quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: GinaG, Christians basically kept the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper or Communion, as Protestants call it) anytime they felt like it.
Possibly, but according to Justin Martyr it was on the Lord's Day specifically.
quote: You surely would not say that Christians are freed from the commandment not to kill, or steal, or blaspheme, etc. The only commandment anyone seems to want to do away with is the Sabbath commandment. And why? It is just because their tradition is to keep a different day. Why is tradition so important?
That's certainly not true. Many commandments were set aside, as one can read first of all from the decisions of the council of Jerusalem.
Without the traditions of the church, you wouldn't even have the New Testament. I don't believe it's a "sin" to worship on a different day, but it's just what Christians do. Sort of like if your whole family decides to celebrate Christmas on the 24th, but you show up on the 25th because you think it's more "correct," well pooh for you, your roast beef has to get nuked and your eggnog is runny. (Of course, ironically, we celebrate on January 7th. Heh.)
P.S. Catholic polemicists will say a lot of things. Early sources are really the only ones that matter.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rivka:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Lisa: Yeah, see, I don't think God gets mistaken. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something we agree on. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Like I said, shituf is idolatry even for non-Jews according to the vast majority of authorities. But Christianity is more than just shituf. And forms of Christianity that use icons in their worship... whatever.
Icons are not idols, contrary to what you may have heard from Chick Publications.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, here is the relevant portion from Justin Martyr's First Apology. He speaks about Sunday observance as something normal and established. That is hardly the "Roman church setting something by its sole authority." Justin Martyr wrote at the end of the first/beginning of the second century and his works are among the earliest Christian writings.
quote: And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. 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 Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
posted
Dr. Bacchiocchi did a thorough and comprehensive study of all these sources, including still earlier ones. The Catholics are right. Christians keep Sunday today solely because their church decided to change the day Christians keep. There is absolutely no evidence that any Christian anywhere kept Sunday until at least two generations after the Apostles died. I question the legitimacy of that quote attributed to Justin Martyr. It sounds like it was written in the second century A.D. He wasn't even born until 100 A.D., according to some sources. The time of his mid-career would be about the time of the Emperor Hadrian's anti-Jewish edicts. He certainly did not speak for the Apostles.
Most important of all, there is not any warrant whatsover in the Bible for keeping Sunday in place of the Sabbath, and that is the only Authority that matters to us Protestants who profess to believe in sola scriptura.
[ January 02, 2009, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: [QB] Scott, feel free to dig up the Rebbetzin thread. I believe my discussion with you on this same topic is on about pages 2-3, but I'm not positive. I'm much too tired (long day at work, and I have another tomorrow) to dig it up myself.
The discussion wasn't much of one. I asked why God distinguishes between Israelites and Gentiles; you responded with some links.
And that was that in that thread.
Shortly after you posted that, I created a thread called, "God Loves Rivka More Than Me." I can't find that thread now; and I don't recall deleting it. In any case, there wasn't much discussion there, either, about the discrepancies I've noted in this thread. Mostly, that thread was me apologizing for my bad taste in thread titles.
Which kind of sums up, IMO, the history of our discussions on this topic, rivka. I ask the question occasionally in a poorly worded, boorish, even offensive way; you or Ela get offended (with reason); and I back off without getting my question answered.
quote:The irony of someone who practices an unashamedly patriarchal religion having issues with "inequity" is entirely too much for me. I am bowing out of this part of the conversation; I'm finding even peripheral participation too frustrating.
You're not the first person to note this.
I'm perfectly fine with the idea that genders and bloodlines have different, segregated roles to fulfill in God's plan. I'm perfectly fine with Judaism's beliefs, and if you're comfortable with them, good on you. I do want to point out, however, that when the Jewish law regarding the death penalty apparently makes allowances for Jews that it doesn't for Gentiles; when it is stated that 'Closeness to God obligates' but those obligations are explicitly forbidden to Gentiles; when the ability to come closer to God (through study of the Torah) is discouraged to Gentiles:
It is not exactly as rosy a picture of Godly love as Jews might think. To someone on the outside, it looks an awful lot like God designed the system to make Gentiles second-class citizens.
