Did Most Early Christians Believe The Divinity of Christ?

[Thomas]

I think that pretending to know when you do not is dangerous.

I think a sense of infallibility is equally a danger

 

[FrankSophia]

I think a sense of infallibility is equally a danger

If I'm in error then I will thank you for pointing it out.

It is not a boast to say I've been shown much, but it is a waste if it dies with me.

 

[juantoo3]

Don't disagree ... just the implication that it was directly because of the Catholic Church.

In short, I think you're over-simplifying, casting the Catholic Church as your villain.

Who else was in a position of power and authority over the greater part of Europe at the time?

The title "Holy Roman Emperor" comes to mind.

Your response doesn't really negate my comments. The Catholic Church during this period of time discouraged the laity and common people (that would include the merchant class for the most part) from "learning," unless and until a specific individual had explicit endorsement of local Church authority - typically that was in a Monastery. Scholarship was not available to the masses...as it had been prior and would not return until the Bible became available in the vernacular.

 

[FrankSophia]

Your response doesn't really negate my comments. The Catholic Church during this period of time discouraged the laity and common people (that would include the merchant class for the most part) from "learning," unless and until a specific individual had explicit endorsement of local Church authority - typically that was in a Monastery. Scholarship was not available to the masses...as it had been prior and would not return until the Bible became available in the vernacular.

Up until Baghdad became popular Constantinople was the center of education.

Rome basically just collected taxes in the midst of extreme widespread poverty, any suggestion these were blessed people is absurd.

 

[FrankSophia]

When Rome banned the Greek philosophers they went into Islam and gave us the Sufi's, which would then enter the Dharma traditions and give us Bhakti.

The Renaissance was essentially fueled by the end of the Golden Age and the subsequent return of those same philosophy texts back to the West but we still owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Arab world for keeping them safe for a while else they'd all be lost today.

Truth finds a way but worldly power has no interest in it.

 

[juantoo3]

Up until Baghdad became popular Constantinople was the center of education.

Rome basically just collected taxes in the midst of extreme widespread poverty, any suggestion these were blessed people is absurd.

?????

ALL peoples are made in the image of G!d. ALL peoples.

What is absurd is the judgmental presumption there is only one path, and that one is on that specific sole and only path.

It's not what you believe....it is what you do with what you believe.

 

[FrankSophia]

ALL peoples are made in the image of G!d. ALL peoples.

If it was simply so by default there would be no need for teachings to get us there...

Certainly I accept that all have the potential to become such images.

What is absurd is the judgmental presumption there is only one path, and that one is on that specific sole and only path.

1 Corinthians 2:12-16

There are many paths but one peak.

It's not what you believe....it is what you do with what you believe.

We always act on our beliefs, so the distinction is invalid.

This is why it's important that our beliefs relate to actual reality, yet truth is nowhere else.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

...
53. Wherefore let the remainder understand in their places that is not appropriate for me, having been in the realm of repose, to anything further. But it is within his heart that I shall be--forever devoted to The Father of the totality, together with those true Brothers upon whom pours the Love of The Father and among whom there is no lack of him.
These are they who are genuinely manifest, being in the True and Eternal Life and speaking the Perfect Light which is filled with the seed of The Father, and who are in his heart and in the fullness and in whom his Spirit rejoices, Glorifying him in whom they exist. His good and his Sons are perfect and worthy of his Name. For it is children of this kind that he The Father desires.
+++ THE END +++
- gospel of truth -

I don't know .. I'm not an expert.
Lots of people pray (or ask for intercession) to other than the Father.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think most of the early Christians did.

The "Gospel of Truth" is not really an early writing; it already contains the vocabluary and the Neo-Platonic thoughts of the Gnostics Bardesanes and Valentian, mid 2nd Century CE.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Was the belief in the divinity of the Son already mainstream with early Christians, before the Nicea Council in AD 325? Or was Rome responsible for basically imposing upon early Christians a belief in the divinity of Christ?

Plinius the younger (1st Century) writes,

They (Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but of an ordinary and innocent kind

But this is an outside view of a pagan Roman. Among the 1st century scriptures - the epistles of the NT, the epistle of barnabas, the didache, there is no hint that prayers were directed to Jesus. Prayers I found in the late 1st century Epistle of Clement, and in the early 2nd century Pastor of Hermas, prayers are directed to God, the Father.

