The Lord's Day

[juantoo3]

Having researched the Christmas thing ... I find my idea that it's based on Judeo-Christian mystical speculation doubtful, so that's kicked that one into touch.


However, the research also kicks the Roman/Sol Invictus thing into the long grass too ...

No surprise to me, you and I had already looked at that previously. It was about a generation after Nicea that the first documented Christian Christmas is known, well after Constantine was dead. There is no historic note of that holiday prior to that time.

As for Natalis Solis Invicti...there isn't any denying the association with Yule. The original reason for the season.

 

[moralorel]

Why are you referencing such old materials? Suffice to say scholarship has moved along since.


Yes ... we speak English over here.


That's the English/German term, not applicable to the Romance languages ...

The Eastra connection is from the Venerable Bede in the 8th century. Given the determination with which Christians combated all foreign deities as 'pagan', Bede's opinion is dismissed by modern scholars.

It's more likely the term derives from the Latin alba ('dawn') and became eostarum in Old High German.

So if the Catholic church says something, but it was a few years ago, it is no longer valid (at least for doctrine?). But it's all common sense to most of us. Most of us. Pretty much every Christians knows that Christmas and Easter have Pagan origins.

The Encyclopedia Britannica still says the same thing today.

Christmas | Origin, Definition, Traditions, History, & Facts

Christmas, Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus. The English term Christmas (“mass on Christ’s day”) is of fairly recent origin. The earlier term Yule may have derived from the Germanic jōl or the Anglo-Saxon geōl, which referred to the feast of the winter solstice. The...

www.britannica.com

Nat Geo: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-christmas-has-evolved-over-centuries

I know you like to dismiss any facts that go against your beliefs (especially if your own church says them), but do you have any facts to the contrary? Can you prove that these festivals are biblical and NOT Pagan? Of course not.

 

[moralorel]

Well Jesus decreed He was Lord of the Sabbath, so any celebration of 'his' day is, technically, a Sabbath ... and as Scripture speaks of a New Covenant, and 'a new creation' – so it's a case of whether one has to be told, or thinks for themselves ...

Once again you demonstrate your inability to provide concrete examples, but you sure do demand them. You just gave me another lazy argument. Your entire sentence is just grasping at straws to find credibility. Nowhere does the Bible ever say that the Sabbath changed to Sunday, something your own church has stated many times. The tradition of the Sabbath starts right away in Genesis and goes right to the end without a single scripture that says it changed. No scripture says that a celebration of Jesus makes that day a Sabbath. Nowhere does it say that there is some new creation that changed the day.

Jesus didn't even know that His own day would be on Sunday, because in His own prophecy He brought up the Sabbath, "And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath" (Matthew 24:20)

So in the end times Jesus hopes that a follower's time to flee persecution doesn't come during the Sabbath (using the literal word for 7th day) and He didn't think to say it would be Sunday? Or maybe Jesus is worried that a person fleeing will, through bad luck, chose a bad day for a Sabbath? But if a person is fleeing on Sunday, can't they just decide that Thursday is the Sabbath instead? You would think Jesus of all people would have thought of this.

Or what about the prophecy from Isaiah about the end times and the warning not to pervert the Sabbath?

Isaiah 56:1 Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

How long is forever? So God's definition of "forever" means that it's not forever?
It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed’” (Exodus 31.17,

There is one biblical figure who agrees that we should change the times and laws. Just one that I can see.
"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. " Daniel 7:25

 

[moralorel]

It derives from the Christian practice? I don't see what the issue is?

What 'disturbs' you?

I don't see a point in arguing about it for a couple reasons. 1. It's off subject. 2. There is a lot of speculation. However, I'll answer your question. It appears it began in Egypt and became popular after Alexander the Great invaded. Somehow it became an acceptable holiday where people ran around drunk, naked, and sacrificed animals. It's even possible that on the day we call "Fat Tuesday" that we would perform human sacrifice. I find all of that disturbing for a holiday that is tied to Jesus's resurrection (Carnival, Lent, and then Easter). But truly we don't know for sure if these holidays are all intertwined. But in my opinion they probably are.

