Where does the Bible say...

[theefaith]

Did HE say "you Peter"or did HE say :this", Revelation a sure and steady rock unlike Peter. But so few have it, He gave you the choice to believe the truth and be free or the lie and remain in prison, would you forever choose the lie and remain in prison, He cam to set the captives free, but so many would rather prison,.

you would only give the keys (authority) to a person not a confession or revelation

 

[theefaith]

Well you would be surprised, but than you have no care for teh truth so it will be too late when you find out.

truth matters that’s what we’re here for true biblical understanding and not traditions of men and their false teachings I hope you agree

 

[mjrhealth]

you would only give the keys (authority) to a person not a confession or revelation

Did you not read. He said upon this I will build my church than He says He would give the keys to Peter, you believe a lie and need to justify as so many do.

 

[mjrhealth]

truth matters that’s what we’re here for true biblical understanding and not traditions of men and their false teachings I hope you agree

No not for biblical understanding thats why there is so much lies preached, all from mens wisdom and understanding. Without revelation you are just an empty vessel making noise.

 

[theefaith]

Did you not read. He said upon this I will build my church than He says He would give the keys to Peter, you believe a lie and need to justify as so many do.

The church is built on Peter and the apostles eph 2:20

 

[BarneyFife]

Where is the reformation in the Bible?

Where is Vatican I & II in the Bible?
I like this game.

 

[mjrhealth]

The church is built on Peter and the apostles eph 2:20

No never was, like I said when you find teh one who is teh truth you will be set free.

 

[theefaith]

Where is Vatican I & II in the Bible?
I like this game.

the church has 20 valid councils beginning in acts 15, Vatican 2 is not valid. And there were other councils and synods that were not valid

 

[mjrhealth]

the church has 20 valid councils beginning in acts 15, Vatican 2 is not valid. And there were other councils and synods that were not valid

Validated by who, the vatican, all you do is promote your religion what happened to Jesus, ...

 

[BarneyFife]

the church has 20 valid councils beginning in acts 15, Vatican 2 is not valid. And there were other councils and synods that were not valid

You get to decide which councils are valid. Got it.

 

[theefaith]

Validated by who, the vatican, all you do is promote your religion what happened to Jesus, ...

peter and his successors who has the keys and the power to bind

 

[theefaith]

You get to decide which councils are valid. Got it.

peter and his successors who have the authority of the keys and the power to bind or define and declare them valid

 

[BarneyFife]

peter and his successors who have the authority of the keys and the power to bind or define and declare them valid

But you say even some of the successors are invalid. Confusion. Nonsense. Only you understand it. No way of proving apostolic succession. Give it up. Peter was a pebble. Christ is the Chief Cornerstone. No comparison.

 

[Marymog]

The Scripture doesn't declare any of these days to set a precedent for a weekly festival. The only weekly festival declared in Scripture is the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) commanded by God's voice and His writing on the tables of stone known as the ten commandments.

What does it matter? What if 99.9999999999999999% of all people decided to jump off a cliff. Would you do it?

There's that word again. Everything that doesn't dovetail with Catholic dogma is considered a "theory." I love the "gates of hell" reference. Nice, dramatic, irrelevant touch. True Protestants couldn't care in the slightest what the majority of Christians do. The majority of people in the world aren't even Christians at all. Do you believe their beliefs should have any bearing on yours?

True Protestants (it's important to distinguish "true" from "in name only") don't revere the Reformers the way Catholics do the church fathers and the saints. You shouldn't try to suggest similarities. It's not very honest.

Did we hurt your feelings by warning (not the same as judging) you?

We do. Why don't you?

No. See above.

Who are these men that Sabbatarians follow? Do you mean Christ Himself, maybe?

So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. (Luke 4:16)

He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. (1 John 2:6)

Good Morning B5!

Thank you for your articulate response. Some of these things we have gone back and forth on several times so I won't beat a dead horse. Here are my final closing points:

I agree with you that Scripture never comes right out and says "I, God, under the New Covenant with my people Command That All Christians will now worship on Sunday, the Lords Day, and that Saturday will remain for the Jews under the Old Covenant". Sooooo what do we have:

We have in Scripture is Paul telling Christians that Jesus “canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands . . . Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of.....a Sabbath. You and your ilk are still being held in bondage to the Old Covenant.