The earliest source that fuses Father and Son, fomulating a mixed prayer to both (assumed a unity) I have found is in Clement of Alexandria, later 2nd century:

Be kind to Your little children, Lord; that is what we ask of You as their Tutor, You the Father, Israel’s guide; Son, yes, but Father as well. Grant that by doing what You told us to do, we may achieve a faithful likeness to the Image and, as far as is possible for us, may find in You a good God and a lenient Judge.
May we all live in the peace that comes from You. May we journey towards Your city, sailing through the waters of sin untouched by the waves, borne tranquilly along by the Holy Spirit, Your Wisdom beyond all telling. Night and day until the last day of all, may our praises give You thanks, our thanksgiving praise You: You who alone are both Father and Son, Son and Father, the Son who is our Tutor and our Teacher, together with the Holy Spirit.

The habit to pray to Jesus (s.a.w) and to Mary (a.s) precedes the Nicean period.
I have not read all 2nd century Christian literature, there may have been others who practised this as well, and I cannot present any statistics on whether a minority or a majority of Christians worshipped Jesus (s.a.w).

The first document of a prayer directed to Mary dates from the 3rd century.

 

[juantoo3]

It's not what you believe....it is what you do with what you believe.

We always act on our beliefs, so the distinction is invalid.

Hardly. If this were so there would be no need for religion, philosophy or moral teachings. Even animal morality has a "taught" component, and while some can learn from the mistakes of others they see around them, some must commit the crimes that riddle their conscience.

 

[RJM]

Plinius the younger (1st Century) writes: ... it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but of an ordinary and innocent kind

The interesting thing about this Pliny the younger passage is that he is defending the Christians by making clear that the food is of an ordinary and innocent kind -- to go against the idea that Christians practiced cannibalism -- the body and blood (of Christ) which charge was used against them to justify the atrocities of Nero (and others) as described by Tacitus:

Spoiler: Tacitus on Christ

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Tacitus on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...His characterization of "Christian abominations" may have been based on the rumors in Rome that during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the ritual as cannibalism ..."

The passages indicate that Christians from the earliest times were already practicing the Eucharistic sacrament of the body and blood of Christ

 

[Thomas]

Plinius the younger (1st Century) writes,

But this is an outside view of a pagan Roman...

But he went to some length to ascertain an understanding of what the Christians were about.

Pliny says ‘before dawn on a stated day and singing alternately a hymn to Christ as to a god’ (stato die ante lucem carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum inuicem). These words indicate a liturgical form.

The ‘fixed day’ may be taken as referring to the Christian ‘Sunday’, rather than the Jewish Sabbath. The oath may well be a recitation of the Decalogue, modelled on Sabbath worship in the synagogue.

An alternative suggestion is that the oath relates to the baptismal confession upon entry into the faith.

Different interpretations have been given to the term 'carmen' in the phrase carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum inuicem. Some see a recitation of a Psalm, again modelled on a Sabbath service. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho argues the Psalms having a Christological significance endorsing the idea that Jesus be worshipped as ‘God and Christ’.

'Secum inuicem' suggests a call-and-response, again such as antiphonal responses sung in Jewish services, however, the evidence of early Christic hymns in the Pauline literature (Colossians and Philippians) might indicate a specifically Christian psalm. Whether sung or spoken is unclear. The plain meaning of dicere (‘to say’, ‘to declare’) would suggest the latter. However, the usage by Latin authors offers evidence. Horace uses the noun and verb on two occasions:
In Carmen seculare
When the words of the Sybil have commanded
A choir of chosen virgins and chaste young boys
To chant a hymn (dicere carmen) to the gods
who are gladdened by our seven hills
(lines 5-8)

and in Odes 4, 12: ad Virgilium:
They are singing (dicunt) as they lie on the yielding grass
Keeping their fattening sheep and playing their pipes (carmina fistula lit. 'pipe songs')
(lines 9-10)

Both Latin usage and later Christian commentary and practice support the idea that Pliny's brief account signals the practice of the hymnodic and probably antiphonal singing, the adoration of Christ 'as to a God'.