You can read the following article, but it will admit that we don't know for sure. But if you research the holidays that possibly inspired Carnival, they don't pain a moral picture. The article itself admits it's a Pagan holiday adopted by the Catholic Church.

2023 ▷ The ORIGIN and HISTORY of CARNIVAL ✔

✅ What is the origin and history of carnival? Here we leave you a master class of history that you will not forget, history of the carnival ✅

www.carnivaland.net

 

[Thomas]

Once again you demonstrate your inability to provide concrete examples, but you sure do demand them.

Oh, I'm sorry ... let me restate that for you.

"Well Jesus decreed He was Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1–8, Mark 2:23–28 and Luke 6:1–5). so any celebration of 'his' day is, technically, a Sabbath (common sense) and as Scripture speaks of a New Covenant (Hebrew 8:6-13 cf Jeremiah 31:31-34), and 'a new creation' (Galatians 6:15, 2 Corinthians 5:17) ...

... so it's a case of whether one has to be told, or thinks for themselves (cf Galatians 6:12-16, 2 Corinthians 5:14-19, Ephesians 2:11-22, Ephesians 4:17-24 and Colossians 3:1-11)

Remembering Christ is the 'New Adam': "For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) There's an extended text on death, sin and the Law under Adam, and the retitution of humanity under the new Adam in Romans 5.

Matthew 1:1 says "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" but that could also be read "The book of the creation of Jesus Christ ... " – 'genesis' carries both meanings.

So that should be enough example for you to get your teeth into.

In response, hearsay and opinion does not stand as an adequate presentation of the Christian faith, let alone an adequate critique. The Catechism, Ott's Fundamentals if you want the background ... at least you'll be on firmer ground.

Your entire sentence is just grasping at straws to find credibility.

Excuse me, but your very sources lack credibility.

The tradition of the Sabbath starts right away in Genesis and goes right to the end without a single scripture that says it changed.

The issue is, we don't live by the letter, we live by the spirit ...

 

[moralorel]

Oh, I'm sorry ... let me restate that for you.

"Well Jesus decreed He was Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1–8, Mark 2:23–28 and Luke 6:1–5). so any celebration of 'his' day is, technically, a Sabbath (common sense) and as Scripture speaks of a New Covenant (Hebrew 8:6-13 cf Jeremiah 31:31-34), and 'a new creation' (Galatians 6:15, 2 Corinthians 5:17) ...

... so it's a case of whether one has to be told, or thinks for themselves (cf Galatians 6:12-16, 2 Corinthians 5:14-19, Ephesians 2:11-22, Ephesians 4:17-24 and Colossians 3:1-11)

Remembering Christ is the 'New Adam': "For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) There's an extended text on death, sin and the Law under Adam, and the retitution of humanity under the new Adam in Romans 5.

Matthew 1:1 says "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" but that could also be read "The book of the creation of Jesus Christ ... " – 'genesis' carries both meanings.

So that should be enough example for you to get your teeth into.

In response, hearsay and opinion does not stand as an adequate presentation of the Christian faith, let alone an adequate critique. The Catechism, Ott's Fundamentals if you want the background ... at least you'll be on firmer ground.


Excuse me, but your very sources lack credibility.


The issue is, we don't live by the letter, we live by the spirit ...

Where does it say that any celebration of "His" day is a Sabbath? Jesus is also our Passover. So that means any day is now Passover? Doesn't sound like common sense. I don't dispute that He said He was our Sabbath. He is our rest, according to scripture.

Still looking for that scripture that says the day changed to Sunday. Now you say it can be any day. Which is it? Why didn't Jesus know this? I pointed out that Jesus hoped that His people wouldn't have to flee on the Sabbath. I know you hate staying on point, but why would Jesus say such a thing when we can just change the Sabbath to be any day. One smart guy on the internet told me that "hearsay and opinion does not stand as an adequate presentation of the Christian faith", so take his advice.

