/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Sabbath is Saturday, but Christians do not observe Sabbath, because we are a new creation, just like Christ's humanity was on Sunday and as the Lord began the act of creation on Sunday.

CCC 2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ

https://www.gotquestions.org/worship-on-Sunday.html

>>833213

It's always been sunday, since christianity and judaism finished their separation.

>>833215

>Sabbath is Saturday,

Not according to the Catholics. Catholics keep the Sabbath on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday is the day the Christ rose from the dead, and that was the first day of the new covenant with the Lord's Church.

Jews kept the sabbath on Saturday, the last day, and that has ended.

>>833225

>Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week

The Catechism says otherwise

>Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath (CCC 2174)

So Sunday follows the sabbath, it is not sabbath

>Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath (CCC 2175)

So Sunday is "distinguished" from sabbath, it is not sabbath

>Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death (CCC 2175)

So we observe Sunday, not sabbath, Sunday is not sabbath

>The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday (CCC 2190)

Sunday replaces sabbath, it is not sabbath

>>833258

>>833225

I don't really give weight to Catechisms and any decree by men based on their interpretation of the Scriptures. The final authority is only the OT and NT

My research / studies is still in the beginning stages, so don't expect anything substantial when you decide to "correct" me

>>833213

This is a matter that ought to be referenced back to the authority that gave the Sabbath. In the Old Testament we see that the sabbath was given to be in the seventh and last day of the week, but not only that, but a whole calendar was set up at the same time along with this. Included was the mention of the tenth day of the seventh month being a sabbath [Leviticus 23:32], which would not always be the on seventh day of the week every year. Furthermore the Law gives every seventh year the name of being a sabbath year in its entirety. So the seventh-day sabbath was the most frequent occurrence of a holy day in this calendar, but not alone. It was possible to have multiple sabbaths in a row, such as may have happened during the Good Friday-Saturday-Resurrection Sunday.

With that first principle in mind, it makes sense that God would be able to give our Savior for us in the sense as it says in Colossians 2–

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 days:

Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

And also Paul writing to the Romans, chapter 14:

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

—

So rightly it may be said now to "Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him". As he has given us his commandment by the apostles in the New Testament, we identify ourselves as always resting in the Lord, so fulfilling the calendar and the Law wholly in Christ.

As far as meeting on Sunday, this is sourced from Paul mentioning meeting on the first day of the week the collection of the saints in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. But this however, is not of the same character as the Sabbath days of the Law. The church (local assembly) can meet and assemble as regularly as they like. As we see from the above passages given from Colossians 2 and Romans 14.

As far as Sabbatarians, the doctrinal violation does not lie in meeting on Saturdays or keeping the day holy, but in judging against those who do otherwise contrary to what Scripture and particularly the New Testament tells us. In particular, compulsory sabbatarianism is a form of Judaizing, because it denies in practice the fulfillment of the ceremonial Law in Christ, see Hebrews 7-9 in particular for more on this. Judaizing teaches that some part of the Ceremonial Law must be kept as though the blood of Christ were not sufficient to clean or as though it hadn't happened, and as though Christ were not the total fulfillment of those things. Sabbath falls under that because of what the Apostle Paul says in Colossians 2:16-17 and Romans 14:1-6— also Hebrews 9:6-10. Meanwhile the Moral Law is consistently reaffirmed, as seen in Romans 13:8-10, Ephesians 6:2, etc.

The Sabbath is Saturday. In the NT, Sunday is still called the first day of the week. It didn't change into the Sabbath. It's definitely fair to say that the First Day is special in it's own right, simply for being the first day of Creation, as well as Resurrection of Christ.. but that still doesn't mean it's a day of rest. God didn't rest on these days. Quite the opposite. He did his most extraordinary work.

In fact, in the book of Acts, you see Apostles still keeping the Sabbath too. Such as Paul on his journeys entering the synagogues on Sabbath. Funnily, you even have one instance where the Gentile listeners were so impressed with Paul that they asked him to come back again on the next Sabbath: "the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." - Acts 13:42. Which begs the question: If Sunday was more important, he could have simply said "Why wait until next week? You can hear me tomorrow." Instead, he waited a whole week and a bigger crowd met him at the synagogue on the following Sabbath (Acts 13:44). Paul was a working man (a tentmaker). He had to manage his time for that, else he'd go hungry. I'm sure he wanted two days off, but that was hardly realistic in the ancient world.

