reddogs
Member
Who is the head, Christ or the Pope??
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Is “Easter” in the original Scriptures?
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
Who ascended to heaven and who stays on earth?
Christ appointed Peter head of the church on earth but as his personal representative or vicar, meaning Christ acts thru Peter in governance of the universal church, our obedience is not optional if we say we submit to and are obedient to Christ!
Obedience to his church, his ministers, is obedience to Christ!
Lk 10:16 Jn 13:20 heb 13:7 & 13:17
reddogs
Member
So the Pope must be set aside...
reddogs
Member
And they know who the Anti-Christ is......
Hey All,
Our obedience is to God and His Word, not man.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
Is Christ the king? then we cannot despise the kingdom He established!
Is Christ high priest? Then that implies a hierarchy!
Is that the words of Christ or of scripture?
Lk 10:16
He who hears you hears me...
John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
Jn 20:21
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Jn 21:17 feed my sheep:
Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, (apostles) who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, (apostles) and submit yourselves: for they care for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Lk 22:29
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
Romans 1:5
By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Matt 28:19 teach all men.
Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Thks
Hey All,
"Is that the words of Christ or of scripture?" Quote from donadams
I do not view the words of Jesus, and Scripture as different. Yes Jesus said particular words. But He was the Word of God. Scripture is the Word of God.
Lk 10:16
He who hears you hears me...
Yes we listen to those appointed teachers. What do we measure their teaching against?
John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
Popes are not apostles. We know there are only twelve.
Jn 20:21
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Who was Jesus speaking to?
Jn 21:17 feed my sheep:
Speaking to Peter. Peter was an apostle. The pope is not.
Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, (apostles) who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
The pope is not an apostle.
Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, (apostles) and submit yourselves: for they care for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
The pope is not an apostle.
Lk 22:29
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
The pope is not a king.
Romans 1:5
By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Paul received apostleship directly from Jesus. He did not get voted into the position. If you remember Methias was voted an apostle by the others.(Acts1) We never hear/read more about him in Scripture.
Matt 28:19 teach all men.
Teaching the Word of God is a calling. It is not an elected position.
Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
What teachers of the Word are to teach.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
"Is that the words of Christ or of scripture?" Quote from donadams
I do not view the words of Jesus, and Scripture as different. Yes Jesus said particular words. But He was the Word of God. Scripture is the Word of God.
Lk 10:16
He who hears you hears me...
Yes we listen to those appointed teachers. What do we measure their teaching against?
John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
Popes are not apostles. We know there are only twelve.
Jn 20:21
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Who was Jesus speaking to?
Jn 21:17 feed my sheep:
Speaking to Peter. Peter was an apostle. The pope is not.
Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, (apostles) who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
The pope is not an apostle.
Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, (apostles) and submit yourselves: for they care for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
The pope is not an apostle.
Lk 22:29
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
The pope is not a king.
Romans 1:5
By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Paul received apostleship directly from Jesus. He did not get voted into the position. If you remember Methias was voted an apostle by the others.(Acts1) We never hear/read more about him in Scripture.
Matt 28:19 teach all men.
Teaching the Word of God is a calling. It is not an elected position.
Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
What teachers of the Word are to teach.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
Last edited:
Consecrated Life
Member
Jesus Christ spoke more of hell than He did of heaven
And in all His referring to it He never once minimized the eternal horror of hell .
The devil himself knew well of its unending eternal horror.
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die"
reddogs
Member
Yes, and we are at the Laodicean stage as everyone can clearly see... 'lukewarm or halfhearted, especially with respect to religion or politics.'
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Yeah, just think about the timeline, does it make sense that the Lord would leap forward to the end times and skip the entire church age in between? Call it wild speculation, but there's a progression of the Lord's return - from Thyatira to Laodicea:
"Hold fast what you have till I come." (Rev. 2:25)
"I will come upon you as a thief ..." (3:3)
"Behold, I'm coming quickly!" (3:11)
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock." (3"20)
reddogs
Member
Well, one has to know who is establishing the event, and the Easter festival had nothing to do about Jesus rise from the dead, that was just the cover they used which many today still believe. It 'replaced' the Passover and even that they will not celebrate it at the same time/day at all cost as they consider it abhorrent, but if you want to know the truth, look into the real origin of Easter...
