The Lord's Day

In rural African extended families, the terms mother, father, brother and sister extend well beyond what they mean in western society, to include uncles, aunts and cousins. Elder men are respectfully addressed as Baba (Father) and matron women as Mama -- even those not blood related. It is not practical to try to unravel exact African family relationships by these terms.

This probably applies to Galilee in the time of Christ?

Thread here

Extended Holy Family

The Gospels, Acts, and some of the Epistles mention Jesus' extended family. There was of course Mary, his mother. Joseph, his (step-)father. James the Just is mentioned as a brother of Jesus. John the Baptist, his cousin. Who else is there? More uncles and aunts and cousins? Are the "Sons...
www.interfaith.org www.interfaith.org
 
Last edited:
moralorel said:
Sooooo you used a non-scriptural example to assure me that the Catholic church uses scripture for doctrine.
Click to expand...
If you read my post again ... yes, the doctrine in question might not be spelled out in Scripture, but then we are a religion of the spirit, not the letter (2 Corinthians 3:6).

The Jews and later Christians saw multiple meanings in Scripture – the literal, moral, analogical and anagogical. The proviso says that a 'spiritual' reading should not contradict a literal reading.

However, even a literal reading has to be taken in context: Mark 9:4, Matthew 18:6 Luke 17:2 says we should drown those who cause others to sin, it would even endorse suicide ... at the least it condones self-harm as a means of repentance.
 
moralorel said:
1. I think she is the only one I have ever met. I wish I was joking.
Click to expand...
You have my sympathy.

moralorel said:
2. She acknowledged that doctrine sometimes contradicted scripture.
Click to expand...
Sadly she's mistaken there ...

moralorel said:
But that the verses provided were the only ones important. The rest were laws for the Jews. Of course, since I was a child I have had priests telling me that the OT laws were "for the Jews". So that wasn't really new.
3. But I assume this is where Catholic tradition (traditions of men) supercede laws from Jesus.
Click to expand...
But they don't.

moralorel said:
4. I know I'm a broken record, but these aren't my claims.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, it's whether the claims are valid. So far, not.

moralorel said:
You couldn't verify one.... so I guess they're all lies.
Click to expand...
Well all those deriving from the same source are questionable.

moralorel said:
OR you're struggling with the truth.
Click to expand...
Nope. Really, I respond to your claim, you just bounce on to another claim without considering the response.

I've offered Scriptural validation for the idea that Christ is our Sabbath, you haven't addressed them.

moralorel said:
The Catholic church changed the Lord's Day on its own authority, not scriptural authority.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

The phrase "the Lord's day" appears only once in Scripture, (Revelation 1:10).

The Christians regarded Sunday, the first day of the week, as the day of Resurrection. Jesus declared Himself "Lord of the Sabbath".

Furthermore, Paul said: "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17) and "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature [creation]." (Galatians 6:15).

Isaiah said this:
If you refrain from trampling the sabbath, from pursuing your own interests on my holy day; if you call the sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honourable; if you honour it, not going your own ways, serving your own interests, or pursuing your own affairs; then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of your ancestor Jacob, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken. (58:13-14)

Isaiah clearly saw that honouring the spirit of the sabbath was what counted – and on the Lord's Day, when we recall His birth, life, death and resurrection, then that is honouring the Lord, who is Lord of the Sabbath ... ergo, the Lord's Day is a Sabbath day,
 
Thomas said:
Well, not the most illustrious moments from our history ... but I don't really see the relevance to the discussion.
Click to expand...
the relevance is in habituation of the practice
Thomas said:
But they're not contra-Biblical, are they? Nor contra the Spirit of Message of Christ:
"John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. For he that is not against you, is for you." (Mark 9:38-39).
Click to expand...
Likewise:
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Thomas said:
But many find it enabling ... so I would ask for an extension of charity.
Click to expand...
And I do, and have, many times, and will continue. However, extension of charity does not infer my silence, nor denial of my own understanding
 
Thomas said:
"Some dramatic consequences followed from the destruction of the Temple. The first one was the birth of two new religions, rather than one. Side by side with the birth of Christianity, the appearance of Rabbinic Judaism after 70CE, and its growth in the following centuries represents a real mutation of the religion of Israel: indeed, a religion now without sacrifices, a religion whose priests were out of business, in which religious specialists had been replaced by the intellectual elite. In a way, early Christianity, a religion centred upon a sacrificial ritual celebrated by priests, represents a more obvious continuity with the religion of Israel than the religion of the Rabbis."
Click to expand...
Christianity was never meant to be an extension or change of Judism. God has plans for Israel, they are still His chosen people. Christianity is simply getting back to a belief of FAITH. Christianity is not a religion in the sense of religions. It is a relationship individually with God.
 
RJM said:
In rural African extended families, the terms mother, father, brother and sister extend well beyond what they mean in western society, to include uncles, aunts and cousins. Elder men are respectfully addressed as Baba (Father) and matron women as Mama -- even those not blood related. It is not practical to try to unravel exact African family relationships by these terms.

This probably applies to Galilee in the time of Christ?
Click to expand...
Perhaps....but something about the "half-brother" excuse doesn't seem correct. If James was older, that suggests Joseph was a divorcee (and it would be scandalous for a divorcee to marry a "pure" young woman). Or else Joseph was a widower. And absolutely if James is younger, then clearly Mary is no longer virgin.

None of this impacts my faithwalk, just a curious aberration in interpretation as far as I'm concerned. As I understand the Jewish view, what is interpreted as "virgin" was basically a young, unwed woman.
 
Last edited:
I rather like this one as a response on why I worship how I worship.


Romans 4: 13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

And even more so

Romans 8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.[a] 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you[b] free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,[c] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

This to me is Liberty in Christ that I hold to.That in recognizing that nothing I do in the flesh pleases God but what I do in faith is accounted to me for righteousness. But like J23 says about banging on what I think it says but am I living what the Word says? Again.. I try to. If not I'm sure I will be confronted with it when I face my Lord.
 
If not I'm sure I will be confronted with it when I face my Lord.
Click to expand...
G!d knows His, He knows who makes the sincere attempt. He knows those who are given to sin vs those who struggle with sin. None of us is perfect, doesn't mean we shouldn't try - while being forgiving of ourselves when we fall short.

Seems I remember someone around here preaching "we are not punished for our sins, we are punished by our sins." < @wil >

Hard to argue with that.
 
Thomas said:
If you read my post again ... yes, the doctrine in question might not be spelled out in Scripture, but then we are a religion of the spirit, not the letter (2 Corinthians 3:6).

The Jews and later Christians saw multiple meanings in Scripture – the literal, moral, analogical and anagogical. The proviso says that a 'spiritual' reading should not contradict a literal reading.

However, even a literal reading has to be taken in context: Mark 9:4, Matthew 18:6 Luke 17:2 says we should drown those who cause others to sin, it would even endorse suicide ... at the least it condones self-harm as a means of repentance.
Click to expand...
Yes, but your argument is that the doctrines are based off of scripture... and then you abandoned scripture. "Spirit of the law" doesn't mean "abandon scripture and follow your own dogma spiritually".

So Jesus showing a vision of Him standing with Elijah and Moses.... means we are literally supposed to drown others who cause someone to sin? I see where our problem is. You and I see the term "literally" in a far far far far different way. Matthew 18:6? You already know what that verse is literally saying. That the punishment for a person who intentionally causes someone else to fall away from Jesus will be worse than if they were drown to death. But a vision of Elijah and Moses means we should start drowning people? You're scaring me.
 
Thomas said:
LOL, I forgot you were a literalist!
Click to expand...
It's the foundation of your stance. Lord's Day is supposedly on Sunday. If that's not true, then your stance is invalid. And Good Friday becomes an example of a non-scriptural Catholic tradition. Sooooooo was Jesus crucified on Friday afternoon and resurrected Sunday morning? If not, when?
 
Thomas said:
Sadly she's mistaken there ...


But they don't.


Irrelevant, it's whether the claims are valid. So far, not.


Well all those deriving from the same source are questionable.


Nope. Really, I respond to your claim, you just bounce on to another claim without considering the response.

I've offered Scriptural validation for the idea that Christ is our Sabbath, you haven't addressed them.


Wrong again.

The phrase "the Lord's day" appears only once in Scripture, (Revelation 1:10).

The Christians regarded Sunday, the first day of the week, as the day of Resurrection. Jesus declared Himself "Lord of the Sabbath".

Furthermore, Paul said: "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17) and "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature [creation]." (Galatians 6:15).

Isaiah said this:
If you refrain from trampling the sabbath, from pursuing your own interests on my holy day; if you call the sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honourable; if you honour it, not going your own ways, serving your own interests, or pursuing your own affairs; then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of your ancestor Jacob, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken. (58:13-14)