We have In Scripture Jesus only mentions keeping 9 of the 10 Commandments.....He left out "Keep holy the Sabbath". You and your ilk, starting about 500 years ago, brought it back up.....Jesus NEVER did!!! He made it clear that we must adhere to the 9 moral principles contained in the Old Testament law and that they are still binding on us. Keeping holy the Sabbath is a ritual law and rituals can be changed or cancelled. Which takes us back to what Paul said in Colossians 2 about no one judging (what you call "warning") by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. I will listen to the teacher Paul. You can listen to your 16th Century teachers.

We have Scripture that makes it clear that 1st Century Christians gathered on the first day of the week...Sunday...and considered it the Lords Day. You don't!

We have 1st Century historical writings that match up with Scripture and make it clear that they worshiped on Sunday.

We have a person who was a student of the Apostle John and a Bishop for the Church in Antioch wrote that they 'no longer observed the Sabbath'! I trust the writings that man over the writings of your 16th century men. I straight up asked you why do you trust your men (and not Ignatius). Your flippant response (2 questions back to me) was a dodge on your part because you have no logical defense for following the teachings of men that are 500 years old.

Scripture, Christian History and a 1st Century Bishop who was a student of an Apostle are against you.....I shouldn't say YOU....I should say the people who falsely taught you.

I find it bizarre that you would equate Luke 4:16 with 1 John2:6. They have NOTHING to do with each other!

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Who said anything about a 16th century reformer? Prophets and apostles = Holy Bible. And what's with this "theory" thing? I'm not posing any theories. We're all taught by apostles.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (John 17:20)

Thanks B5.

In the 16th century is where/when/by whom the new movement....new theory....of Christians should be worshiping on Saturday and not on the Lords Day started. In the 16th Century when men started denying 1,500 years of Church teaching/practice/history.

It is a theory because the 16th Century men you have chosen to follow have been theorizing (which means they proposed their theory) as to what the Bible teaches. The men you follow believe that for 1,500 years all other Church leaders before them didn't understand the Apostles and Prophets or the Bible. And then presto magico' ala KAZAM in the 16th century God finally revealed to your men that Sunday worship is not biblical and Christians should only keep sacred the Old Covenant Jewish Sabbath.

If what your teacher is teaching you about this matter is not a theory then it must be a fact! If....as your theory goes....we are all taught by Apostles why did the Apostles teach your men something much different than what they taught my men? Why do 99% of Christians disagree with you and your ilk? Are the Apostles confused by teaching different teachings? Are 99% of Christians confused?

Mary

 

[Brakelite]

Thanks B5.

In the 16th century is where/when/by whom the new movement....new theory....of Christians should be worshiping on Saturday and not on the Lords Day started. In the 16th Century when men started denying 1,500 years of Church teaching/practice/history.

It is a theory because the 16th Century men you have chosen to follow have been theorizing (which means they proposed their theory) as to what the Bible teaches. The men you follow believe that for 1,500 years all other Church leaders before them didn't understand the Apostles and Prophets or the Bible. And then presto magico' ala KAZAM in the 16th century God finally revealed to your men that Sunday worship is not biblical and Christians should only keep sacred the Old Covenant Jewish Sabbath.

If what your teacher is teaching you about this matter is not a theory then it must be a fact! If....as your theory goes....we are all taught by Apostles why did the Apostles teach your men something much different than what they taught my men? Why do 99% of Christians disagree with you and your ilk? Are the Apostles confused by teaching different teachings? Are 99% of Christians confused?

Mary

WOW. You've done it Mary. Well done. You have admitted and finally agreed with your own church that no where in scripture is there any text to support any change in the Sabbath. You have admitted also that whatever change came, took place after the death of the last apostle. And that change was gradual... It wasn't something the entire church agreed on over night after Bible study, no. Because for several centuries the majority of Christians still observed Sabbath. So the change came from only one quarter. The tradition of Rome. Tradition which started with man, became a doctrine, was enforced by church councils and threats of excommunication if disobeyed, and was always at every step of the way contrary to God's explicit commandments written in stone. The church in other words considered she had the authority to alter Gods laws.
"In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men".