Uncovering the Origins of Easter: From Pagan Traditions to Christian Beliefs
BY THE ARCHAEOLOGIST EDITOR GROUP
www.thearchaeologist.org
/https%3A%2F%2Ftf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ffiler_public%2F49%2F8f%2F498fd1ae-7e62-43b8-9cee-2b40c5279630%2Fgettyimages-1300187996.jpg)
The Ancient Origins of the Easter Bunny
A scholar traces the folk figure's history from the Neolithic era to today
www.smithsonianmag.com
Is Easter Pagan in Origin and Roots?
The name “Easter” was derived from “Eostre,” “originally a Saxon word (Eostre), denoting a goddess of the Saxons. Some argue that the Christian version of Easter is merely a copy of Pagan origin and roots.
www.christianity.com
Are the Symbols and Customs of Easter of Pagan Origin?
If Easter is supposed to be a celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus, how did all these symbols and customs get added to the original fasting and feasting?
answersingenesis.org
reddogs
Member
Here is more if one wants to know the truth..Now the festival of 'Easter' which the Catholic church used to shift the worship from Sabbath to Sunday is much more documented but was done basically in 'plain sight' but slowly and incrementally so they could get away with it. Here is a good breakdown..
"In addition, we are informed, “Neither the apostles, therefore, nor the Gospels, have anywhere imposed... Easter... The Savior and His apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast [Easter]... And that the observance originated not by legislation [of the apostles], but as a custom the facts themselves indicate” (fourth century scholar, Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, chapter 22). The Apostle Paul confirms he maintained the customary observance of Passover, as was given to him by Christ Himself, when he said, “For I received of the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed [not Easter Sunday!] took bread” (1 Corinthians 11:23). Keep in mind Jesus Christ was betrayed during the night of Nisan 14 (Luke 22:15-22), which was considered the evening portion of the day of Passover (Exodus 12:6-13). Remember, God begins a new day at evening, commencing at sunset (Genesis 1:5). With this established fact and connection in mind, how then was it changed from the 14th of Nisan (Passover) to the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and then assigned the pagan name Easter (Ishtarte)? Unquestionably, this is no minor change from the original observance that Jesus Christ exemplified (especially since people died refusing to obey this change). And furthermore, to supersede the authority of Jesus’ own example is obviously presumptuous at best; and at worst, it is outright heretical! How could such a blatant act of contradiction and disregard for our Lord’s example and commands be allowed to take place? This is a question all of us should seriously ask ourselves!
Assuredly, we must first understand the contention between the Western congregations led by Rome and the Eastern Asiatic congregations. This debate intensified during the second century, and is historically known as the Quartodeciman controversy.
“Quartodeciman” is simply a Latin term indicating fourteenth. What the ecclesiastical record of the second century reveals is that there was a controversy over the fourteenth— specifically, it concerned the change from the fourteenth of Nisan (Passover) to Easter, with all of its pagan connections, associations, and typologies of fertility and fecundity. This was unequivocally contested and rejected by the congregations of the Asiatic East. It came to a head when Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna (who was personally taught by John the apostle), faced off with Anicetus, the preeminent bishop of Rome, in about 95 A.D.
Notice what history tells us from the Catholic Church itself, concerning this second century controversy: “The dioceses of all Asia, as from the older tradition [Passover], held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving Pasch Passover]... However, it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world [primarily the West, represented by Rome] to end it at this point [allegedly a non-biblical based fast ending on Easter Sunday], as they observed the practice, which from apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time... Synods and assemblies of bishops [not Jesus Christ’s example or the Gospel records!] were held on this account and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree [superseding Christ’s personal example as recorded in the Gospels] that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but, the Sunday [Easter] and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only. A letter of Saint Irenaeus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus. Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp [bishop of Smyrna], who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon [which is really the Passover], whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he [Polycarp] claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodecimen observance. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the holyday of the Jews... Those who kept Easter [Passover] with the Jews were called Quartodecimans” (Catholic Encyclopedia, emphasis added).
