ECT Catholic tradition, not the Bible, teaches a change to Sundaykeeping.

[keypurr]

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
Heb 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Heb 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

 

[God's Truth]

Follow your RCC teachings if you must. Its your future, not mine.

Prove it I follow any RCC teachings.

Where do you think I follow their teachings?

 

[God's Truth]

I love God enough to do his will to please him. No other reason. For me to live is Christ and he kept the Sabbath. Small sacrifice on my part.

Keeping the Sabbath does nothing.

 

[robycop3]

God gave the sabbath ONLY TO ISRAEL. Nowhere in Scripture are any gentiles commanded to observe it.

 

[Hobie]

The sabbath day is a day of rest from work. Though I believe that Saturday being the sabbath is a good argument (Ex. 20:8-11). However, the Priests and the Pharisees added too many restrictions. In which Jesus argued against in Mark 2:27.

"Then Jesus declared, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths" (Col. 2:16).

So do you agree the Sabbath was made by the Creator for man.

 

[Idolater]

Right division explains this far better.

In the body of Christ there are no required holy days. For Israel there were many.

We're obligated or required to go to Mass once a week plus Christmas and some other days that don't fall on Sundays, although sometimes holy days that are Saturday or Monday are fulfilled in the Sunday Mass.

But it's misnomer to call them holy days like the Sabbath was a full day, Mass can be done comfortably in a half hour if you time it though giving yourself an hour is generous. An hour a week is our obligation or requirement. Not 24 hours a week, which was the work of the law of Moses. The Old Covenant Sabbath obligation was one day a week and the New Covenant Mass obligation is one hour a week.

Dispensationalists but not them only, fall all over themselves trying to prove that we don't owe our Lord one hour a week, as if that's a difficult yolk or a heavy burden s m h

And it's not absolute like the Old Covenant either. Our real obligation is to submit to our bishop. My bishop a t m has rescinded the Mass requirement until things with the covid clears up, we haven't been obligated to go to Mass since last March.

 

[Bradley D]

So do you agree the Sabbath was made by the Creator for man.

Yes, as a day of rest.

 

[Right Divider]

We're obligated or required to go to Mass once a week plus Christmas and some other days that don't fall on Sundays, although sometimes holy days that are Saturday or Monday are fulfilled in the Sunday Mass.

No, we in the body of Christ, have no such obligation.
If you want to follow false religion, feel free.
I will not follow false religion.

But it's misnomer to call them holy days like the Sabbath was a full day, Mass can be done comfortably in a half hour if you time it though giving yourself an hour is generous.

It's so wonderful that your false religion has such a comfortable time table for you to follow.

An hour a week is our obligation or requirement.

Only as part of your false religion.

Not 24 hours a week, which was the work of the law of Moses. The Old Covenant Sabbath obligation was one day a week and the New Covenant Mass obligation is one hour a week.

The first was established by God, the second was not.
The "Mass" is pure idolatry.

Dispensationalists but not them only, fall all over themselves trying to prove that we don't owe our Lord one hour a week, as if that's a difficult yolk or a heavy burden s m h

The fallacy of the false dilemma.

And it's not absolute like the Old Covenant either. Our real obligation is to submit to our bishop. My bishop a t m has rescinded the Mass requirement until things with the covid clears up, we haven't been obligated to go to Mass since last March.

False religion appeals to the flesh. Enjoy feeding your flesh with false religion.

 

[Hobie]

We're obligated or required to go to Mass once a week plus Christmas and some other days that don't fall on Sundays, although sometimes holy days that are Saturday or Monday are fulfilled in the Sunday Mass.

But it's misnomer to call them holy days like the Sabbath was a full day, Mass can be done comfortably in a half hour if you time it though giving yourself an hour is generous. An hour a week is our obligation or requirement. Not 24 hours a week, which was the work of the law of Moses. The Old Covenant Sabbath obligation was one day a week and the New Covenant Mass obligation is one hour a week.

Dispensationalists but not them only, fall all over themselves trying to prove that we don't owe our Lord one hour a week, as if that's a difficult yolk or a heavy burden s m h

And it's not absolute like the Old Covenant either. Our real obligation is to submit to our bishop. My bishop a t m has rescinded the Mass requirement until things with the covid clears up, we haven't been obligated to go to Mass since last March.

So the bishop can rescind the requirement and they get cleared of the obligation of the 'new covenant one hour a week', where is that in scripture.

 

[Idolater]

So the bishop can rescind the requirement and they get cleared of the obligation of the 'new covenant one hour a week', where is that in scripture.

It's wherever you study the words bishop, overseer, elder, pastor in the New Testament. When the context indicates that it's an officer of the Church (the Body of Christ), then read up. All the biblical claims for the bishops' duties would simply indicate that they are responsible for the administration of the Church, presiding over the sacraments, which are the most salient institutions of Christianity ever since it began. Baptism, the Eucharist (Holy Communion), Holy Orders (making new bishops), etc.

 

[Right Divider]

It's wherever you study the words bishop, overseer, elder, pastor in the New Testament. When the context indicates that it's an officer of the Church (the Body of Christ), then read up. All the biblical claims for the bishops' duties would simply indicate that they are responsible for the administration of the Church, presiding over the sacraments, which are the most salient institutions of Christianity ever since it began. Baptism, the Eucharist (Holy Communion), Holy Orders (making new bishops), etc.

There is ONE baptism in the body of Christ and there is NO water involved.
Since you do not understand what the Bible actually teaches, you fall for Catholicism.