Jesus wasn't "created" at birth as He already said He existed before. No new creation. You already know this. Quoting scriptures about baptism doesn't mean that there was a new creation. That doesn't make any sense. Try this thing you call "common sense".

You keep saying that my sources lack credibility.... because you say so. One smart guy on the internet told me that "hearsay and opinion does not stand as an adequate presentation of the Christian faith", so take his advice. I already quoted the Catechism to you multiple times. It says that the Catholic Church changed the day to Sunday on its own authority. Secular experts (Brittanica, Nat Geo, etc.), several Catholic leaders, and even the Catechism say this. You have dismissed these sources for no reason (oh, some were old, but the new versions are still wrong) and now you are saying that I have to read Ott's fundamentals. Um, isn't that an old source?

“Express scriptural proofs are lacking" -Ludwig Ott-

I used his book as a source on the Catholic Church's stance on evolution.

 

[moralorel]

Wow! Not only does Ott not support your position on the matter, he declares that the councils and bishops are infallible. Therefore the Catholic quotes from bishops and councils that I provided are infallible. Not once does Ott argue for a Sunday resurrection nor does he give any scriptural backing for Sunday as the Lord's Day.

It's ok. You already decided, by your authority, that old sources are wrong. Ott died a long time ago. He was just a priest anyway. So I guess he's wrong too. I'll add him to the list of Catholic authors and authority who are wrong. Just Thomas from the internet is correct. Bishops are, according to Ott, the replacements for the apostles. What would they know?

Oh, and Ott's bibliography is full of old sources. I believe, according to you, that he is now disqualified.

Could you give me the specific time period that I am allowed to source? That would help so much.

 

[moralorel]

I just did a search on understanding the "Lord's Day" according to Catholic doctrine. The first Catholic site I went to started off by recommending my book from Cardinal Gibbons. *Sigh*

 

[Thomas]

Wow! Not only does Ott not support your position on the matter, he declares that the councils and bishops are infallible.

Wow! You are so wrong!

Example:
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra. The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. (p10 emphasis mine)

 

[Thomas]

Where does it say that any celebration of "His" day is a Sabbath?

As I said ... any time one rests in God, that's spiritually a sabbath – Jesus says so.

Roman Catholics are (hopefully) not literalists.

Nor are Catholics Jews. There's a New Adam, a New Covenant, a New Creation ... hence no need for circumcision, and so on.

I'm sorry you don't like it. But really, your argument that all Christians have first and foremost be Jews is unsound.

One smart guy on the internet told me that "hearsay and opinion does not stand as an adequate presentation of the Christian faith", so take his advice.

LOL, I'll take his advice over yours ...

Jesus wasn't "created" at birth as He already said He existed before. No new creation. You already know this. Quoting scriptures about baptism doesn't mean that there was a new creation. That doesn't make any sense. Try this thing you call "common sense".

I'll rather Scripture over your ideas about 'common sense'
Oh, give me patience ...
2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new."

 

[moralorel]

Wow! You are so wrong!

Example:
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra. The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. (p10 emphasis mine)

“The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful" -Ludwig Ott-

"It has been the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times that the resolutions of the General Councils are infallible." -Ludwig Ott-

Both are from the book you told me to read. Ott did in fact say these things. I just double checked.

You keep giving me sources that disprove your claims. Then you just brush them aside as wrong.

 

[moralorel]

As I said ... any time one rests in God, that's spiritually a sabbath – Jesus says so.

Roman Catholics are (hopefully) not literalists.

Nor are Catholics Jews. There's a New Adam, a New Covenant, a New Creation ... hence no need for circumcision, and so on.

I'm sorry you don't like it. But really, your argument that all Christians have first and foremost be Jews is unsound.


LOL, I'll take his advice over yours ...


