> > and Eph 2:10.
> >
> > 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new
> > creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come."
> Galatians 6:15
> > "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but
> a new
> > creation." 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 "For as in Adam all die, so also in
> > Christ shall all be made alive. (45) Thus it is written, 'The first
> man Adam
> > became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
> > Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus."
> (RSV)
> >
> > So, if we ask the crucial question, have the heavens and the earth
> really
> > passed away, the answer is - YES IT HAS!! Those who want to promote
> the
> > Sabbath conveniently ignore the real meaning of this phrase, and try
> to
> > mislead us by making us read the English literally, while knowing that
> the
> > original was not written in English, and the people of the time did
> not have
> > the same idiomatic expressions.
> >
> > For those who disagree, either Heb 7:12 is wrong and Matt 5:17-19 is
> wrong
> > ... OR Jesus is right in John 19 when he says that his saving work IS
> indeed
> > completed. See also Luke 16:16, which says that the law and the
> prophets
> > lasted until John the Baptist.
> >
> > Just a note on Acts 15 - God also refers to circumcision as a
> perpetual
> > covenant in Genesis 17:11-13, to incense as one in Exod 30:8, to the
> > Levitical priesthood as one in Exod 29:9. All these so-called
> perpetual
> > covenants have been done away with at the cross. Just because they are
> > called perpetual covenants does not mean that their purpose will never
> come
> > to an end. Circumcision was for ALL Abraham's generations, yet
> although we
> > are part of that people, circumcision if not necessary for Christians.
> The
> > same goes for the Sabbath.
> >
> > So we can take all the criteria for the passing of the law, and prove
> from
> > the New Testament that these criteria ARE fulfilled, and that the law
> HAS
> > passed away. It's right there in the Bible, if you look around a bit,
> and
> > place things in the broader context of the entire Bible.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Korsman
> > website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
> > blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
> >
> > IC | XC
> > ---------
> > NI | KA
> >
> > add an s before .co.za
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I. B. Wonderin

2006-07-23 22:22:36 UTC

Permalink

"Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:1ZudnavCL_q6c17ZnZ2dnUVZ_s-***@is.co.za...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:B_Lwg.134232$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > Till heaven and earth pass, Korsman, This earth will be destroyed at
the
> > second coming. The new earth will be righteous and sin will not rise
the
> > second time. That hasn't happened, just look at yourself.
>
> That's not what it means. Obviously.
>
> > If the law passed at the cross, why did jesus fuflfill the feast of
> > unleavened bread as he lay in the tomb, why did he rise to become
the
> > wave sheath offering, and fulfill the first fruits at his
resurrection,
> > why was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the fulfilling of
pentecost,
> > the anniversary of the giving of the law... Why is he ministering in
> > heaven as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary pleading his
blood
> > on our behalf in fuflfillment of the law now??? ALL after the
cross!!
>
> All to fulfil the prophecies, the types and antitypes.
>

Then it was not completed at the cross. And your whole argument falls
apart.

Let's watch Korsman continue to argue that it was anyway..

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 23:23:45 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:MESwg.134112$***@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:1ZudnavCL_q6c17ZnZ2dnUVZ_s-***@is.co.za...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:B_Lwg.134232$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > Till heaven and earth pass, Korsman, This earth will be destroyed at
> the
> > > second coming. The new earth will be righteous and sin will not rise
> the
> > > second time. That hasn't happened, just look at yourself.
> >
> > That's not what it means. Obviously.
> >
> > > If the law passed at the cross, why did jesus fuflfill the feast of
> > > unleavened bread as he lay in the tomb, why did he rise to become
> the
> > > wave sheath offering, and fulfill the first fruits at his
> resurrection,
> > > why was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the fulfilling of
> pentecost,
> > > the anniversary of the giving of the law... Why is he ministering in
> > > heaven as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary pleading his
> blood
> > > on our behalf in fuflfillment of the law now??? ALL after the
> cross!!
> >
> > All to fulfil the prophecies, the types and antitypes.
> >
>
> Then it was not completed at the cross. And your whole argument falls
> apart.
>
> Let's watch Korsman continue to argue that it was anyway..

You're clearly confused. Again. Of course it was completed at the cross.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/238/I-B-Wonderin

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Whazit Tooyah

2006-07-23 23:15:27 UTC

Permalink

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:31:50 UTC

Permalink

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
news:6Egwg.1307$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "teresita" wrote in message
news:***@localhost.localdomain...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >
> > I don't know anything about pagan festivals, I will leave that to
Andrew.
> > But biblically the Lord's Day is famous for being that day that Jesus
> > presented St. John with a vision:
> >
> > Rev.1:[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a
> > great voice, as of a trumpet,
> >
> > Teresita
>
>
> Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
> He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Then what*day*
> do you think would be the true and Biblical "Lord's day" ????????

Nowhere does it use the term "Lord's day" to describe the Sabbath. Since
we're talking about a specific name given to a day, that is very relevant.