As I've said before, I'm willing to look at arguments to the contrary.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Like I said, shituf is idolatry even for non-Jews according to the vast majority of authorities. But Christianity is more than just shituf. And forms of Christianity that use icons in their worship... whatever.
Icons are not idols, contrary to what you may have heard from Chick Publications.
I understand, but Judaism has its own definitions of such things.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Mormons worship Heavenly Father. We recognize the difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as being three distinct, separate beings, but NOT co-equal, in terms of worship. (No one prays to the Holy Ghost, for example)
From this point of view, we are monotheistic, in that we worship one god alone.
Good point, but here's what's interesting-- the societies described in the Book of Mormon were CLEARLY trinitarian. From an examination of the text, IMO, they did not have a complete understanding of the differences between God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Some of Joseph Smith's earlier writings also reflected very trinitarian ideals. It's not until we received the revelations in Doctrine and Covenants 143, in 1843 (a year before Joseph Smith's death), that a real distinction is made between the personages of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Another line of thinking is that if Jesus Christ is personally present, it is...er...kosher ( ) to pray to him directly. (Jesus makes a note of this later in the same scripture you quoted, as he prays to the Father). This also explains why Joseph Smith addressed the prayer dedicating the Kirtland temple directly to Jesus, rather than addressing Heavenly Father.
quote:In any case, if you believe in more than one God you're polytheistic. Doesn't matter which one you pray to.
Hmm? Well-- I suppose if you're defining it that way, then you're right. I like my definition better.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, if you believe that multiple gods exist but you only worsip one of them you're henotheistic.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. I could swear we'd had a more detailed conversation than that. (Although, you know, dismissing links that I specifically chose because I believe they answered your question may be part of the issue here. I consider that part of a conversation, and it seems that you don't. I don't choose them at random; I usually choose them because I think they do a better job of answering a given question than I can.) Maybe it was at GC. Maybe it was all in my head.
Regardless, I do see why you feel that Judaism considers non-Jews to be second-class citizens. I also see why people have tried to convince me that as a woman I was a second-class citizen within Judaism. However, while I understand where both are coming from, I disagree in both cases. In the latter, I have an inside view; I don't have the right perspective to speak from personal experience on the former.
Would talking to a practicing Noachide, someone who believes Judaism is true, but prefers to not convert, and lives their lives by those choices, be convincing to you? I doubt it. You are a remarkably stubborn individual. I think it's those dark butterflies of evil you keep snacking on.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:henotheistic
:swoons:
It is a pretty cool word.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would talking to a practicing Noachide, someone who believes Judaism is true, but prefers to not convert, and lives their lives by those choices, be convincing to you? I doubt it. You are a remarkably stubborn individual. I think it's those dark butterflies of evil you keep snacking on.
I don't think there's anything remarkable about my stubbornness... Isn't everyone made this way?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Good point, but here's what's interesting-- the societies described in the Book of Mormon were CLEARLY trinitarian. From an examination of the text, IMO, they did not have a complete understanding of the differences between God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Some of Joseph Smith's earlier writings also reflected very trinitarian ideals. It's not until we received the revelations in Doctrine and Covenants 143, in 1843 (a year before Joseph Smith's death), that a real distinction is made between the personages of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
I'm not sure I get that... are you saying that the people all throughout the Book of Mormon thought it was OK to worship Jesus because they didn't understand that he's different than God? And Jesus didn't correct them even when he spent a week hanging out with them? And that God didn't tell any of their prophets about this important doctrine for nearly two millenia after this?
It's all new to me. I don't know that you've presented an air-tight case. But I guess if what you say is true, then it should be common sense among church leaders that no one should be worshipping Jesus now, right?
quote:Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn’t the name of our church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?
quote:But there are some who style themselves as Christians who admire but do not worship Jesus. Some regard Him as a great teacher but not as the Great Redeemer. Yes, Jesus is the generous Lord of the expansive universe, but He is also Lord of the narrow path! Some people forget His latter Lordship.