Sunday in the modern sense comes from Constantine. And it had nothing to do with Christ, but Sol Invictus ("Sol" meaning Sun obviously), which was a Mithraic/Sun worshipping cult.

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost." - Sunday law 321 AD

Somehow that got blended with the Church, but God didn't command you to do this. A Roman emperor did.

And just to mention, I'm not an Adventist. I just find this issue very questionable.

>>833267

>In fact, in the book of Acts, you see Apostles still keeping the Sabbath too. Such as Paul on his journeys entering the synagogues on Sabbath. Funnily, you even have one instance where the Gentile listeners were so impressed with Paul that they asked him to come back again on the next Sabbath: "the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." - Acts 13:42. Which begs the question: If Sunday was more important, he could have simply said "Why wait until next week? You can hear me tomorrow." Instead, he waited a whole week and a bigger crowd met him at the synagogue on the following Sabbath (Acts 13:44). Paul was a working man (a tentmaker). He had to manage his time for that, else he'd go hungry. I'm sure he wanted two days off, but that was hardly realistic in the ancient world.

Ties into >>833223

Of course they would preach in the synagogues on Saturday, when the followers of the Way would still be ambigously part of the Synagogue for another 30 years or so.

>>833261

>I don't really give weight to Catechisms

>Asks theological questions on an image board

Kek, this is actually a good representation of protestants. "Ew, church fathers and apostolic tradition? Nah, a fat German monk is right what I want!"

But anyway, why would you even ask anyone questions if you don't care about opinion of men? Unless you are told something directly from God, there's always going to be this human aspect, wether it's going to be you or someone else.

>>833279

> Nah, a fat German monk is right what I want!"

Didn't once say this.

>if you don't care about opinion of men?

Didn't say that.

>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

>Aristotle

But while we're here, can we have an honest discussion about the Catechisms. It seems like the add-on to the Word of God.

From a Buddhist perspective, Early Christianity was like Theravada, as close to the origiinal source and Catholicism is to Christianity what Mahayana is to Buddhism.

It definitely spread the buddha's teachings but with it came localize theocratic flavours (Pure Land, etc). I see Catholicism as such. And in fact the denominations that delineates and add's on the original Word of God.

Why do we stray when the Scripture is there? Why do we need a Middleman to interpret the Word? Can we have a direct relationship with God without the Middle men?

>>833265

So what you're saying is…

Keep holy the sabbath but also acknowledge the Lord's Day (Sunday)?

>>833327

Yes, and remember that Jesus has sanctified every day.

>>833326

>Why do we stray when the Scripture is there?

In Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he writes–

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [1 Corinthians 2:9-14]

So then it's clear that people who have not received the Spirit of God will not be able to understand.

As Paul said above, those who have received the Holy Ghost will be able to understand those things.

As the Lord Jesus taught in the gospel:

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. [John 14:16-17]

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. [John 14:26]

—

As he also explained further in John 16:13-16.

>Why do we need a Middleman to interpret the Word? Can we have a direct relationship with God without the Middle men?

The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). For this reason the word of God states that whosoever believes in the Son of God shall not come into condemnation, but has everlasting life and is passed from death unto life (John 5:24, John 3:16).

Therefore it is given to those that believe that they should be indwelled with the Holy Spirit in order to receive instruction from God in his word. Without this guidance, the natural man is lost, as we saw above, so it requires faith by the Word of God first, in order to be saved and receive his Spirit. See for example:

>Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. [2 Corinthians 1:21-22]

>In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. [Ephesians 1:13-14]

>And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. [Ephesians 4:30]

>But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. [1 John 2:27]

>And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. [Acts 5:32]

As Jesus himself, who is the faithful witness, said:

>>If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? [Luke 11:13]

Also we see that understanding the scripture is under God's control from the passage at the end of the gospel of Luke:

>Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, [Luke 24:45]

So then does it make sense to do anything but pray and plead toward God for understanding here? After all, He gave us His word in completion (2 Timothy 3:16-17). All scripture is given by inspiration of God for those purposes. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (verse 17). If the man of God is made perfect therefore by all scripture, then there is no need of any middle man. This first calls for belief, as written in Hebrews 11:6-

<But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

>>833279

Maybe Baptists, at most. There are no other Protestants who dismiss church fathers. And most have their own catechisms and confessions as well.

You don't have to like them, but you should at least learn about them.

.