Mark 2, Matt 12, Luke 6

(Mar 2:23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the
sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of
corn.
(Mar 2:24) And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the
sabbath day that which is not lawful?
(Mar 2:25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he
had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?
(Mar 2:26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the
high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for
the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
(Mar 2:27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the sabbath:
(Mar 2:28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

(Mat 12:1) At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and
his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
(Mat 12:2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy
disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
(Mat 12:3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he
was hungry, and they that were with him;
(Mat 12:4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread,
which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him,
but only for the priests
(Mat 12:5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the
priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless
(Mat 12:6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the
temple.
(Mat 12:7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
(Mat 12:8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
(Mat 12:9) And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
(Mat 12:10) And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And
they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they
might accuse him.
(Mat 12:11) And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that
shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he
not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
(Mat 12:12) How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is
lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

(Luk 6:5) And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the
sabbath.
(Luk 6:9) Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful
on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy
it?

Adventists claim that these passages show that the Sabbath is still in
effect, and Christians are obliged to keep it. They claim that Mark 2:27, in
saying that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, proves
that the Sabbath was not given to Israel alone, but to all mankind.

They are taking the verse out of context. If one goes back and read the
entire passage along with verse 27, one sees that Jesus was not speaking
about whether or not the Sabbath was made for Jews or for all mankind for
all ages and in all places. Jesus was accused of breaking the law in many
places in the Bible, and the Sabbath was one they often picked on him for -
here he is pointing out that the purpose of the Sabbath is to serve man, not
a case of man being made to glorify the Sabbath. By removing the verse from
its context, Sabbath keepers turn the meaning around. This is a
well-documented logical fallacy, called the false dichotomy. The verse, out
of context, is presented as presenting two points (the false dichotomy) -
the Sabbath was made for man, or the Sabbath was made for Jews. But in
context, the actual dichotomy is between the legalist/Pharisee perspective
(the Sabbath was more important than those keeping it) and Jesus'
perspective (the Sabbath was made to serve those keeping it.)

When Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, he was NOT contrasting
mankind with Judaism. He was contrasting the LAW with MAN ... what he was
saying is that the LAW was made to serve MAN, NOT man being made to keep the
law. There is NOTHING about Jews or Israel AT ALL in this text ...
Adventists are reading something into the text that is not there, and, by
removing a statement from its context, making it say something that doesn't
even fit into the actual context at all. The Old Testament is explicit - the
Sabbath was made for Israel, and is explicitly called the sign of the Old
Covenant. We all know that this was abolished at the Cross. And the Old
Testament also tells us clearly that the Sabbath was given to MOSES, and NOT
before the time of Moses. That alone proves that the Sabbath was not given
to ALL mankind, because Adam, Noah, and Abraham never knew of it or kept it.
See the article here for more info on that.

Jesus is not saying that Christians must keep the Sabbath. That is taking
Jesus' words out of context. Does Jesus actually preach anywhere about the
future Christian Church and the laws it must keep? Such an idea is not found
ANYWHERE in this passage, or in the New Testament. What Jesus is doing is
instructing the Sabbath-keeping Jews of his day on how to deal with God's
law. They were legalistic, and put the law above love and mercy. Jesus is
turning that around, and saying that the Sabbath God gave them is not meant
as an end in its own right, but as a means to serve mankind. Jesus is
explaining that the Sabbath is a means for grace and mercy, and not what the
Pharisees made it into - the holy of holies, the final end of Jewish
worship. This principle is equally valid in ALL Christian denominations.
There is nothing at all in the text to suggest that Jesus is proclaiming
that the Sabbath will continue. He is merely using a real problem of the
time to expound a principle of mercy.

Jesus is actually discussing the law as a whole here - my reasoning is
twofold. First, the Pharisees were always trying to find him breaking the
law - the Sabbath, hand-washing, and so forth - and so this is just one of
the several instances where Jesus gives us insight into the true nature and
purpose of the law. Second, Jesus actually gives another example of
law-breaking unrelated to the Sabbath - David was so hungry he ate a certain
bread that could not be eaten by anyone other than the high priest. This has
nothing to do with the Sabbath, yet Jesus uses this example to prove that
the law exists to serve man, not man to serve the law. Based on this, I feel
that Jesus is not promoting the Sabbath at all here, and this passage
actually does not deal with the Sabbath's implications for Christians. All
that Jesus is doing is showing, using two contemporary examples, how the law
is meant to be used. So he is not making a statement at all about who the
Sabbath was given to - Israel versus mankind. The Bible has already spoken
on that - the Sabbath was for Israel. What Jesus is saying - as I see it -
is not about mankind's relationship with the Sabbath, but the relationship
between PEOPLE and the Sabbath - did people have to serve the Sabbath or did
the Sabbath exist to serve the people Jesus was speaking to? And this is
just one of several examples used to show the nature of the law.

What of the statements that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath? Adventists want
the text so say that because Jesus is "Lord even of the Sabbath", it means
that it is his special day. But just go back and read the entire passage -
it actually is saying that Jesus is ABOVE the law, that it is HE who
determines when a law is applicable, and when it is legalistic. Basically,
the text is saying NOT that Jesus' special day is the Sabbath, but that
Jesus is Lord OVER the Sabbath JUST as he is Lord over every other aspect of
nature, the law, and the universe, and he controls it completely.

Circumcision too was made for man, and not man for circumcision.