Or like cards that are put in The New Era to explain to the world why we are really Christians?
quote:We love Jesus Christ. We worship Jesus Christ. He is our Savior and Redeemer.
What's the difference anyway? I mean, there's no law that makes polytheistic religions (or henotheistic religions) automatically worse than monotheistic religions. It may not make the LDS church fit in as cleanly with the Noachide laws, but if you really believe that your church is true, and your beliefs aren't harming anyone, I don't know why you'd feel that it's necessary to justify them or explain them away.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Throughout this whole argument my main concern has lain in the correct placement of the Sabbath.
Sure, Saturday is the last day of the week now, but how can we be sure that the world wasn't created on a Thursday? There's been enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. Can anyone provide definitive proof that Saturday is, and has always been, the last day of the week?
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's the difference anyway? I mean, there's no law that makes polytheistic religions (or henotheistic religions) automatically worse than monotheistic religions. It may not make the LDS church fit in as cleanly with the Noachide laws, but if you really believe that your church is true, and your beliefs aren't harming anyone, I don't know why you'd feel that it's necessary to justify them or explain them away.
Because I'm stubborn and argumentative.
You're right-- in addition to God the Father, we also worship Jesus Christ.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Throughout this whole argument my main concern has lain in the correct placement of the Sabbath.
Sure, Saturday is the last day of the week now, but how can we be sure that the world wasn't created on a Thursday? There's been enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. Can anyone provide definitive proof that Saturday is, and has always been, the last day of the week?
No. There is no proof. But seeing as Saturday was always a day of significance for Jews, I'm pretty sure they kept the day since the commandment was given. To me, that's pretty weighty evidence.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Throughout this whole argument my main concern has lain in the correct placement of the Sabbath.
Sure, Saturday is the last day of the week now, but how can we be sure that the world wasn't created on a Thursday? There's been enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. Can anyone provide definitive proof that Saturday is, and has always been, the last day of the week?
No. There is no proof. But seeing as Saturday was always a day of significance for Jews, I'm pretty sure they kept the day since the commandment was given. To me, that's pretty weighty evidence.
To me that's circular reasoning! "Is Saturday the right day?" "Well, it's always been an important day, so it must be the right day." I don't think you thought that through.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever you think of the reasoning, it isn't circular. You've not accurately assessed it.
1. Given there was someone in the past who knew the right day, and
2. there is good evidence that a group of people have been continuously passing down the right day since then,
3. it can be concluded that the day those people use now is probably the right day.
Given the two assumptions, the argument is quite reasonable. Not everyone would give the two assumptions, of course.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you have written it, the argument is reasonable. But you've redacted it considerably from Armoth's version, which for your step 2 had only "Saturday has always been important". Which is precisely the point of dispute. No evidence is offered.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But seeing as Saturday was always a day of significance for Jews
That implies knowledge (or at least strong belief) that it was always such a day. If you like, delete "there is good evidence" and leave just "a group of people have been continuously passing down the right day since then", which is extremely equivalent to what was written. The argument is still valid.
edit: of course, circular arguments are generally valid. The argument is both valid, and the conclusion is not assumed by the assumptions, which is what makes an argument circular.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That implies knowledge (or at least strong belief) that it was always such a day. If you like, delete "there is good evidence" and leave just "a group of people have been continuously passing down the right day since then", which is extremely equivalent to what was written. The argument is still valid.
Recall that the original question was "Is Saturday the right day?" Since we know that people have been passing it down for some time, this is equivalent to "Have people passed down the day correctly?" Therefore, to state "The Jews have passed down the day correctly" without further evidence offered is indeed circular: The desired conclusion is used as a premise.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, he wasn't. You have to presuppose some mechanism whereby all the Jews in the world accepted a change in day, otherwise, Occam's Razor says it's the same day we have it now.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we've been running seven-day circles since day one with no cultural/religious or numerical crossover? Aren't there some gaps in the histories between Adam and Abraham?
This probably seems nit-picky, but I haven't read any answers to my question beyond "it's the right day because it's been the right day since anyone started paying attention."
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Throughout this whole argument my main concern has lain in the correct placement of the Sabbath.