 

[Idolater]

There is ONE baptism in the body of Christ and there is NO water involved.
Since you do not understand what the Bible actually teaches, you fall for Catholicism.

I understand that you're not a bishop, and so therefore you do not hold the office created by the Apostles that is tasked with preserving and transmitting and teaching what the Apostles taught, so furthermore I don't have to even entertain any bald assertions from you on the nature of my Christian faith.

 

[Right Divider]

I understand that you're not a bishop, and so therefore you do not hold the office created by the Apostles that is tasked with preserving and transmitting and teaching what the Apostles taught, so furthermore I don't have to even entertain any bald assertions from you on the nature of my Christian faith.

Everyone can read and understand God's Word.
That you deny this is a sure sign that you not following God.

P.S. Not "bald assertion".. it's a Biblical fact.

 

[Idolater]

Everyone can read and understand God's Word.
That you deny this is a sure sign that you not following God.

I didn't deny that. I don't deny that. That's not what I said.

P.S. Not "bald assertion".. it's a Biblical fact.

It's your interpretation. I don't have any obligation to accept or believe it, not a moral one, not a logical one, nothing. I believe the Apostles, since they were commissioned to teach what the Lord Jesus Christ wants me to believe. And they invented the office of a bishop (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1) to preserve and transmit and teach what they the Apostles taught. Baptism's with water, just as it was in the Old Testament in every case, and even though baptism, like the other Church sacraments, is a meeting between the temporal and the eternal, the physical and the spiritual, earth and heaven, it doesn't therefore mean that it doesn't occur in time and space, just because it also occurs eternally. And the Church doesn't believe that without water a man cannot be saved either. Just because there are exceptional cases where people who believe the Gospel for different reasons aren't baptized with water, doesn't mean that the institution of water baptism isn't valid.

 

[Right Divider]

It's your interpretation.

This is NOT an "interpretation".

Eph 4:5 KJV One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

I don't have any obligation to accept or believe it, not a moral one, not a logical one, nothing. I believe the Apostles, since they were commissioned to teach what the Lord Jesus Christ wants me to believe. And they invented the office of a bishop (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1) to preserve and transmit and teach what they the Apostles taught. Baptism's with water, just as it was in the Old Testament in every case, and even though baptism, like the other Church sacraments, is a meeting between the temporal and the eternal, the physical and the spiritual, earth and heaven, it doesn't therefore mean that it doesn't occur in time and space, just because it also occurs eternally. And the Church doesn't believe that without water a man cannot be saved either. Just because there are exceptional cases where people who believe the Gospel for different reasons aren't baptized with water, doesn't mean that the institution of water baptism isn't valid.

That's your interpretation, which is incorrect.

This is the ONE baptism:

1Co 12:12-13 KJV For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

It's so simple, unless religious "preference" blinds someone.

 

[Idolater]

This is NOT an "interpretation".

I knew what you were talking about.

That's your interpretation

It's not just mine though, it's the "interpretation" of the bishops.

, which is incorrect.

Bald assertion.

This is the ONE baptism:

There's also ONE bread---did you miss that? 1 Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

It's so simple, unless religious "preference" blinds someone.

When people not of a religion, appropriate another religion's scriptures, is that an example of religious preference? I'm curious.

 

[Right Divider]

There's also ONE bread---did you miss that? 1 Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Non-sequitur, what does that have to do with anything?

When people not of a religion, appropriate another religion's scriptures, is that an example of religious preference? I'm curious.

The point that I showed you is clear. God told Paul to STOP water baptism because there is ONE baptism in the body of Christ and it does NOT include water.

1Co 1:17 KJV For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

God had Paul STOP water baptism as it has no place in the body of Christ.

P.S. I fully understand that you will reject anything but RCC false doctrine.
P.P.S. Most of Churchianity is in the same boat.

 

[Idolater]

Non-sequitur, what does that have to do with anything?

The point that I showed you is clear. God told Paul to STOP water baptism because there is ONE baptism in the body of Christ and it does NOT include water.

God had Paul STOP water baptism as it has no place in the body of Christ.

P.S. I fully understand that you will reject anything but RCC false doctrine.
P.P.S. Most of Churchianity is in the same boat.

Awesome. Of course you being so powerful against water baptism, and it being based upon your Dispensationalism, and that being based upon Scripture, then 1 Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread, means that you must find "that one bread" very, very important. Whereas there's little in the way of a scripture that lauds the importance of the lack of water baptism, there's 1 Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread, that lauds the importance of that one bread of Holy Communion.

What are your thoughts on it? The physical bread of communion I mean, from the Eucharist, that Paul wrote about a lot in 1st Corinthians. That ONE Spirit just as that ONE bread is what makes us ONE.

 

[Right Divider]

Awesome. Of course you being so powerful against water baptism, and it being based upon your Dispensationalism, and that being based upon Scripture, then 1 Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread, means that you must find "that one bread" very, very important. Whereas there's little in the way of a scripture that lauds the importance of the lack of water baptism, there's 1 Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread, that lauds the importance of that one bread of Holy Communion.

What are your thoughts on it? The physical bread of communion I mean, from the Eucharist, that Paul wrote about a lot in 1st Corinthians. That ONE Spirit just as that ONE bread is what makes us ONE.

Once again, Paul tells us that there is ONE BAPTISM in the body of Christ. That ONE BAPTISM is described in 1 Cor 12:13.

1Co 12:13 KJV For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The only communion that Paul talks about is the COMMON UNION (that is where the word communion comes from) that we have in Christ. It has nothing to do with bread or water.

And also AGAIN, the one bread has no direct connection with the one baptism.