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

teresita

2006-07-22 19:52:58 UTC

Permalink

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:31:50 +0200, Stephen Korsman wrote:

> Nowhere does it use the term "Lord's day" to describe the Sabbath. Since
> we're talking about a specific name given to a day, that is very relevant.

If God's word uses "the Lord's Day" as another name for the Sabbath, when
the Sabbath is basically man's day (because man was not made for the
Sabbath but the other way around) then God is the author of confusion. But
if the Lord's Day refers to that day the Lord rose to eternal life, then
it makes a great deal of sense.

--
Teresita

http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:35:13 UTC

Permalink

"Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
news:CXhwg.159$***@trnddc05...
>
> "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:6Egwg.1307$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "teresita" wrote in message
> > news:***@localhost.localdomain...
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >>> The term "Lord's day" was used by the devotees of Mithra in the
> >>> early centuries in honor of their Lord the sun god "Mithra," whom
> >>> they addressed as "Dominus" meaning "Lord." It was their weekly
> >>> day, for their sacred festival, in their pagan religion.
> >>
> >> I don't know anything about pagan festivals, I will leave that to
Andrew.
> >> But biblically the Lord's Day is famous for being that day that Jesus
> >> presented St. John with a vision:
> >>
> >> Rev.1:[10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a
> >> great voice, as of a trumpet,
> >>
> >> Teresita
> >
> >
> > Well think about it. If Jesus Christ is the LORD....and He said that
> > He is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:8). Then what*day*
> > do you think would be the true and Biblical "Lord's day" ????????
> >
> The Sabbath was never the "Lord's Day" in the New Testament. The Sabbath
> was made for man, not for the Lord.

Excellent point. Jesus was the Lord of the Sabbath, which was Man's day.

> If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of John and
may
> have written before Revelation, one finds the common usage.

Common usage is not relevant. Evidence - ignore it if it conflicts with
propaganda necessary to defend Adventist beliefs. Don't let the facts
confuse you.

> The Lord's day
> was always the first day of the week, or the eighth day which is also the
> first. The Lord's day is never used as a term for the Sabbath. There are
> several sites on the net with the writings of the first and second century
> church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was centuries before
> Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.

Then how did Constantine invent Sunday keeping, if they kept it centuries
before his time? Don't let the facts confuse you!

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-22 17:39:41 UTC

Permalink

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
news:10pwg.3099$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Whazit Tooyah" wrote in message news:CXhwg.159$***@trnddc05...
>
> > If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of John and
> > may have written before Revelation, one finds the common usage. The
> > Lord's day was always the first day of the week, or the eighth day which
is
> > also the first. The Lord's day is never used as a term for the Sabbath.
> > There are several sites on the net with the writings of the first and
second
> > century church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was centuries
> > before Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.
> > --
> > WT
>
>
> Why go outside the Bible to build your structure? Jesus said "every
plant, which
> My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." In place of the
authority
> of the so-called fathers of the church, God bids us to accept the word of
the true
> Father,the Lord of heaven and earth. In the Bible alone can we be assured
of truth
> unmixed with error.
>
> Jesus gave warning to those who accept the customs of a church, or the
traditions
> of the fathers above the truth of His word when He said..."In vain they do
worship
> Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

There are bad traditions. Jesus describes those here.

There are good traditions. Paul describes those here:

2Th 2:15 KJV Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which
ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The observance of Sunday is one of those. (1 Cor 16:2)

The observance of the Sabbath became one of the bad ones (weak and beggarly
elements) at the Cross. (Gal 4:10-11, Col 2:16)

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 18:52:13 UTC

Permalink

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:ZZKwg.133969$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> news:LBEwg.5726$***@trnddc04...
> >
> > "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:10pwg.3099$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > "Whazit Tooyah" wrote in message news:CXhwg.159$***@trnddc05...
> > >
> > >> If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of
> John and
> > >> may have written before Revelation, one finds the common usage.
> The
> > >> Lord's day was always the first day of the week, or the eighth day
> which
> > >> is
> > >> also the first. The Lord's day is never used as a term for the
> Sabbath.
> > >> There are several sites on the net with the writings of the first
> and
> > >> second
> > >> century church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was
> centuries
> > >> before Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.
> > >> --
> > >> WT
> > >
> > >
> > > Why go outside the Bible to build your structure?
> >
> > This is about as hypocritical as you can get. You color everything
> you say
> > through filter of the writings of Ellen G. White.
> >
> > > Jesus said "every plant, which
> > > My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." In place of
> the
> > > authority
> > > of the so-called fathers of the church, God bids us to accept the
> word of
> > > the true
> > > Father,the Lord of heaven and earth. In the Bible alone can we be
> assured
> > > of truth
> > > unmixed with error.
> >
> > The early church fathers are not authoritative, but they are history.
>
> But it doesn't mean they were teaching or living the Word of God, and
> you do take them as authoritive for you cite their keeping the first day
> of the week as evidence that this was what the Apostles did. However
> where did the Apostles ever make these judgments or change anything as
> is claimed? Where is their words? Where did any of these first century
> writers even claim the apostles had done so?Where is Christ's commands?