Sure, Saturday is the last day of the week now, but how can we be sure that the world wasn't created on a Thursday? There's been enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. Can anyone provide definitive proof that Saturday is, and has always been, the last day of the week?
There hasn't been nearly enough time between the beginning of everything and now for that kind of clerical error to be made. This isn't something that's a curiosity in a book. This is something that hundreds of thousands of people do, every single week. It's ludicrous to imagine that so many people went "oops!" all at once.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No, he wasn't. You have to presuppose some mechanism whereby all the Jews in the world accepted a change in day, otherwise, Occam's Razor says it's the same day we have it now.
Well, just for starters there have been calendar reforms in the West. Second, just how sure are you that there have never been any disagreements between different Jewish communities? Consider the Christian disputes over the date of Easter. Such things can easily disappear from history when they occur in small groups that nobody really cares about except when a scapegoat is needed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: So we've been running seven-day circles since day one with no cultural/religious or numerical crossover? Aren't there some gaps in the histories between Adam and Abraham?
This probably seems nit-picky, but I haven't read any answers to my question beyond "it's the right day because it's been the right day since anyone started paying attention."
If God lied to us at Sinai about the day of the week, then none of it can be trusted anyway, so your question is a non-starter.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No, he wasn't. You have to presuppose some mechanism whereby all the Jews in the world accepted a change in day, otherwise, Occam's Razor says it's the same day we have it now.
Well, just for starters there have been calendar reforms in the West.
None involving the days of the week. If you think there have been, the burden of proof is on you to produce evidence of such. Don't bother, though, because you'll never find anything.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Second, just how sure are you that there have never been any disagreements between different Jewish communities?
We're the people of the book. All the arguments we've had internally have been loud and have been recorded for posterity. You can't hypothesize some dispute over the day of the week with zero evidence for it simply because it suits you. Though I think it's kind of ironic that you're trying to.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Consider the Christian disputes over the date of Easter. Such things can easily disappear from history when they occur in small groups that nobody really cares about except when a scapegoat is needed.
And a green and red speckled alien looking somewhat like a mongoose just landed on my doorstep and offered me a subscription to Out There Weekly, published on the third planet of Epsilon Eridani.
Boy, are you stretching, KoM. Making up silly hypotheses that aren't even hypotheses. They're flights of fancy. Come back with some evidence.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: So we've been running seven-day circles since day one with no cultural/religious or numerical crossover? Aren't there some gaps in the histories between Adam and Abraham?
This probably seems nit-picky, but I haven't read any answers to my question beyond "it's the right day because it's been the right day since anyone started paying attention."
If God lied to us at Sinai about the day of the week, then none of it can be trusted anyway, so your question is a non-starter.
Though I'm almost positive that God didn't say what day of the week it was to Moses at the time, it would have been a cruel joke to propose a Commandment that He knew people would screw up on a technicality. Good point.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're the people of the book. All the arguments we've had internally have been loud and have been recorded for posterity.
Let me correct that for you: All the arguments you know about were loud and recorded for posterity. Do you see the selection bias in this statement? Now, I don't particularly believe that the day of Saturday has changed, I'm basically arguing for the sake of it at this point. But I do think you are displaying a perfect example of a defensive crouch when the possibility that your oral tradition might get something wrong is so much as mentioned. Does it not occur to you that this is not the way to find truth? If you wanted to test your tradition, why this pricklyness whenever a possible test of it is mentioned? And if you don't want to test it, then why your trust in it? You can't know if the ice is thin without putting some weight on it. (Preferably the weight of someone heavy but expendable, of course.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know, the seven-day week dates back well before the Hebrews, as does the concept of the "sabbatum" -- originally an unlucky day on which no work could be done fruitfully (and on which therefore no work should be done); it was observed in Sumer, Egypt, China, and India. (Since most cultures named the days of the week after their names for the celestial bodies visible in the sky, and almost all cultures used a lunar month into which the week was easily divisible, it's possible that seven just happens to be a good length for a week once your society starts fiddling with astronomy.) The Romans used an eight-day week that was phased out following the spread of Christianity; the Chinese (like the Norse) used a five-day week for bureaucracy, later expanded to ten days (like, briefly, the French), and saved the seven-day week for astrology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: (As an aside, we know from information theory that no error-checking procedure is perfect, even one involving humans; it would be an interesting problem to calculate the expected length of time until the Torah's meaning changes significantly - say, a 'shall' substituted for a 'shall not').