Isaiah clearly saw that honouring the spirit of the sabbath was what counted – and on the Lord's Day, when we recall His birth, life, death and resurrection, then that is honouring the Lord, who is Lord of the Sabbath ... ergo, the Lord's Day is a Sabbath day,
Click to expand...
1. She's not mistaken.
2. Yes, and even the Catholic church has admitted this. If you really think that Christmas, Easter, Purgatory, celibate priesthoods, engraving heavenly objects, the reverance of these same images, Sunday worship, going to Heaven after death, priests having the title of "father", forgiveness being granted by priests, praying to dead people, Mary veneration, and infant baptisms are scriptural... then you must have a Bible that tells people to drown sinners when they see visions of Elijah and Moses.
3. We've been over this before. You told me a couple months ago that quotes from Catholic websites, Catholic encyclopedias, Catholic priests, Catholic professors, Catholic cardinals, Catholic bishops, and Catholic popes are not valid claims. You still haven't explained why. You did previously say that I could follow the Catholic catechism. But the catechism also claims that the Catholic church changed the Sabbath to Sunday by its own authority. So now I guess I just have to believe whatever you say. How can you not see why your argument is highly suspect to me? Evidence against your claims, even from YOUR OWN CHURCH, are "invalid".
4. I "bounce" to another claim? When? My claim is that the Catholic church changed the Sabbath by their own self-given authority. Claim... has... not... changed! I literally quoted the Catholic church in doing so. No bouncing here.
5. Validation for Christ being the Sabbath? I don't disagree. Jesus is also our Passover. By being the Sabbath and the Passover, that obviously means that Saturday worship changed to Sunday.... how? Of course, then Passover just went away for the same reason I guess.

I don't disagree that the Lord's Day is the Sabbath. My claim didn't bounce to something else. I claim that scripturally it is still Saturday. Your church has plenty of people who have agreed. Take it up with them.... and get rid of the catechism because it disagrees with you too.
 
moralorel said:
Yes, but your argument is that the doctrines are based off of scripture... and then you abandoned scripture.
Click to expand...
OK. Can we discuss one example, else this is going nowhere.

moralorel said:
"Spirit of the law" doesn't mean "abandon scripture and follow your own dogma spiritually".
Click to expand...
Your opinion, not mine. I can justify my position, I'm wondering if you can?

moralorel said:
... means we are literally supposed to drown others who cause someone to sin?
Click to expand...
Let's please stay on point. A literal reading of the texts in question would suggest just that, wouldn't it?

moralorel said:
I see where our problem is. You and I see the term "literally" in a far far far far different way.
Click to expand...
OK. Can you explain what you mean by 'literally'?

You seem to be saying unless it's literally spelled out, it's a made-up doctrine.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Acts20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together ato break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.8 There were many lamps in bthe upper room where we were gathered

1 Corinthians 16:1–2
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 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

As I understand breaking bread was referring to the Lords Supper. I feel like the Apostolic church congregated together on the first day of the week. The Catholic church did not just make this up. I dont see how 2000 years of church history God would allow to be so wrong if it was wrong.

Edited as i accidentally hit post lol
 
Last edited:
moralorel said:
It's the foundation of your stance.
Click to expand...
No, it's not – I read according to the traditional 'Four Senses of Scripture'.

That tradition itself derives from Judaism, and like Judaism, Christianity is a belief in Scripture and Tradition – the latter clearly in the distinction between the written Torah and the oral Torah.

The Church teaches "The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

So the belief in Scripture and Tradition goes hand in hand.

moralorel said:
Lord's Day is supposedly on Sunday. If that's not true, then your stance is invalid.
Click to expand...
But there's no supposed about it.

moralorel said:
And Good Friday becomes an example of a non-scriptural Catholic tradition. Sooooooo was Jesus crucified on Friday afternoon and resurrected Sunday morning? If not, when?
Click to expand...
Well if we follow Scripture, we're not sure what day of the week the crucifixion was, the later tradition assuming a Friday, from the reading of the Synoptic text, whereas John offers an alternative which would make it Thursday. All agree the resurrection was on a Sunday.

Likewise, we hold to the 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John' when it comes to the Gospels, although we know this is a 2nd century tradition, without definitive Scriptural affirmation. Catholic dogmatic statements refers to 'the authors' and maintains anonymity.

Generally, scholars follow John as the more accurate, which coincidentally affirms the three days in the tomb.
 
Faithfulservant said:
As I understand breaking bread was referring to the Lords Supper.
Click to expand...
"Breaking bread" was simply a meal, nothing more.

Acts 20 was a going away party and Paul got long winded. Somehow that was converted into justification for the change of the day finalized by Constantine in 321ad.

Much to my chagrin Christians of my acquaintance are woefully uninformed of the history of their faith. They don't know, and they don't want to know, and the institution(s) don't encourage learning that history. I've already shown plenty that should make a thoughtful person at least take another look...but most Christians dismiss it all with a wave of the hand and no consideration at all. Jews are Jews, they don't deserve any consideration, they are those weird people who do all those crazy things and have those weird Holy Days and they don't know what they are talking about....that is the usual thought process, with only minor variations, by people who are otherwise absorbed in the cares of the world like paying bills and which school to send their kids to.

A person who knows it all already cannot be taught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top