 

[theefaith]

But you say even some of the successors are invalid. Confusion. Nonsense. Only you understand it. No way of proving apostolic succession. Give it up. Peter was a pebble. Christ is the Chief Cornerstone. No comparison.

mid they are invalid or imposters then they are not successors

 

[Marymog]

WOW. You've done it Mary. Well done. You have admitted and finally agreed with your own church that no where in scripture is there any text to support any change in the Sabbath. You have admitted also that whatever change came, took place after the death of the last apostle. And that change was gradual... It wasn't something the entire church agreed on over night after Bible study, no. Because for several centuries the majority of Christians still observed Sabbath. So the change came from only one quarter. The tradition of Rome. Tradition which started with man, became a doctrine, was enforced by church councils and threats of excommunication if disobeyed, and was always at every step of the way contrary to God's explicit commandments written in stone. The church in other words considered she had the authority to alter Gods laws.
"In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men".

LOL....When have I ever disagreed with The Church? Read again what I wrote. Your statement is bizarre to say the least.

Read again what I wrote. I didn't admit "that whatever change came, took place after the death of the last apostle..." or that the "change was gradual". Another bizarre statement.

The 1st century Church didn't have a bible sooooo they couldn't have done "bible study". Another bizarre statement.

Ignatius, a Bishop of Antioch (which is in Greece) and a student of the Apostle John, stated that Christians no longer keep the Sabbath soooooo it wasn't "several centuries" before Christians practiced a "tradition of Rome". They practiced the tradition of NT Christians. Another bizarre statement.

However it is true that new Christians, who were converted Jews, were in confusion on which day to celebrate that is why some kept the Sabbath and some didn't sooooo you got that part right (some Christians practiced the Lords Day on Saturday). Collosians was written about 30 years after the death of Christ (around 60 AD) soooooo when Paul said to the NT Christians that they are no longer held in bond to Jewish festivals, holidays and Sabbath he was making it clear that they no longer had to observed the Sabbath. Ignatius, 40 years later, agreed with Paul. You disagree with Paul and Ignatius?

Do you worship on the Lords Day or are you still in Jewish bondage?

Curious Mary

 

[theefaith]

WOW. You've done it Mary. Well done. You have admitted and finally agreed with your own church that no where in scripture is there any text to support any change in the Sabbath. You have admitted also that whatever change came, took place after the death of the last apostle. And that change was gradual... It wasn't something the entire church agreed on over night after Bible study, no. Because for several centuries the majority of Christians still observed Sabbath. So the change came from only one quarter. The tradition of Rome. Tradition which started with man, became a doctrine, was enforced by church councils and threats of excommunication if disobeyed, and was always at every step of the way contrary to God's explicit commandments written in stone. The church in other words considered she had the authority to alter Gods laws.
"In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men".

not is in scripture Matt 16:18 and 18:18 what peter the apostles and their successors bind on earth

 

[theefaith]

LOL....When have I ever disagreed with The Church? Read again what I wrote. Your statement is bizarre to say the least.

Read again what I wrote. I didn't admit "that whatever change came, took place after the death of the last apostle..." or that the "change was gradual". Another bizarre statement.

The 1st century Church didn't have a bible sooooo they couldn't have done "bible study". Another bizarre statement.

Ignatius, a Bishop of Antioch (which is in Greece) and a student of the Apostle John, stated that Christians no longer keep the Sabbath soooooo it wasn't "several centuries" before Christians practiced a "tradition of Rome". They practiced the tradition of NT Christians. Another bizarre statement.

However it is true that new Christians, who were converted Jews, were in confusion on which day to celebrate that is why some kept the Sabbath and some didn't sooooo you got that part right (some Christians practiced the Lords Day on Saturday). Collosians was written about 30 years after the death of Christ (around 60 AD) soooooo when Paul said to the NT Christians that they are no longer held in bond to Jewish festivals, holidays and Sabbath he was making it clear that they no longer had to observed the Sabbath. Ignatius, 40 years later, agreed with Paul. You disagree with Paul and Ignatius?

Do you worship on the Lords Day or are you still in Jewish bondage?

Curious Mary

fo they still have themselves circumcised as well? Then they are fallen from grace

Jewish infidelity to Christ and His church like the blasphemy of the Jews against Christ whom they killed never ends