We have a copy of the "Thou Shalt Commit Adultery" bible in York. They had it on display all summer.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but clearly that error was caught. You tried to prove that errors can occur, but instead you irrefutably proved that any error in transcription or translation will inevitably be caught or corrected.
I mean, if that's not the case, name me one single example of a scriptural error that wasn't caught. SEE! Never going to happen.
You'll never escape my twisted web of logic! Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I just think it's kind of cool. I'm not out to prove anything except that type errors can exist.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Dr. Bacchiocchi did a thorough and comprehensive study of all these sources, including still earlier ones. The Catholics are right. Christians keep Sunday today solely because their church decided to change the day Christians keep. There is absolutely no evidence that any Christian anywhere kept Sunday until at least two generations after the Apostles died.
That would be strange, since if it was solely the province of the Roman church to change the day of worship, there were four other sees not under their authority which nevertheless did the same. My church (Coptic Orthodox) broke with Rome in 451. The Nestorians broke even earlier. And yet all have Sunday worship.
Your theory sort of breaks down on reality.
quote: I question the legitimacy of that quote attributed to Justin Martyr. It sounds like it was written in the second century A.D. He wasn't even born until 100 A.D., according to some sources. The time of his mid-career would be about the time of the Emperor Hadrian's anti-Jewish edicts. He certainly did not speak for the Apostles.
Most important of all, there is not any warrant whatsover in the Bible for keeping Sunday in place of the Sabbath, and that is the only Authority that matters to us Protestants who profess to believe in sola scriptura.
There is no scholarly question about the Apologies, but obviously, if you want to be convinced of your thesis, you're not going to believe any evidence to the contrary.
Revelation does speak of the Lord's Day. And of course, the Scriptures don't mention sola scriptura as a doctrine any more than they do of a prescribed day of worship. All such things are derived of tradition.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Like I said, shituf is idolatry even for non-Jews according to the vast majority of authorities. But Christianity is more than just shituf. And forms of Christianity that use icons in their worship... whatever.
Icons are not idols, contrary to what you may have heard from Chick Publications.
I understand, but Judaism has its own definitions of such things.
It's my understanding- feel free to correct it- that the prohibition of "graven images" refers to images in relief, i.e. statues and the like. Dura Europa shows that synagogues at the time of Jesus had fresco painting which is much like the tradition of icons, depicting "heroes of the faith" and patrons of that particular meeting place.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that the Jews of Jesus's time would kneel down and worship in front of those frescoes, though, or pray to the heroes for intercession.
Your year 451 does not contradict Ron's "at least two generations after the Apostles died", which would be ~200 at the latest.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Actually I just think it's kind of cool. I'm not out to prove anything except that type errors can exist.
Oh, sure, back away from a challenge...
(Just kidding. Both this and the previous post were just me goofing off and killing time while the clock runs out. I tried to crank up the sarcasm to make it unmissable, but sometimes my attempts fail.
But for the record, I also think it's kind of cool that you saw that Bible. It figures they'd have something like that in York.
You've really got to post a thread about your experiences, travels, pictures and the like. Or bump it if you already posted it and it slipped past me. I miss northern England, and I'd love to hear some exciting stories.)
Take that, and if you cross me again, I shall taunt you a second time. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
airmanfour, your question comes up from time to time, whether there is any confusion about the integrity of the weekly cycle being maintained throughout all history.