Yes, tell us - where are Christ's commands to keep the Sabbath? Where are
the writings that show the Apostles kept the Sabbath?

> You pick from those writings so selectively...
>
> The jewish Historian JOSEPHUS
> "There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians, nor
> any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day
> hath not come!" Notes and Queries on China and Japan (edited by Dennys),
> Vol. 4, Nos. 7, 8, p. 100.

As you note, he was Jewish, not Christian.

> Fifth century:
> "For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the
> sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of
> Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to
> do this." Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289.

Yes, all the Churches kept Sunday, and those in the East continued with the
custom of Sabbath keeping. They never kept it as an obligatory command from
God, however. It was part of their heritage, and it lasted longer there
than in the West. There is nothing wrong with that. But it's not the same
as Adventism.

> The footnote which accompanies the foregoing quotation explains the use
> of the word "Sabbath." It says: "That is, upon the Saturday. It should
> be observed, that Sunday is never called 'the Sabbath' by the ancient
> Fathers and historians."

Quite right.

> > They
> > do tell us what the church believed and practiced in the years shortly
> after
> > the deaths of the apostles. Some of these early fathers were taught
> > directly by the apostles and knew the mind of the apostles and
> understood
> > what they taught in the context of the times.
>
> Sez you..

Sez real historians, not propagandists.

> What happened to all those false teachers and such that the Apostles
> kept warning about???Paul saying not to believe them even though they
> wrote as if in the apostle's names in 2 Thes 2? And saying he knew that
> as soon as he left greivous wolves would enter the flock. Obviously they
> were well able to write and deceive and teach falsely.and appear as
> sheep.

Those were the Gnostics and their associates.

> To the law and the testimony-- if they speak not according to this word
> there is no light in them.

Exactly. Which is why the Old Testament, which limits the Sabbath from
Moses to Christ, doesn't contradict the New Testament, which says the
Sabbath is a shadow of Christ.

And another perfect reason why Ellen White is not some sort of true prophet.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 20:19:52 UTC

Permalink

"alanm" <***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:bxLwg.9928$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:%dLwg.134032$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "alanm" <***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> > news:u9Lwg.9920$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ZZKwg.133969$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:LBEwg.5726$***@trnddc04...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:10pwg.3099$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > > > "Whazit Tooyah" wrote in message
> > news:CXhwg.159$***@trnddc05...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of
> > > > John and
> > > > > >> may have written before Revelation, one finds the common
> > usage.
> > > > The
> > > > > >> Lord's day was always the first day of the week, or the eighth
> > day
> > > > which
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> also the first. The Lord's day is never used as a term for the
> > > > Sabbath.
> > > > > >> There are several sites on the net with the writings of the
> > first
> > > > and
> > > > > >> second
> > > > > >> century church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was
> > > > centuries
> > > > > >> before Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> WT
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why go outside the Bible to build your structure?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is about as hypocritical as you can get. You color
> > everything
> > > > you say
> > > > > through filter of the writings of Ellen G. White.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jesus said "every plant, which
> > > > > > My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." In
> > place of
> > > > the
> > > > > > authority
> > > > > > of the so-called fathers of the church, God bids us to accept
> > the
> > > > word of
> > > > > > the true
> > > > > > Father,the Lord of heaven and earth. In the Bible alone can we
> > be
> > > > assured
> > > > > > of truth
> > > > > > unmixed with error.
> > > > >
> > > > > The early church fathers are not authoritative, but they are
> > history.
> > > >
> > > > But it doesn't mean they were teaching or living the Word of God,
> > and
> > > > you do take them as authoritive for you cite their keeping the first
> > day
> > > > of the week as evidence that this was what the Apostles did. However
> > > > where did the Apostles ever make these judgments or change anything
> > as
> > > > is claimed? Where is their words? Where did any of these first
> > century
> > > > writers even claim the apostles had done so?Where is Christ's
> > commands?
> > > >
> > > > You pick from those writings so selectively...
> > > >
> > >
> > > It wouldn't be of much use to pick from them randomly.
> > >
> >
> > You attack and reply so selectively also, it's like dealing with a
> > leach,
> >
> > I told you years ago that I don't want to be married to you, get off my
> > butt please.
> >
>
> You must be confused with someone else.

No, he's just confused. Or he's confusing you with I. B. Wonderin, both of
them perhaps, who made the following statements:

One day (22 July) he says:

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:UNuwg.177174$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Rome changed the law concerning the Sabbath to the 1st day of the week.
> Rome made laws starting with Constantine and on up through the years.
> Just as those Catholic Catechism quotes I supplied said. The Catholic
> Church claims to have changed the law and the time of the observance of
> the Sabbath Commandment to the first day of the week. Rome says she did
> this in 364AD at the council of Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have
> done any of this lawmaking in the days of the apostles,.

The next day (23 July) he says:

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:GcJwg.133503$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> You are lying again. I already posted to you I acknowledged what you
> posted. I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed the
> Sabbath, I just don't happen to believe it's true, or all that Rome
> teaches about this.