I'll rather Scripture over your ideas about 'common sense'
Oh, give me patience ...
2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new."

Lazy argument again. No verse states that resting in God makes a day a Sabbath. I see you conveniently ignore my points and verses that kill your point.

No verses that say we are under some new creation. Adam failed. Jesus did not. No new creation. Your verses are about baptism (shedding the old man). That is what your verses speak about quite plainly. No new creation. Asking for verses that show a transfer of the Sabbath is NOT being a literalist. Even your own recommended sources agree that there is NO verse that shows a transfer of the Sabbath. The Catholic Church made the change on their own accord. Your church says so and so do your own sources. Refusing to grasp at straws does NOT make me a literalist.

The problem here is that I am using not only your own church's advice, but YOUR advice and sources... yet you keep grasping at straws trying to find some sort of last breath to your argument.

 

[RJM]

No verses that say we are under some new creation. Adam failed. Jesus did not. No new creation. Your verses are about baptism (shedding the old man). That is what your verses speak about quite plainly. No new creation. Asking for verses that show a transfer of the Sabbath is NOT being a literalist. Even your own recommended sources agree that there is NO verse that shows a transfer of the Sabbath. The Catholic Church made the change on their own accord. Your church says so and so do your own sources. Refusing to grasp at straws does NOT make me a literalist.

Paul was the first Christian writer, before the gospels were completed. Christ left mankind His church, as a force able to adapt, not locked in by the 'dead word' of literal scripture; not trying to live upon the dead wood of the shell of the nut, but nourished by the life-giving contents. With all its faults it is the Catholic church that has been the rock of ages, against which hell has launched many assaults, but never succeeded. imo

Roman Catholics are (hopefully) not literalists.

Nor are Catholics Jews. There's a New Adam, a New Covenant, a New Creation ... hence no need for circumcision, and so on.

I'm sorry you don't like it. But really, your argument that all Christians have first and foremost be Jews is unsound.

Thanks for this @Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Both are from the book you told me to read. Ott did in fact say these things. I just double checked.

OK, first off, I apologise, I reacted too quickly.

But Ott is more nuanced than perhaps you realise.

Ott says:
"Possessors of the Infallibility are the Pope and the whole Episcopate, that is, the totality of the Bishops, including the Pope, the Head of the Episcopate."
And goes on to explain:
"The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra."
And
"The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful."

I apologise, as I said, I was hasty – the declarations of the Councils we do regard as infallible when they are so declared. Not every council declares everything 'infallible'.

The point that I over-reacted to was 'the councils and bishops are infallible' – that would lead to an incorrect assumption without context.

Under strict guidelines, the rule of infallibility applies – but what any individual bishop says is not infallible, nor is it necessarily correct. The same can be said, by the way, for popes. We've had heresiarch popes before now ...

You keep giving me sources that disprove your claims. Then you just brush them aside as wrong.

No, I explain your misunderstandings.

 

[Thomas]

Lazy argument again. No verse states that resting in God makes a day a Sabbath.

I know ... it's a spiritual insight, soundly founded and declared (cf Matthew 11:29).

No verses that say we are under some new creation.

2 Corinthians 5:17 – "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.”

+++

Now I have more pressing concerns, my friend, and this is just walking round in circles.

 

[moralorel]

I know ... it's a spiritual insight, soundly founded and declared (cf Matthew 11:29).


2 Corinthians 5:17 – "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.”

+++

Now I have more pressing concerns, my friend, and this is just walking round in circles.

And you're the one steering it in circles.

 

[moralorel]

Paul was the first Christian writer, before the gospels were completed. Christ left mankind His church, as a force able to adapt, not locked in by the 'dead word' of literal scripture; not trying to live upon the dead wood of the shell of the nut, but nourished by the life-giving contents. With all its faults it is the Catholic church that has been the rock of ages, against which hell has launched many assaults, but never succeeded. imo


Thanks for this @Thomas

Not any evidence to the contrary of my original point.