 

[juantoo3]

The ‘fixed day’ may be taken as referring to the Christian ‘Sunday’, rather than the Jewish Sabbath. The oath may well be a recitation of the Decalogue, modelled on Sabbath worship in the synagogue.

May be, and may not be. What need for Constantine (200 years later) to issue a civil order mandating Sunday if Christians were all worshipping on that day already?

Seems to me in the time of Pliny, Christians were not so far removed from their Jewish roots, and likely would have kept the Commanded day of rest already traditionally called the Sabbath, i.e. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. Paul, staunch Pharisaic traditionalist that he is, would not have taught differently.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

May be, and may not be. What need for Constantine (200 years later) to issue a civil order mandating Sunday if Christians were all worshipping on that day already?

Seems to me in the time of Pliny, Christians were not so far removed from their Jewish roots, and likely would have kept the Commanded day of rest already traditionally called the Sabbath, i.e. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. Paul, staunch Pharisaic traditionalist that he is, would not have taught differently.

I have the impression that the role of Constantine in Christian history is often over-estimated. The change was that Christian leaders around him started to define majority practice and impose it to be binding. But all of that existed before.

There were probably practices celebrating on Sunday, some still on Saturday (the Ethiopians celebrate both). Constantine, or a council around him, said that this should be unified, and opted for Sunday, which was probably the majority practice in the time.

 

[Thomas]

May be, and may not be.

Most likely, though. Justin Martyr, writing 30 years later, treats Sunday worship as a given. Evidence suggests Jewish-Christians observed the Jewish Sabbath and then their own day on the Sunday.

What need for Constantine (200 years later) to issue a civil order mandating Sunday if Christians were all worshipping on that day already?

Sunday was a normal workday in the Roman empire. Constantine decreed it as a day of rest.

Seems to me in the time of Pliny, Christians were not so far removed from their Jewish roots, and likely would have kept the Commanded day of rest already traditionally called the Sabbath, i.e. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. Paul, staunch Pharisaic traditionalist that he is, would not have taught differently.

Well Acts indicates Christians meeting on Sunday, (Acts 20:7), as does 1 Corinthians 16:2.

Colossians 2:14-17: "He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. In this way, he disarmed the spiritual rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross. So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality.”
Romans 14:5-6, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord..."

There was probably Sunday and Saturday worship, and the Bishops brought it all into line.

 

[juantoo3]

Sunday was a normal workday in the Roman empire. Constantine decreed it as a day of rest.

???

Sunday was the day of worship of Sol Invictus.

As much as you know I admire and have spent a great deal of time and effort looking into Constantine, you know he conducted his affairs as Emperor as a Pagan. His coinage from the period show him in relation to Sol Invictus (among other established Pagan attibutes), as a "good" Roman Emperor should.

borrowed image

You and I had this discussion before, long ago in the history thread, easy enough to dig back up. Perhaps a memory jog in that I mistakenly attributed this change of the day to Nicea (instead of the change from Passover to Easter as it actually was) and you corrected me in reminding that Constantine unilaterally pushed the civil change from Saturday to Sunday *prior to* Nicea (321 a.d.), and all of which tied in to Constantine's documented anti-Semitism.

Well worth reviewing: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/8875/post-152090

That is where your contributions pick up, and it wasn't far after the part of the discussion I am referencing

Constantine was sympathetic to Christianity, but he wasn't converted until practically on his deathbed.

So while it may be advantageous and expedient for some to promote that Christians, even most of them, have always worshipped on Sunday, I don't buy it. Constantine's unilateral decree tells me at least some...and I would be inclined to think a significant number if not majority...were keeping the Jewish Sabbath even around 313 a.d. (Milvian Bridge), and considering Paul's Pharisaic teachings I would be inclined to think the Jewish Sabbath circa 100-120 a.d. was the norm, not the exception.*

And we already in the history thread delved into the anti-Semitism current underlying Nicea and the official pronouncements...that was circa 325 a.d. Pliny the younger died 112 a.d. and Tacitus died in 120 a.d., so 200 years separate the two events.

*I am going to add here this is a significant split. I realize long standing custom among Christians, but there was never any decree or even suggestion of changing the Sabbath in the New Testament. Any reference was to keeping it and honoring it, and the Sabbath to be honored as interpreted by Jesus was the Jewish Saturday Sabbath, as it had been since Moses received the Ten Commandments, referencing the 6 days of Creation and the 7th day of rest...G!d didn't rest on the 8th day per Genesis, the 8th day was the day He created ha-Adam. Paul would never dream of changing that.