Armoth, Lisa, and others have made very good points that the Jews have been keeping the Sabbath every week throughout their history, and that when God gave them the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, He surely would have made sure they knew which day He was talking about when He said "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8.) And in fact, we see that He did do this, because for some time leading up to the events at Mt. Sinai, He had been giving them manna to eat six days a week, with a double portion on the sixth day, and no manna on Sabbath. Thus He made sure they were aware that on the sixth day of the week--the "Preparation Day," they were to collect an extra portion of Manna for use during the Sabbath, so they would not have to go out and collect manna on the Sabbath. See Exodus 16:22-30. Exodus 16:35 says that this went on for forty years.
Let me address another possible question, though it has not come up here. And that is the calendar changes that took place when the change was made from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar (the one we use now). If you investigate the history of this, you will find that because of the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar compared to the actual solar year, through the centuries the Roman Catholic Church found itself keeping festivals that were more and more out of sinc from when they were kept originally. The decision was made to bring the calendar back so the festivals would be kept about the same time as when they were observed at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.. This was done by adding 14 days to the calendar in October of 1582. This did not change the weekly cycle, however. They only changed the month-days, going from Thursday, October 4, to Friday October 15. So the sixth day of the week (Friday) still followed the fifth day of the week (Thursday).
While not all nations accepted the change to the Gregorian calendar at that time, later on when they did, they always converted by using the same expedient, of skipping month-days while not changing the week days.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I doubt that the Jews of Jesus's time would kneel down and worship in front of those frescoes, though, or pray to the heroes for intercession.
Venerating icons is respect and affection, not worship. All intercession, too, is ultimately directed to God.
However, I do understand that images were/are not used on the altar in Jewish worship.
quote: Your year 451 does not contradict Ron's "at least two generations after the Apostles died", which would be ~200 at the latest.
My point is that there was no such thing as "Rome's sole authority" at that point.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Take that, and if you cross me again, I shall taunt you a second time.
I'd make a crack about elderberries, but seeing as I spent a good portion of late summer smelling like them, it'd be a bit hypocritical of me.
I do have a blog where I write about being in England. It's become more about my research these days, but every now and then "England is crazy" gets elaborated into a post. It's a blogspot.com one, "debilitasmentis".
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
GinaG, yes, Revelation 1:10 mentions "the Lord's Day." John said: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day."
But that text does not say whether it was the first day of the week, or the seventh. We should allow the Bible to define its own terms, not read our definitions into it. Here is how the Bible identifies which day is the Lord's day:
Jesus said: "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Matthew 12:8; see also Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5.) So which day did Jesus say was His day in a special sense? He claimed lordship of the Sabbath day.
So in Revelation 1:10, John was saying that he was "in the spirit" on the Sabbath.
As for the discussion about images, and the claim that those who bow down to icons of saints are not "worshipping" them: Why is it that Catholics divide the Ten Commandments differently from most others, lumping the commandment about not making any graven images and bowing down to them, with the first commandment, that says we are to have no other gods before the true God? Catholics, when they summarize the commandments in all their catechisms, leave out entirely the words of what most others view as the second commandment, even though they do not deny that the text is there.
Then to preserve the number ten, since the Bible refers to God's "Ten commandments" (Ex. 34:28; see also Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Catholics divide up the tenth commandment into two, making "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" a separate commandment from "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house...nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
Why do Catholics feel the need to de-emphasize the commandment which says: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...." (Ex. 20:4, 5)? Could it have anything to do with the fact that their churches are filled with images of the "saints," and people do bow down to them?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would urge anyone on this board who is interested in understanding what Catholics believe to ignore all of Ron's statements on the topic. He is demonstrably ignorant - and in the face of repeated corrections, I'd also add dishonest - about the topic.
It takes a trivial google search to confirm that the Catechism fully addresses the portion that Ron claims it ignores or deemphasizes. The rest of what he says about Catholics is pretty much incorrect, too.
I'm not going to argue with him about it any more, because he cares nothing for truth. I simply want to urge everyone who reads this who does care about truth to know that he doesn't offer it on this subject.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I understand, but [fill in the religious blank] has its own definitions of such things."
This, I find, is the one reason inter-religious conversations and understandings are mostly useless. Most disagreements boil down to what the believer understands about themselves and what those who are not believers insist it "really" means.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Of course, ironically, we celebrate on January 7th. Heh.)![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