Clearly, the historical record from the Catholic Church proves that they themselves (not Jesus Christ) chose to exercise authority to change and sever the connection of Passover. Undoubtedly, there was a long-term agenda to shift and undermine any and all associations connecting Jewish Israeli underpinnings that were foundational to the early Christian Church. Remember, Paul said, the household of God (the Church) is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets [not Synods, Councils, and bishops], Jesus Christ himself being the chief comer stone” (Ephesians 2:20). There was absolutely no authorization to change the framework of this major point of doctrine, disconnecting from Jesus Christ’s own appearance of worship exemplified by His life, habits, and customs (1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6). It is important we remember: Jesus Christ never kept an Easter in His life! Unequivocally, it is undeniable that Easter has no Biblical connection, foundation, or authority on the name of Jesus Christ that requires observance and/or recognition by any who claim Christ as their Savior.
Yet, regardless of these verifiable facts; this trend finally became law in the year A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea. Again notice, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The emperor himself [Constantine] writing to the churches after the council of Nicaea, exhorts, ‘At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present [regardless of the example/commands of Jesus Christ and the original apostolic fathers, Matthew 26:17-30] that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day [Easter Sunday]...And first of all it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hand with enormous sin... for we have received from our Savior a different way [Where, then, is the Biblical proof or Christological authorization?] ...and I myself [Constantine] have undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your sagacity in the hope that your wisdoms will gladly admit that practice which is observed [Easter Sunday] at once in the city of Rome and in Africa, throughout Italy and Egypt... with entire unity of judgement.”
And finally, under the article “Councils” in the Catholic Encyclopedia again, we read about the purpose of the Council of Nicaea. ‘The first ecumenical, or council, of Nicaea (325 A.D.) lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor, Constantine, was also present. To this council we owe the Creed of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true divinity of the Son of God [Arius challenged the divinity of Jesus Christ], and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter [which opposed the Quartodecimans who observed Passover]
It was now made “official”: Easter Sunday, the day after the first full moon, after the spring equinox, became the day to celebrate Jesus Christ’s resurrection. This was a serious and critical shift of theology. Critical, because it not only changed the day of the observance, but changed the focus, the meaning of the observance. It now became an observance and celebration of His resurrection, contrary to the Biblical admonition of remembering His death!
Notice what Paul says, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death [not His resurrection] till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). There is a purposeful point of significance our Lord placed exclusively on Passover concerning His death. It’s very fundamental, but crucial to understand; Passover was intended to distinctly address the impeccable fact that it was by Jesus Christ’s sacrificed life and shed blood that we have access to eternal life. Unfortunately, merging His death and resurrection into one holy day, as Easter describes, blurs the deep profound meaning of both these events by taking away the emphasis that each so richly deserves." HOW WAS PASSOVER REPLACED BY EASTER… And Who Did It? — The Church of God International
"In addition, we are informed, “Neither the apostles, therefore, nor the Gospels, have anywhere imposed... Easter... The Savior and His apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast [Easter]... And that the observance originated not by legislation [of the apostles], but as a custom the facts themselves indicate” (fourth century scholar, Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, chapter 22). The Apostle Paul confirms he maintained the customary observance of Passover, as was given to him by Christ Himself, when he said, “For I received of the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed [not Easter Sunday!] took bread” (1 Corinthians 11:23). Keep in mind Jesus Christ was betrayed during the night of Nisan 14 (Luke 22:15-22), which was considered the evening portion of the day of Passover (Exodus 12:6-13). Remember, God begins a new day at evening, commencing at sunset (Genesis 1:5). With this established fact and connection in mind, how then was it changed from the 14th of Nisan (Passover) to the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and then assigned the pagan name Easter (Ishtarte)? Unquestionably, this is no minor change from the original observance that Jesus Christ exemplified (especially since people died refusing to obey this change). And furthermore, to supersede the authority of Jesus’ own example is obviously presumptuous at best; and at worst, it is outright heretical! How could such a blatant act of contradiction and disregard for our Lord’s example and commands be allowed to take place? This is a question all of us should seriously ask ourselves!
Assuredly, we must first understand the contention between the Western congregations led by Rome and the Eastern Asiatic congregations. This debate intensified during the second century, and is historically known as the Quartodeciman controversy.