In short, G!d did not change the Sabbath for Christians....men did.

I would even invite you to show me wrong...show me anywhere in the New Testament, by anyone, where the change from Saturday to Sunday was Divinely ordered.

These are the kinds of alterations that provide the Paul detractors and others with fuel to feed the "Hellenization" conspiracies. And redoubling insistence only adds to that. This is emblematic of what I pointed to the other day, in that I approach from a Jewish perspective, BECAUSE JESUS WAS A JEW. Trying to reverse engineer from a Roman perspective results in the appearance of Paul corrupting the message, which isn't the case. Rome corrupted the message.

It is what it is. At this point there isn't any sense in levelling any accusations or pointing fingers. A fervent believer who knows no different will be able to answer with a clear conscience.

I know better. And even if I don't faithfully observe, my heart does observe, and my words will reinforce what my heart understands.

 

[juantoo3]

Well Acts indicates Christians meeting on Sunday, (Acts 20:7),

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

This isn't a Sabbath. It is a dinner party turned philosophical gab session, and Paul was on a roll. Doesn't make it the Sabbath.

as does 1 Corinthians 16:2.

2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Again, not a Sabbath, not even a hint of one.

Look at Genesis and the days of Creation. Look at the Ten Commandments as given to Moses. It wasn't the first day, it was the last (7th) day that was commanded to be kept Holy.

Colossians 2:14-17: "He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. In this way, he disarmed the spiritual rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross. So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality.”

Colossians 2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ

Romans 14:5-6, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord..."

Romans 14:1-3:
14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

There was probably Sunday and Saturday worship, and the Bishops brought it all into line.

Que sera, sera

 

[juantoo3]

Genesis 2:1-3:
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

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.
----
Exodus 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.

(So they were already observing the Sabbath in the Wilderness prior to the Ten Commandments...look up the Manna, and how it did not keep to the next day - except for the Sabbath.)
----
Exodus 20:8-11:
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.
----

 

[juantoo3]

None of the above post was done away with.

At this point you and I are pretty well stuck in our grooves. I don't expect you to change, and I'm not about to change.

I bet you're a pretty decent person in real life, and I'd buy you a beer anytime.

It's not about what you believe, it is about what you do with what you believe.

 

[Thomas]

So while it may be advantageous and expedient for some to promote that Christians, even most of them, have always worshipped on Sunday, I don't buy it.

OK ... But there is ample evidence in support of the Lord's Day observance:

“But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned” (Didache 14 70AD).

“We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 74AD).

“[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death” (Letter to the Magnesians 8 110 AD).

“But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead” (First Apology 67 155AD).

“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [ie. Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven” (Didascalia 2 225AD).

“Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection” (Origen Commentary on John 2:28 229AD).

“The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished” (Victorinus The Creation of the World 300AD).

"They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things” (Eusebius of Caesarea Church History 1:4:8 312AD).

“[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality” (Eusebius of Caesarea Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 319AD).

“The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honour the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation” (Athanasius On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 345AD).

I agree with you in that later texts show a continuation of (or perhaps a reprise of) Sabbath observance – and definitely I can see in these text a somewhat polemical edge!

“Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean” (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 4:37 350AD).

“Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians” (Council of Laodicea Canon 29 360AD).

“[W]hen he [God] said, ‘You shall not kill’ . . . he did not add, ‘because murder is a wicked thing.’ The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath— ‘On the seventh day you shall do no work’—he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? ‘Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make’ [Ex. 20:10-11]. . . . For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: ‘You shall not kill. . . . You shall not commit adultery. . . . You shall not steal.’ On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition” (John Chrysostom Homilies on the Statutes 12:9 387AD).

“You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?” (John Chrysostom Homilies on Galatians 2:17 395AD).

“The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, forasmuch as the law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath” (John Chrysostom Homilies on Philippians 10 402AD).

“Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian” (Augustine The Spirit and the Letter 24 412AD).

“It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’ [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing’ [Gal. 5:2]” (Pope Gregory I Letters 13:1 597AD).