And the same day (23 July) he says:

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:aoOwg.178300$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Stephen Korsman" <***@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
> news:k7KdnS-***@is.co.za...
> "I accept that Rome also teaches that the apostles changed
> > the Sabbath" but "Rome says she did this in 364AD at the council of
> > Laodicea. Rome does not claim to have done any of this lawmaking in
> the days
> > of the apostles,."
> >
> > Sounds confused to me. Sounds like a contradiction.
>
> No it's not.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/238/I-B-Wonderin

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-23 23:40:02 UTC

Permalink

"Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
news:ZaTwg.1899$***@trnddc01...
>
> "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> news:ZZKwg.133969$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > news:LBEwg.5726$***@trnddc04...
> >>
> >> "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> >> news:10pwg.3099$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> > "Whazit Tooyah" wrote in message news:CXhwg.159$***@trnddc05...
> >> >
> >> >> If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of
> > John and
> >> >> may have written before Revelation, one finds the common usage.
> > The
> >> >> Lord's day was always the first day of the week, or the eighth day
> > which
> >> >> is
> >> >> also the first. The Lord's day is never used as a term for the
> > Sabbath.
> >> >> There are several sites on the net with the writings of the first
> > and
> >> >> second
> >> >> century church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was
> > centuries
> >> >> before Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.
> >> >> --
> >> >> WT
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Why go outside the Bible to build your structure?
> >>
> >> This is about as hypocritical as you can get. You color everything
> > you say
> >> through filter of the writings of Ellen G. White.
> >>
> >> > Jesus said "every plant, which
> >> > My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." In place of
> > the
> >> > authority
> >> > of the so-called fathers of the church, God bids us to accept the
> > word of
> >> > the true
> >> > Father,the Lord of heaven and earth. In the Bible alone can we be
> > assured
> >> > of truth
> >> > unmixed with error.
> >>
> >> The early church fathers are not authoritative, but they are history.
> >
> > But it doesn't mean they were teaching or living the Word of God, and
> > you do take them as authoritive for you cite their keeping the first day
> > of the week as evidence that this was what the Apostles did. However
> > where did the Apostles ever make these judgments or change anything as
> > is claimed? Where is their words? Where did any of these first century
> > writers even claim the apostles had done so?Where is Christ's commands?
> >
> > You pick from those writings so selectively...
>
> See quotes below to see his hypocrisy.
>
> >
> > The jewish Historian JOSEPHUS
> > "There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians, nor
> > any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day
> > hath not come!" Notes and Queries on China and Japan (edited by Dennys),
> > Vol. 4, Nos. 7, 8, p. 100.
>
> quote continues:
> "and by which our fasts and lighting up lamps, and many of our
prohibitions
> as to our food, are not observed;" (the quote by I.B.Wonderin actually
ends
> in a comma, not an exclamation mark)
>
> Indicates the there was Jewish influence and wherever the Jews went they
> practiced Jewish Law. History indicates that Sabbath observance was
> occurring, but that it was not widespread.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Fifth century:
> > "For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the
> > sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of
> > Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to
> > do this." Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289.
> > The footnote which accompanies the foregoing quotation explains the use
> > of the word "Sabbath." It says: "That is, upon the Saturday. It should
> > be observed, that Sunday is never called 'the Sabbath' by the ancient
> > Fathers and historians."
>
> In Context:
> And among various nations there are other usages, for which innumerable
> reasons are assigned. **Since however no one can produce a written command
> as an authority, it is evident that the apostles left each one to his own
> free will in the matter, to the end that each might perform what is good
not
> by constraint or necessity.** Such is the difference in the churches on
the
> subject of fasts. Nor is there less variation in regard to religious
> assemblies. For although almost all churches throughout the world
celebrate
> the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of
> Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased
to
> do this. The Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the
> inhabitants of Thebaïs, hold their religious assemblies on the sabbath,
but
> do not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among Christians
in
> general: for after having eaten and satisfied themselves with food of all
> kinds, in the evening making their offerings they partake of the
mysteries.
>
> Talk about selective citing... You should take out a patent.

Don't forget changing Exodus 16:28 from

How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? (KJV)

to

How long refuse you to keep my Sabbaths? (I. B. version)

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/239/I-B-Wondering-2

He should write the Clear Word Bible edition 2.

> >> They
> >> do tell us what the church believed and practiced in the years shortly
> > after
> >> the deaths of the apostles. Some of these early fathers were taught
> >> directly by the apostles and knew the mind of the apostles and
> > understood
> >> what they taught in the context of the times.
> >
> > Sez you..
>
> Great argument!
>
> >
> > What happened to all those false teachers and such that the Apostles
> > kept warning about???
>
> You mean like Joseph Smith, Charles Russel, Ellen G. White, Mary Baker
Eddy
>
> > Paul saying not to believe them even though they
> > wrote as if in the apostle's names in 2 Thes 2?
>
> You mean like Joseph Smith, Charles Russel, Ellen G. White, Mary Baker
Eddy
>
> > And saying he knew that
> > as soon as he left greivous wolves would enter the flock. Obviously they
> > were well able to write and deceive and teach falsely.and appear as
> > sheep.
>
> You mean like Joseph Smith, Charles Russel, Ellen G. White, Mary Baker
Eddy
>
> >
> > To the law and the testimony-- if they speak not according to this word
> > there is no light in them.
>
> You mean like Joseph Smith, Charles Russel, Ellen G. White, Mary Baker
Eddy

Maybe Ellen White's errors are just as bad as Paul's errors. That idea is
the in thing these days in Adventism.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/226/Bacchiocchi--Some-things-Paul-wrote-are-unacceptable

"Would it not have been wiser for Paul to keep his personal opinion to
himself? Undoubtedly Paul did not foresee the problems his personal advice
would cause during the course of Christian history."

"Frankly, I wish that the Holy Spirit had restrained Paul from expressing
his personal views ..."

"What this means is that we do not reject Paul's writings and discredit his
ministry because some of the things he wrote are unacceptable."

That's why God could reveal to her that 1843 was the true date for Christ's
return, and later reveal to her that 1844 was the true date for Christ's
return.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-24 18:43:13 UTC

Permalink

See below - I. B. Wonderin appears to be Cindy.

"I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
news:7Y3xg.55505$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> news:ZaTwg.1899$***@trnddc01...
> >
> > "I. B. Wonderin" <***@groups.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZZKwg.133969$***@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Whazit Tooyah" <***@ofg.net> wrote in message
> > > news:LBEwg.5726$***@trnddc04...
> > >>
> > >> "Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:10pwg.3099$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >> > "Whazit Tooyah" wrote in message
> news:CXhwg.159$***@trnddc05...
> > >> >
> > >> >> If one reads the early church fathers who were cotemporaries of
> > > John and
> > >> >> may have written before Revelation, one finds the common usage.
> > > The
> > >> >> Lord's day was always the first day of the week, or the eighth
> day
> > > which
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> also the first. The Lord's day is never used as a term for the
> > > Sabbath.
> > >> >> There are several sites on the net with the writings of the
> first
> > > and
> > >> >> second
> > >> >> century church fathers. Study it out for yourself. This was
> > > centuries
> > >> >> before Constantine and the council of Nicea BTW.
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> WT
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Why go outside the Bible to build your structure?
> > >>
> > >> This is about as hypocritical as you can get. You color everything
> > > you say
> > >> through filter of the writings of Ellen G. White.
> > >>
> > >> > Jesus said "every plant, which
> > >> > My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." In place
> of
> > > the
> > >> > authority
> > >> > of the so-called fathers of the church, God bids us to accept the
> > > word of
> > >> > the true
> > >> > Father,the Lord of heaven and earth. In the Bible alone can we be
> > > assured
> > >> > of truth
> > >> > unmixed with error.
> > >>
> > >> The early church fathers are not authoritative, but they are
> history.
> > >
> > > But it doesn't mean they were teaching or living the Word of God,
> and
> > > you do take them as authoritive for you cite their keeping the first
> day
> > > of the week as evidence that this was what the Apostles did. However
> > > where did the Apostles ever make these judgments or change anything
> as
> > > is claimed? Where is their words? Where did any of these first
> century
> > > writers even claim the apostles had done so?Where is Christ's
> commands?
> > >
> > > You pick from those writings so selectively...
> >
> > See quotes below to see his hypocrisy.
> >
>
> ??????
>
> > >
> > > The jewish Historian JOSEPHUS
> > > "There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians,
> nor
> > > any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh
> day
> > > hath not come!" Notes and Queries on China and Japan (edited by
> Dennys),
> > > Vol. 4, Nos. 7, 8, p. 100.
> >
> > quote continues:
> > "and by which our fasts and lighting up lamps, and many of our
> prohibitions
> > as to our food, are not observed;" (the quote by I.B.Wonderin actually
> ends
> > in a comma, not an exclamation mark)
> >
>
> I quoted it as written and cited in the book above, perhaps that is what
> is meant by 'edited by Dennys"???
> But thanks for finding the context.
>
>
> > Indicates the there was Jewish influence and wherever the Jews went
> they
> > practiced Jewish Law.
> >
>
> Surely the Jews weren't evangelizing a whole lot after 70 AD and the
> insuing persecutionsagainst the survivors, nor even before that???
> Let's stick to facts.The Gospel went to the world, via the Christians.
> We don't read about any Jewish revivals during those days.
>
> >History indicates that Sabbath observance was
> > occurring, but that it was not widespread.
>
> What history would that be?
>
> "There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians, nor
> any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day
> hath not come"
>
> or this from socrates eclesiastical history in the fifth century:
> "almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the
> sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week"

You've already cited the following evidence, which puts the practice nicely
in context:

From the Council of Laodicaea:

CANON XLIX.
DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and
on the Lord's Day only.

CANON LI.
The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and
Lord's days

If you're claiming that these people kept the Sabbath as you do, you have to
claim that Catholicism did too, because it's the same degree of observance
described. If you're claiming that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath
from Saturday to Sunday, you need to explain why they are mentioned side by
side as two separate events, both being given special treatment.

The fact is that the Catholic Church then (and today) held the Sabbath in
high esteem. Otherwise they would not be giving it special treatment. The
same holds true for the Eastern Christians, today known as Orthodox, but
back then united as one group. None of them, however, considered it to be
more than a part of their heritage worth giving special treatment. You will
find NO evidence that they were Sabbath keepers in the way Adventists are.

> or here's another:

No, it's not another, it's the same one.

> > > Fifth century:
> > > "For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the
> > > sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of
> > > Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse
> to
> > > do this." Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chap. 22, p.
> 289.

[ ... ]

> Just like earlier in this thread when I asked you a specific biblical
> question and you responded with :"Catholic hater!" instead of a biblical
> answer....

Ummm ... no, that describes you. You get asked a specific biblical
question, and you respond with anti-Catholic rhetoric instead of discussing
what the Bible says.

> That's why I don't think I'll be continuing here as this kinda thing is
> just a waste of time.
> You know what they say about wiping your feet, and moving on, or pearls
> before swine.
>
> ~ Cindy ;-)

Cindy ?!?!?!?!?!

So I. B. Wonderin is Cindy!!

That explains a lot. Cindy has a history of Susan/Ted-like behaviour.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-20 19:58:43 UTC

Permalink

"Andrew" <***@usa.net> wrote in message
news:qWEvg.648$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Doug" wrote in message
news:***@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Paul says that the Sabbath was but a shadow of things
> > to come, and let no man judge a Christian about a
> > Sabbath in Colossians Chapter 2.
> >
> > Doug
>
> James Cardinal Gibbons says, "You may read the Bible from Genesis to
> Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the
sanctification
> of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday,
> a day which we [Roman Catholics] never sanctify"
> Faith of Our Fathers, p.111
>
> "Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Command-
> ments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the
Church
> CHANGE the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer
> yes. Did Christ change the day'? I answer no!"
>
> "Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons"
> James Cardinal Gibbons,
> Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in
a signed letter

Yet you will never get an official statement from the Catholic Church saying
such absurd things.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

"The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles

"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."

Pope John Paul II wrote in Dies Domini:

20. According to the common witness of the Gospels, the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead took place on "the first day after the Sabbath"
(Mk 16:2,9; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1). On the same day, the Risen Lord appeared to
the two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Lk 24:13-35) and to the eleven Apostles
gathered together (cf. Lk 24:36; Jn 20:19). A week later, as the Gospel of
John recounts (cf. 20:26), the disciples were gathered together once again,
when Jesus appeared to them and made himself known to Thomas by showing him
the signs of his Passion. The day of Pentecost, the first day of the eighth
week after the Jewish Passover (cf. Acts 2:1), when the promise made by
Jesus to the Apostles after the Resurrection was fulfilled by the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4-5), also fell on a Sunday. This
was the day of the first proclamation and the first baptisms: Peter
announced to the assembled crowd that Christ was risen and "those who
received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). This was the epiphany of the
Church, revealed as the people into which are gathered in unity, beyond all
their differences, the scattered children of God.

The first day of the week

21. It was for this reason that, from Apostolic times, "the first day after
the Sabbath", the first day of the week, began to shape the rhythm of life
for Christ's disciples (cf. 1 Cor 16:2). "The first day after the Sabbath"
was also the day upon which the faithful of Troas were gathered "for the
breaking of bread", when Paul bade them farewell and miraculously restored
the young Eutychus to life (cf. Acts 20:7-12). The Book of Revelation gives
evidence of the practice of calling the first day of the week "the Lord's
Day" (1:10). This would now be a characteristic distinguishing Christians
from the world around them. As early as the beginning of the second century,
it was noted by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, in his report on
the Christian practice "of gathering together on a set day before sunrise
and singing among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god".(19) And when
Christians spoke of the "Lord's Day", they did so giving to this term the
full sense of the Easter proclamation: "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil 2:11;
cf. Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 12:3). Thus Christ was given the same title which the
Septuagint used to translate what in the revelation of the Old Testament was
the unutterable name of God: YHWH.

Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday

This is an e-mail I wrote in response to a request for commentary got from
Robert Sanders, who has a ministry for Adventists at his website
http://www.truthorfables.com/ - his words are in green, my reply is in
black.

Thanks for offering me the chance to explain how we Catholics feel about the
Sabbath / Sunday "change."

If I understand the Catholic position correctly, they say the Pope did not
change the Seventh Day Sabbath to Sunday. They contend this was done by the
Apostolic Church and there is no record of a "Pope" making the change, but
it was done on authority of the Catholic Church.

Yes, that is pretty much the Catholic position summed up. We do, however,
also hold to the idea that Sunday observance is biblical, and the origins
are referenced in the New Testament (texts like Heb 4, Col 2, Rom 14, Gal 4,
Acts 20, 1 Cor 16 and others.)

One must just be careful in defining one's terms.

One person might say, "The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath" and another
might say, "The Apostles changed the Sabbath" and depending on their
background, they might mean the same thing, or they might be disagreeing
with each other.

Some terms, as used by Catholicism in general, of interest:

- Catholic Church - this refers to the Church as begun by Christ and led by
the Apostles after Pentecost
- Apostolic Church - this is a synonym for the Catholic Church during the
time when the Apostles were alive
- post-Apostolic Church - the Catholic Church once the last Apostle had died
- papacy - the office of Peter instituted in Matt 16:18, and continued in
his successors
- pope - the occupant of the papacy, beginning with Peter in the first
century

I do not expect you to AGREE with these terms or accept the theology we
Catholics accept. All I ask is that when you read Catholic texts written by
Catholics, you TRY to understand what we are saying, instead of applying
YOUR definitions for these words to something WE have written.

For instance, if a Catholic said, "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION" (quotes
from the original e-mail I am responding to) then this needs to be
understood using Catholic definitions, in order to know what the Catholic
means and understands. He is, therefore, NOT saying that Sunday observance
began in 300 AD or 600 AD or whenever it might be that a Protestant feels
the "Roman Catholic Church" <incorrect name, in fact> came into existence.
What the Catholic is actually saying with "SUNDAY IS A CATHOLIC INSTITUTION"
is that Sunday observance is something that came from the Catholic Church -
without specifying era - and he would, in good conscience, say EXACTLY the
same of the decision in Acts 15 about circumcision - he would claim that
THAT TOO was a "Catholic institution" because that IS how he sees the early
Christian Church - as Catholic.

What often happens, then, is that Catholics claim authorship to Sunday
observance because they believe the Apostles began Sunday observance and
they view the Apostles as the first Catholic leaders, but when Adventists
hear these words, they grab them and remove their context and actual
meaning, and make it seem as if the Catholic Church is claiming that Sunday
observance was begun by a group which the Adventists define as the Catholic
Church, and NOT the Apostolic Church.

That said, I must differentiate between THREE types of texts that can be
used as evidence.

1. Statements by Catholics that a) agree with Catholic teaching but b) are
not official sources of Catholic teaching
2. Statements by Catholics that disagree with Catholic teaching
3. Statements that constitute official Catholic teaching

I have almost NEVER seen Adventists quote official Catholic teaching on the
issue of the Sabbath. (Simply because it would destroy what they want people
to believe we teach.) On the rare occasion, one will quote the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, and even more rarely, they will quote it in context.
Virtually ALL of the quotes they offer to support their view, are quotes of
type 2 (not real Catholic teaching) or type 1 quotes where context and the
author's intent have been abused.

Examples of texts of type 3 (official Catholic teaching) include:
- the Bible (Catholics DO view the Bible as an official source of truth)
- the Catechism of the Catholic Church
- papal encyclicals
- Council documents (e.g. from the Council of Nicaea, or the Council of
Trent) - these include catechisms, decrees, canons, letters, etc produced by
the council in question
- other official Vatican documents intended to convey or explain Catholic
teaching

Examples of texts of type 1 (agree with Catholic teaching but the text
itself is not authoritative) include:
- ALL Catholic newspapers
- ALL Catholic periodicals not published by the Vatican (and most which are,
e.g. their tax report)
- books with "Imprimatur" printed in front (this is only permission to
print, and says nothing about accuracy of content)
- books with "Nihil obstat" printed in front (this means that the book is
considered to be faithful to Catholic teaching by the local bishop, NOT that
the book is an official source of Catholic doctrine)
- many books whose titles contain the word "Catechism"
- my website (hopefully, I try to make it agree with Catholic teaching as
far as I can)

Examples of type 2 texts, which disagree with Catholic teaching, include:
- the abundant quotes referenced from the Catholic Mirror newspaper
- other similar texts

Note: I have, on record, Adventist pastors who tell me that the Bible
contains errors, that a lot of what Paul said we need not obey, that it was
merely opinion. I have Adventist pastors who have told me that Ellen White
is indeed infallible and has not erred, that she was inspired by God and
that her writings CAN RIGHTLY be used to interpret difficult passages in the
Bible (and by logical extension, faulty ones if the Bible contains error.)
Do THESE quotes constitute "official Adventist teaching" just because they
come from the mouth of an Adventist pastor? I doubt it. These statements
would fall into the type 2 category I described above. By taking type 1 and
type 2 statements and removing context, a strong straw-man case can be made
for the opposing position - as long as the reader is kept ignorant of the
true nature of these texts, and never shown any type 3 (official) texts
which show authentic teaching of the respective denomination. I will send,
just after this, a case study I have put together on this, which will
hopefully demonstrate the error in the pseudo-Catholic propaganda that many
Sabbatarians spread.

For a full view of Catholic teaching on the origins of the observance of
Sunday, and the removal of the Sabbath observance, I recommend you read the
papal encyclical Dies Domini, written by the current Pope. It can be found
on my website, at http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/jp2dies.html

If this is true, then Ellen White is wrong in saying it was changed by "THE
POPE."

Ellen White would have defined the term "the pope" differently to
Catholics - she would likely have meant someone other than the Apostle
Peter, someone who lived much later in Christian history. She should name
him, and she does not. See also the Catholic Insight web page Ellen White,
F.P. (False Prophet)
(http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/white.htm) to see how
Ellen White prophesied falsely on this matter of the imaginary 4th century
change to Sunday.

It is interesting that the SDA Church cannot put a name on the Pope that
made the change.

That IS interesting :-> Certainly it shows that they are prepared to make
claims, but can't give details when the claims are questioned by informed
questioners.

Please visit the following site to view actual historical Christian quotes
about their Sunday observance dating to long before 300 AD:
ttp://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za