“Quartodeciman” is simply a Latin term indicating fourteenth. What the ecclesiastical record of the second century reveals is that there was a controversy over the fourteenth— specifically, it concerned the change from the fourteenth of Nisan (Passover) to Easter, with all of its pagan connections, associations, and typologies of fertility and fecundity. This was unequivocally contested and rejected by the congregations of the Asiatic East. It came to a head when Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna (who was personally taught by John the apostle), faced off with Anicetus, the preeminent bishop of Rome, in about 95 A.D.
Notice what history tells us from the Catholic Church itself, concerning this second century controversy: “The dioceses of all Asia, as from the older tradition [Passover], held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving Pasch Passover]... However, it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world [primarily the West, represented by Rome] to end it at this point [allegedly a non-biblical based fast ending on Easter Sunday], as they observed the practice, which from apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time... Synods and assemblies of bishops [not Jesus Christ’s example or the Gospel records!] were held on this account and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree [superseding Christ’s personal example as recorded in the Gospels] that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but, the Sunday [Easter] and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only. A letter of Saint Irenaeus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus. Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp [bishop of Smyrna], who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon [which is really the Passover], whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he [Polycarp] claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodecimen observance. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the holyday of the Jews... Those who kept Easter [Passover] with the Jews were called Quartodecimans” (Catholic Encyclopedia, emphasis added).
Clearly, the historical record from the Catholic Church proves that they themselves (not Jesus Christ) chose to exercise authority to change and sever the connection of Passover. Undoubtedly, there was a long-term agenda to shift and undermine any and all associations connecting Jewish Israeli underpinnings that were foundational to the early Christian Church. Remember, Paul said, the household of God (the Church) is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets [not Synods, Councils, and bishops], Jesus Christ himself being the chief comer stone” (Ephesians 2:20). There was absolutely no authorization to change the framework of this major point of doctrine, disconnecting from Jesus Christ’s own appearance of worship exemplified by His life, habits, and customs (1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6). It is important we remember: Jesus Christ never kept an Easter in His life! Unequivocally, it is undeniable that Easter has no Biblical connection, foundation, or authority on the name of Jesus Christ that requires observance and/or recognition by any who claim Christ as their Savior.
Yet, regardless of these verifiable facts; this trend finally became law in the year A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea. Again notice, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The emperor himself [Constantine] writing to the churches after the council of Nicaea, exhorts, ‘At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present [regardless of the example/commands of Jesus Christ and the original apostolic fathers, Matthew 26:17-30] that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day [Easter Sunday]...And first of all it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hand with enormous sin... for we have received from our Savior a different way [Where, then, is the Biblical proof or Christological authorization?] ...and I myself [Constantine] have undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your sagacity in the hope that your wisdoms will gladly admit that practice which is observed [Easter Sunday] at once in the city of Rome and in Africa, throughout Italy and Egypt... with entire unity of judgement.”
And finally, under the article “Councils” in the Catholic Encyclopedia again, we read about the purpose of the Council of Nicaea. ‘The first ecumenical, or council, of Nicaea (325 A.D.) lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor, Constantine, was also present. To this council we owe the Creed of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true divinity of the Son of God [Arius challenged the divinity of Jesus Christ], and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter [which opposed the Quartodecimans who observed Passover]
It was now made “official”: Easter Sunday, the day after the first full moon, after the spring equinox, became the day to celebrate Jesus Christ’s resurrection. This was a serious and critical shift of theology. Critical, because it not only changed the day of the observance, but changed the focus, the meaning of the observance. It now became an observance and celebration of His resurrection, contrary to the Biblical admonition of remembering His death!
Notice what Paul says, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death [not His resurrection] till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). There is a purposeful point of significance our Lord placed exclusively on Passover concerning His death. It’s very fundamental, but crucial to understand; Passover was intended to distinctly address the impeccable fact that it was by Jesus Christ’s sacrificed life and shed blood that we have access to eternal life. Unfortunately, merging His death and resurrection into one holy day, as Easter describes, blurs the deep profound meaning of both these events by taking away the emphasis that each so richly deserves." HOW WAS PASSOVER REPLACED BY EASTER… And Who Did It? — The Church of God International
Tenchi
Member
Eternal, conscious torment in hell is by no means a "wrong teaching," but the plain and repeated teaching of Scripture.
??? The doctrine of hell is laid out clearly in the Bible, not imported into the Christian faith from elsewhere.
Yes, this is well-known among Christians...
Simply stating this as so doesn't make it so. Positing a possibility doesn't, by itself, prove or establish that possibility as the fact of the matter.
And in any case, when no serious Christian today has to confine their study of their faith to the KJV, fussing over the word "Easter" in place of "Passover" is the proverbial "tempest in a teapot."
And so? I don't know of any Christian - even those who adhere strictly to the KJV - who celebrates Easter by way of pagan rituals and beliefs. It is an occasion to focus upon the death and resurrection of Jesus and to celebrate his atoning, redeeming, reconciling work in these things.
You might want to consider the Genetic Fallacy, which always plagues those who want to accuse modern Christians of indulging in paganism when they're celebrating Christmas or Easter.
reddogs
Member
Well, it wasnt so much about replacing Passover, but to bring in the festival of the sun of the pagans on the first day to justify Sunday worship to replace the Sabbath if one looks..
Now the fact that Sabbath was supplanted by the church at Rome and even the anti-Judaism stirred up by Jewish revolts is well known and documented, and the claim that came out that it was from the 'resurrection', one but has to look....
"The author of the "Epistle of Barnabas" adduces the occurrence of the Resurrection on the first day as the reason for the observance of this "true day" (xv.). In the meantime the attitude of the Roman authorities had become intermittently hostile to the Jews; and after the rebellion under Hadrian it became a matter of vital importance for such as were not Jews to avoid exposing themselves to suspicion (Huidekoper, "Judaism at Rome"). The observance of the Sabbath was one of the most noticeable indications of Judaism. Hence, while in the first Christian century more or less regard and tolerance for the Jewish day were shown in Rome, even by non-Jewish Christians, in the second century the contrary became the rule (Justin Martyr, "Dial. cum Tryph." ii., § 28). In the East, however, less opposition was shown to Jewish institutions. Saturday and Sunday both were celebrated by "abstaining from fasting and by standing while praying" (Rheinwald, "Archäologie," § 62), In the West, especially where Roman influence dominated, Saturday was turned into a fast-day (Huidekoper, ib. pp. 343-344). The name "Sunday" is used for the first time by Justin Martyr ("Apologies," i. 67) in accommodation to a Roman nomenclature, but with reference to the circumstances that the light was created on the first day (noticed also in the Midrash; Gen. R. iii.: "ten crowns adorned the first day") and that the "light of the world" rose from the night of the grave on the first day of the week. The Christians, accordingly, were obliged to defend themselves against the charge of worshiping the sun (Tertullian, "Apologeticus," xvi.). The celebration of two days (by the Judæo-Christians?) is attested by Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." iii. 37) and by the "Apostolic Constitutions," which advise the keeping of Saturday as a memorial of the Creation, and of Sunday, the Lord's day, in memory of the Resurrection (ii. 59).
Originally, then, Sunday and Sabbath were kept sharply distinct. But, like the Jewish Sabbath, Sunday was deemed not merely a holiday, but a holy day, and hence fasting thereon was interdicted (Tertullian, "De Corona Militis," § 3). Ease of mind (ευφροσύνη, which corresponds to "naḥat ruaḥ"; "Epistle of Barnabas," l.c.) was the proper condition for the day. One should not kneel at prayer (Irenæus, "Fragm. de Paschate"; "Apostolic Constitutions," l.c.); the standing posture, being at first a protest against mourning and ascetic rites (such as were forbidden on the Jewish Sabbath), came to be explained as suggestive of the Resurrection.".... SABBATH AND SUNDAY - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Some try to say it was changed by the disciples or their actions or the resurrection, but Sunday has nothing even after the resurrection as the disciples continued with the Sabbath as it was before and Christ tells it it would continue so you have to really bend scripture to fit Sunday as the day of worship. It isnt there.......
Hey All,
That is what what you understand by that verse Mr. Adams?
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
You don't think it's just a comparison?
Is this where the Catholic Church gets the idea that you actually eat the body of Christ during communion?
Also, does the CC actually have lamb every month to follow what Exodus says?
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz
Last edited: