Monday, 10 December 2012
Should Christians celebrate Christmas?
Answer: The debate about whether or not Christians should celebrate Christmas has been raging for centuries. There are equally sincere and committed Christians on both sides of the issue, each with multiple reasons why or why not Christmas should be celebrated in Christian homes. But what does the Bible say? Does the Bible give clear direction as to whether Christmas is a holiday to be celebrated by Christians?
First, let’s look at the reasons why some Christians do not celebrate Christmas. One argument against Christmas is that the traditions surrounding the holiday have origins in paganism. Searching for reliable information on this topic is difficult because the origins of many of our traditions are so obscure that sources often contradict one another. Bells, candles, holly, and yuletide decorations are mentioned in the history of pagan worship, but the use of such in one’s home certainly does not indicate a return to paganism. While there are definitely pagan roots to some traditions, there are many more traditions associated with the true meaning of Christmas—the birth of the Savior of the world in Bethlehem. Bells are played to ring out the joyous news, candles are lit to remind us that Christ is the Light of the world (John 1:4-9), a star is placed on the top of a Christmas tree to remember the Star of Bethlehem, and gifts are exchanged to remind us of the gifts of the Magi to Jesus, the greatest gift of God to mankind.
Another argument against Christmas, especially having a Christmas tree, is that the Bible forbids bringing trees into our homes and decorating them. The passage often cited is Jeremiah 10:1-16, but this passage refers to cutting down trees, chiseling the wood to make an idol, and then decorating the idol with silver and gold for the purpose of bowing down before it to worship it (see also Isaiah 44:9-18). The passage in Jeremiah cannot be taken out of its context and used to make a legitimate argument against Christmas trees.
Christians who choose to ignore Christmas point to the fact that the Bible doesn’t give us the date of Christ’s birth, which is certainly true. December 25 may not be even close to the time Jesus was born, and arguments on both sides are legion, some relating to climate in Israel, the practices of shepherds in winter, and the dates of Roman census-taking. None of these points are without a certain amount of conjecture, which brings us back to the fact that the Bible doesn’t tell us when Jesus was born. Some see this as proof positive that God didn’t want us to celebrate the birth, while others see the Bible’s silence on the issue as tacit approval.
Some Christians say that since the world celebrates Christmas—although it is becoming more and more politically correct to refer to it as “the holidays”—Christians should avoid it. But that is the same argument made by false religions that deny Christ altogether, as well as cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny His deity. Those Christians who do celebrate Christmas often see the occasion as an opportunity to proclaim Christ as “the reason for the season” among the nations and to those trapped in false religions.
As we have seen, there is no legitimate scriptural reason not to celebrate Christmas. At the same time, there is no biblical mandate to celebrate it, either. In the end, of course, whether or not to celebrate Christmas is a personal decision. Whatever Christians decide to do regarding Christmas, their views should not be used as a club with which to beat down or denigrate those with opposing views, nor should either view be used as a badge of honor inducing pride over celebrating or not celebrating. As in all things, we seek wisdom from Him who gives it liberally to all who ask (James 1:5) and accept one another in Christian love and grace, regardless of our views on Christmas.
Recommended Resource: The Case for Christmas by Lee Strobel.
This page is also available in: Español, Português
Related Topics:
What should parents tell their children about Santa Claus?
What is the true meaning of Christmas?
How should Christians respond to the "War on Christmas"?
Should a Christian celebrate Hanukkah (Christmaskah)?
What does the Bible say about the three wise men (Magi)?
Read more at and adapted (with many thanks) from: GotQuestions.org
See also: http://www.equip.org/articles/should-christians-celebrate-christmas/
Photo: Images of Christmas. © 2012. Lizette De Klerk. All rights reserved worldwide.
Friday, 12 October 2012
"...all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
BE PREPARED, FOR GOD GAVE YOU THE ABILITY (AND FOREKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU NEED) TO DO JUST THAT.
"...all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
2 Timothy 3 - King James Version (KJV)
3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.
10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Watch this: "A question about the end times and dealing with those holding views in contradiction to the Scripture." - http://youtu.be/FQ7_o90XTLo
Bible Chronology
Fabula-wise (the actual story of life the way it happened in chronological order) it is Genesis then Job.
Syuzhet-wise (the way the story is organized) the Books of the Bible are listed differently in the canons of Judaism and the Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Coptic, Georgian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churches.
The time of the writing of each book is highly debated and debatable. Here is a sample listing of the books of the Bible in the supposed order in which they were written (end numbers represent the traditional English order):
Old Testament:
1440 - 1400 B.C.
Genesis #1
Exodus #2
Leviticus #3
Numbers #4
Deuteronomy #5
1400 - 1000
Joshua #6
Judges #7
1000 - 586 B.C. (pre-exile - mid-exile)
Period of David & Solomon (ca. 1000 - 931):
Psalms #19
Ruth #8
1st Samuel #9
2nd Samuel #10
Job #18
Proverbs #20
Ecclesiastes #21
Song of Solomon #22
Period of Rehoboam to Hezekiah (931 - 686):
Isaiah #23
Hosea #28
Joel #29
Amos #30
Obadiah #31
Jonah #32
Micah #33
Period of Hezekiah to the exile (686 - 586):
Nahum #34
Habakkuk #35
Zephaniah #36
1st Kings #11
2nd Kings #12
1st Chronicles #13
2nd Chronicles #14
Jeremiah #24
Lamentations #25
Ezekiel #26
Daniel #27
516 - 400 B.C. (post-exilic)
Ezra #15
Nehemiah #16
Esther #17
Haggai #37
Zechariah #38
Malachi #39
New Testament:
40 - 45. A.D.
Matthew: #1 (#40 )
45 - 50 A.D.
1st Thessalonians #13 (#52)
2nd Thessalonians #14 (#53)
1 Corinthians #7 (#46)
2 Corinthians #8 (#47)
Romans #6 (#45)
Luke #3 (#42)
50 - 55 A.D.
Galatians #9 (#48)
Ephesians #10 (#49)
Philippians #11 (#50)
Colossians #12 (#51)
Philemon #18 (#57)
Acts #5 (#44)
1st Timothy #15 (#54)
2nd Timothy #16 (#55)
Titus #17 (#56)
Hebrews #19 (#58)
55 - 60 A.D.
1st Peter #21 (#60)
2nd Peter #22 (#61)
Mark #2 (#41)
James #20 (#59)
Jude #26 (#65)
60 - 68 A.D.
John #4 (#43)
1st John #23 (#62)
2nd John #24 (#63)
3rd John e #25 (#64)
Revelation #27 (#66)
Friday, 21 September 2012
"Is Jesus a myth? Is Jesus just a copy of the pagan gods of other ancient religions?"
Question: "Is Jesus a myth? Is Jesus just a copy of the pagan gods of other ancient religions?"
Answer: There are a number of voices claiming that the accounts of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament are simply myths and were the result of the writers borrowing stories from pagan mythology, such as the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Mithras. The claim is that these mythological figures are essentially the same story as what the New Testament ascribes to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. As Dan Brown claims in, The Da Vinci Code, “Nothing in Christianity is original.”
However, once the facts are examined, these claims are proven false. To discover the truth about these particular claims and others like them, it is important to: (1) unearth the history behind their assertions, (2) examine the actual historical portrayals of the false gods being compared to Christ, (3) expose the logical fallacies that the authors are making, and (4) look at why the New Testament Gospels can be trusted as accurately depicting the true and historical Jesus Christ.
First, the claims of Jesus as a myth or an exaggeration originated in the writings of 19th century liberal German theologians. Their claim was essentially that Jesus was nothing more than a copy of the widespread worship of dying and rising fertility gods in various places—Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Osiris in Egypt. None of these works ever advanced in the realm of academia and religious thought because their assertions were investigated by theologians and scholars and determined to be completely false and baseless. It has only been in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century that these assertions have been resurrected, primarily due to the rise of the internet and mass distribution of information that has no historical foundation or accountability.
This leads us to the next area of investigation—do the mythological gods of antiquity really mirror the person of Jesus Christ? As an example, the Zeitgeist movie makes these claims about the Egyptian god Horus:
• He was born on December 25th of a virgin - Isis Mary
• A star in the East proclaimed his arrival
• Three kings came to adore the new-born “savior”
• He became a child prodigy teacher at age 12
• At age 30 he was “baptized” and began a “ministry”
• Horus had twelve “disciples”
• Horus was betrayed
• He was crucified
• He was buried for three days
• He was resurrected after three days
However, when the actual writings about Horus are competently examined, this is what we find:
• Horus was born to Isis; there is no mention in history of her being called “Mary.” Moreover, Mary is our anglicized form of her real name ‘Miryam’ or Miriam. “Mary” was not even used in the original texts of Scripture.
• Isis was not a virgin; she was the widow of Osiris and conceived Horus with Osiris.
• Horus was born during month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), not December 25. Further, there is no mention in the Bible as to Christ’s actual birth date.
• There is no record of three kings visiting Horus at his birth. The Bible never states the actual number of magi that came to see Christ.
• Horus is not a “savior” in any shape or form; he did not die for anyone.
• There are no accounts of Horus being a teacher at the age of 12.
• Horus was not “baptized.” The only account of Horus that involves water is one story where Horus is torn to pieces, with Isis requesting the crocodile god to fish him out of the water he was placed into.
• Horus did not have a “ministry.”
• Horus did not have 12 disciples. According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers and some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him.
• There is no account of Horus being betrayed by a friend.
• Horus did not die by crucifixion. There are various accounts of Horus’ death, but none of them involve crucifixion.
• There is no account of Horus being buried for three days.
• Horus was not resurrected. There is no account of Horus coming out of the grave with the body he went in with. Some accounts have Horus/Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and going to be the lord of the underworld.
So when compared side by side, Jesus and Horus bear little, if any, resemblance to one another. Another popular comparison done by those claiming that Jesus Christ is a myth is with Jesus and Mithras. All the above claims of Horus are applied to Mithras (e.g. born of a virgin, being crucified, rising in three days, etc.). But what does history say about Mithras?
• He was born out of a solid rock and not from any woman.
• He battled first with the sun and then a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithras killed the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.
• Mithras birth was celebrated on December 25, along with Winter solstice.
• There is no mention of him as being a great teacher.
• There is no mention of Mithras having 12 disciples. The idea that Mithras had 12 disciples may have come from a mural in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs of the Zodiac.
• Mithras had no bodily resurrection. The myth is told that Mithras completed his earthly mission then was taken to paradise in a chariot, alive and well. The early Christian writer Tertullian did write about Mithras believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but he wrote about this occurring well after New Testament times, so if any copycatting was done, it was the cult of Mithras copying from Christianity.
More examples can be given of Krishna, Attis, Dionysus and other mythological gods, but the result is the same. In the end, the historical Jesus as portrayed in the Bible is thoroughly unique. The claimed similarities are greatly exaggerated. Further, while belief in Horus, Mithras, and others pre-dated Christianity, there is very little historical record of the pre-Christian beliefs of those religions. The vast majority of the earliest writings about these religions is dated to the third and fourth centuries A.D. It is illogical and unhistorical to claim the pre-Christian beliefs in these religions (of which there is no record) were identical to the post-Christian beliefs in these groups (of which there is record). It is more historically valid to attribute any similarities between these religions and Christianity to the religions copying Christian beliefs about Jesus and placing those attributes on their own gods/saviors/founders in an attempt to stop the rapid growth of Christianity.
This leads us to the next area to examine: the logical fallacies committed by those claiming that Christianity borrowed from pagan mystery religions. Two fallacies in particular are obvious— the fallacy of the false cause and the terminological fallacy. If one thing precedes another, it does not mean that the first caused the second. This is the fallacy of the false cause. Even if pre-Christian accounts of mythological gods closely resembled Christ (and they do not), it does not mean they caused the gospel writers to invent a false Jesus. Claiming such a thing would be like saying the TV series Star Trek caused the NASA Space Shuttle program.
The terminological fallacy occurs when terms are redefined to prove a point, when in fact such terms do not mean the same thing when compared to their source. So for example, the Zeitgeist movie says that Horus “began his ministry,” but Horus had no actual ministry – nothing like that of Christ’s ministry. Those claiming Mithras and Jesus are the same talk about the “baptism” that initiated prospects into the Mithras cult, but what was it actually? The Mithras priests (using a ritual also performed by followers of Attis) would suspend a bull over a pit, place those wanting to join the cult into the pit, slit the bull’s stomach, which then covered the initiates in blood. Such a thing has no resemblance whatsoever to Christian baptism—a person going under water (symbolizing the death of Christ) and then coming back out of the water (symbolizing Christ’s resurrection). But advocates of the mythological Jesus position deceptively use the same term to describe both in hopes of linking the two together.
The last issue to examine on this subject is the truthfulness of the New Testament itself. While much has been written on this topic, no work from antiquity has more evidence with respect to historical veracity than the New Testament. The New Testament has more writers (nine), better writers, and earlier writers than any other document from that era. Further, history testifies to the fact that these writers went to their deaths for claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. While some may die for a lie they think is true, no person dies for a lie they know to be false. Think about it—if someone was about to crucify you upside down, as happened to the Apostle Peter, and all you had to do to save your life was renounce a lie you had knowingly been living, what would you do?
In addition, history has shown that it takes at least two generations to pass before myth can enter into a historical account. Why? Because eyewitnesses can refute error put in print. Those living at the time could refute the errors of the author and expose the work as being false. All the Gospels of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, with some of Paul’s epistles being written as early as 50 A.D. That early dating acts as a key protective mechanism against any falsehoods being accepted and circulated.
Finally, the New Testament attests to the fact that the portrayal of Jesus was not mistaken for that of any other god. When faced with Paul’s teaching, the elite thinkers of Athens said this: “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean" (Acts 17:18-20). Clearly, if the accounts of Jesus were simply rehashing stories of other gods, the Athenians would not have referred to them at “new” teaching. If dying and rising gods were plentiful in the first century why, when the apostle Paul preached Jesus rising from the dead in Acts 17, did the Epicureans and Stoics not remark, “Ah, just like Horus and Mithras”?
In conclusion, the claims that Jesus is nothing more than a myth, a copy of mythological gods, originated from authors whose works have been discounted by academia, commit logical fallacies that undermine their veracity, and cannot compare to the New Testament Gospels which have withstood nearly 2,000 years of intense scrutiny. The alleged parallels disappear when they are compared with the original historical texts. Similarities between Jesus and the various mythological gods can only be argued for by employing selective and misleading descriptions.
Jesus Christ stands unique in history, with His voice rising above all false gods and continuing to ask the question that ultimately determines a person’s eternal destiny: “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15)
Recommended Resource: The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel. LINK: The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel.
From: GotQuestions.org with thanks.
"Was Jesus Christ married? Did Jesus have a wife?"
Question: "Was Jesus Christ married? Did Jesus have a wife?"
Answer: The recent discovery and translation of the fourth-century "Jesus' wife papyrus" has reopened the discussion as to whether Jesus had a wife / was married. The "Jesus' wife papyus" says, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife ...'" This discovery is interesting in that it is the first Gnostic writing to explicitly state that Jesus had a wife. While a couple of the Gnostic gospels mention Jesus having a close relationship with Mary Magdalene, none of them specifically state that Jesus was married to her or to anyone else. Ultimately, it does not matter what the "Jesus' wife papyrus" or Gnostic gospels say. They have no authority. They have all been proven to be forgeries invented to create a Gnostic view of Jesus.
If Jesus had been married, the Bible would have told us so, or there would be some unambiguous statement to that fact. Scripture would not be completely silent on such an important issue. The Bible mentions Jesus’ mother, adoptive father, half-brothers, and half-sisters. Why would it neglect to mention the fact that Jesus had a wife? Those who believe/teach that Jesus was married are doing so in an attempt to “humanize” Him, to make Him more ordinary, more like everyone else. People simply do not want to believe that Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; 10:30). So, they invent and believe myths about Jesus being married, having children, and being an ordinary human being.
A secondary question would be, “Could Jesus Christ have been married?” There is nothing sinful about being married. There is nothing sinful about having sexual relations in marriage. So, yes, Jesus could have been married and still be the sinless Lamb of God and Savior of the world. At the same time, there is no biblical reason for Jesus to marry. That is not the point in this debate. Those who believe Jesus was married do not believe that He was sinless, or that He was the Messiah. Getting married and having children is not why God sent Jesus. Mark 10:45 tells us why Jesus came, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Do you want to learn about the true "wife" of Jesus? If so, please read our article on "What does it mean that the church is the bride of Christ?" LINK: "What does it mean that the church is the bride of Christ?"
Recommended Resource: Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. LINK: Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture.
From: GotQuestions.org with thanks.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Stoplight: A Walk for the [US] President - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=FKhVnAgt0EY
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=FKhVnAgt0EY
---------------------------------------
PREVENT SPAMMING: when forwarding this email (with written permission obtained first), remove the sender's email address and use the BCC addressing box.
This communication is solely intended for the addressee, is intended only for the use of the person(-s) or entities named above and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient named above or a person responsible for delivering messages or communications to the intended recipient, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any use, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies.
Please consider the environment before printing this message.
Thank you. © 2012. All rights reserved worldwide.
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
History of the Change from Saturday to Sunday Worship
History of the Change from Saturday to Sunday Worship Sabbath Changed to Sunday
This makes for an interesting dilemma for non-Catholics who want to keep Holy the Sabbath (via the letter of the Law), doesn't it? Or, does it? What are we talking about when we talk of the Sabbath? Sabbath does not mean required church services, although communion with other believers has always been important spiritually in Christianity. The word "Sabbath" is derived from the Hebrew word Shabath, which literally means "rest" or "cessation." Traditionally, by choosing to keep the Sabbath Holy, Christians show our loyalty and love for God. This is entirely a free Choice according to early Church Fathers, however.. Two arguments follow. We begin with the argument that early church fathers taught against honoring the Saturday Sabbath, or even a Sunday Sabbath; instead telling us "we should worship God everyday", and if we like - celebrate Sunday in remembrance of the Resurrection. Far below is the alternative argument, that Jesus never spoke out against a Saturday Sabbath, but merely showed us we could enjoy it by picking corn, by going fishing, doing things for God and our neighbors, etc. Remember, most of His own healings were recorded as being done on the Sabbath. The longest surviving second-century work illustrating this Christian-Jewish discussion is Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho around 150 A.D. Trypho, a Jew, was puzzled that Christians "professing to be pious" did not "alter [their] mode of living from that of the Gentiles" or observe "festivals or sabbaths and do not have the rite of circumcision" required by the Law of Moses. Justin distinguished between the Old and the New Covenants. The Old Covenant given to Moses was valid for Jews, but the prophets predicted a "new law" and "eternal covenant" in Christ that is for all peoples. Reference: Christian History & Biography, Fall 2007, page 10 MAJOR ARGUMENTS AGAINST SATURDAY WORSHIP:
The Letter to the Colossians instructed its readers that Sabbath observance was not required (See Colossians 2:16).
During a time of many heresies, early Christians clung to the apostles' teaching about Jesus as the standard for determining what was true and what was not. Those who taught a different message from what the local bishop and elders taught appealed to a secret tradition going back to one of the apostles. Over against this claim to "secret teaching" their opponents pointed to the public succession of leaders and teaching in the established churches. The theologian Tertullian summarized this argument: Truth is what "the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God," and all other doctrine is false. Reference: Christian History & Biography, Fall 2007, page 11 Today Jews and other groups who keep the Sabbath, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, continue to celebrate it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. This would mean that keeping Sunday (8th day/1st day of the week) as a Sabbath, would be from sun down Saturday night to sun down Sunday. The existence of the Catholic Bishop of Rome (same positional authority as a Pope) Sylvester I (314-335 A.D.) who approved (for Christendom) Constantine the Great's 321 AD Edict - changing the Sabbath to Sunday also represents a dilemma for 7th Day Adventists who are teaching the lie that there was not a Bishop ahead/in charge/positional authority of The Catholic Church until 606 A.D. There are many Protestants who were never told this. But, at one time the Lord's entire Church was the Catholic Church. In fact, in 314 A.D. Sylvester I was already the 33rd Bishop of Rome. Early Christians, including bishops, all looked to the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St Peter. The 7th Day Adventists are using semantics. It is true that Gregory I (the Great) established the papal system in the mid 7th century, but the Bishop of Rome already had the papal positional powers ever since Peter. The Bishop of Rome was also recognized by all early church Bishops as the successor to Peter. In 583 AD the eastern Emperor Justinian issued his famous decree that made the Pope the legal "Head of all the Holy Churches". From 538 AD to 1798 AD, I think, the Roman Catholic Papal System was very confused, due to political and military situations in Europe and in the Middle east. This was the dark ages, when Rome called for the Crusades against the pagan Muslims, and later they used the Inquisition, etc., against anyone they viewed as an enemy of the Catholic Church. The Roman Empire fell in 476 AD (Caesar/Roman Empire). Also consider these statements about Linus, the Pope (Bishop of Rome) who directly followed Peter:
Sunday is often spoken of as "the Christian Sabbath," but this is not a technical description. Sunday is not a strict replacement for the Sabbath, but a day the Catholic Church (Early Church) instituted to fulfill a parallel function. Thus Ignatius of Antioch, the earliest Church Father to address this question, states that Christian converts "have given up keeping the Sabbath and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead, the day when life first dawned for us, thanks to him [Christ] and his death." (Letter to the Magnesians 9 [A.D. 107]). Yes it was the Catholic Bishop of Rome (later known as Pope) who officially changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in Christendom after Constantine the Great's 321 A.D. edict. Sylvester I (314-335 A.D.) was the Bishop of Rome during the reign of Constantine who gave his "stamp of approval" to the 321 Edict. Sylvester I did this because being in the office of the Bishop of Rome, with its positional authority. Thus, nodding his approval. This change from Saturday to Sunday was later confirmed at a council of Bishops at the Council of Laodicea (363 A.D.) said; "Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath"...meaning Saturday.
Is the Seventh Day Adventist confused attempt to return/enslave Christians to the Old Testament law -- exactly against what the apostles of Christ taught the Church? According to Christian Apostolic (passed to Bishops by all the apostles) tradition, the Sabbath was given to Israel, not the church. The Sabbath is still Saturday, not Sunday, and has never been changed. Most Christians have always believed, the Sabbath is part of the Old Testament Law. Most Christians think we are free from the bondage of the Law (Galatians 4:1-26; Romans 6:14). There is no record of any Sabbath keeping in Genesis, or between Adam and Moses. There is no record of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob keeping any Sabbath. The Sabbath came later, as a Covenant between God and the Jews! Most Christians believe Sabbath keeping is not required of the Christian—be it Saturday or Sunday, BUT with the caveat; Paul did say; We are to worship God every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday. Gregory the Great declares: "For us, the true Sabbath is the person of our Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ".(14) This is why the joy with which God, on humanity's first Sabbath, contemplates all that was created from nothing, is now expressed in the joy with which Christ, on Easter Sunday, appeared to his disciples, bringing the gift of peace and the gift of the Spirit (cf. Jn 20:19-23). It was in the Paschal Mystery that humanity, and with it the whole creation, "groaning in birth-pangs until now" (Rom 8:22), came to know its new "exodus" into the freedom of God's children who can cry out with Christ, "Abba, Father!" (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old Testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Dominibecomes the dies Christi! Above from the late Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter "Dies Domini" (The Celebration of the Creator's Work).
Consider this... The Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross where Christ "wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us" (Colossians 2:14). The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1–6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished. The Apostle Paul said that each individual Christian should decide whether to observe a Sunday Sabbath, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5)." We do know that Paul continued to honor the Jewish Sabbath day (Saturday). One religious meeting is indeed recorded on the first day in the Bible. But it was on Saturday night after sunset, i.e., after the Jewish Sabbath. This was a gathering on a special occasion. Neither Paul nor his companions were concerned about the effort of walking and sailing on many hours of Sunday. Clearly they did not consider it to have any sabbatical meaning ... Acts 20:6-14. This is a very important/germane argument to the question at hand Paul may have objected to Gentile Christians' adopting of Sabbath observance (See Galatians 4:9-10).
The Word of God makes it quite clear that Sabbath observance was a special sign between God and Israel: "And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine'" (Exodus 19:3–5). Once upon a time all Christians were Catholic. It was the Catholic church who officially changed it from the last day of the Jewish Week (Saturday) to the first day (8th day) of the Jewish Week (Sunday) by nodding agreement with the Roman Emperor's 321 AD Edict. Catholic bishops later made this church dogma at the Council of Laodicea (363 A.D.) The Catholic Church say they had the authority to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Protestants don't deny this -because they observe Sunday as the Sabbath. The only alternatives open to Protestants really is to plead "tradition", or to revert back to required Saturday Worship; or else break a commandment each week. But shouldn't we worship God every day? See the alternative argument below. Catholics do not have this same dilemma that Protestants have. Once upon a time all Christians thought that Jesus did hand the keys to the Church to St Peter, as Catholics still believe. If so, then the Catholic Church had all the "positional/judicial authority" they needed to change and create feast dates (Easter, Christmas, etc) and other days like when the Sabbath would be celebrated. The keys to the church that were given by Jesus are all inclusive, including what was bound on earth is also bound in heaven--as Jesus said. Protestants do admit to the Catholic Pope's authority in other ways other than adhering to Sunday vs Saturday worship. You see, it was also the Catholic Church who decided which books of the Bible are divine. It was they who canonized what we call Holy Scripture today. In Matthew 12:8 we read, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." So either Jesus, or only who he gave authority on earth to can/could change the Sabbath Day... So, the dilemma is--how can Protestants continue to follow Henry VIII's lead and stay outside the Catholic Church--at the same time honoring the Sabbath as Sunday? Protestants don't believe the Pope has the right to change the Sabbath Day, yet they followed his "authority" here and the later Catholic dogma set at the Council of Laodicea. Or, is a Sabbath necessary at all --when we should honor God every day of the week? This certainly fulfills the requirement, and more so. If we do--then no problem. Wasn't the Sabbath given just to Israel? Did Jesus release us from this Sabbath Requirement, when He spoke the words; "It is Finished"? Protestants should see the alternative argument other Protestants make below - insisting in the letter of the Law. They've included in their argument, Matthew 5:17-19, which admonishes against teaching the breaking of any of the Laws. But, again--if Jesus did hand the keys to the Church to Peter--surely this all inclusive positional authority included the right to change a "Law". I'm sure, in between issuing himself divorces while he lusted after other women, old Henry would say something like Jesus did: "The Sabbath was made for Man". "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) "We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy, catholic, apostolic church of Christ."--Episcopalian Bishop Seymour said in "Why We Keep Sunday." One of the clearest voices in the early church to clarify the "Sabbath" question was the Catholic Bishop of Jerusalem, Cyril:
Early Christians did gather on Sundays to worship. - The first Christians held strictly to the doctrines taught by the apostles. For them, this was "the truth" from which they ought not to deviate ... Acts 2:42, Jude 3f, 11 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:9, Romans 6:17 Today, both Catholic and most Protestant leaders claim that Sunday observance is in honor of Christ's first resurrection appearance which happened on the first day of the week. Whenever Christ appears in His resurrected form and the day is mentioned it is always the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1, 9, 10; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1, 13, 15; John 20:19, 26). Early Church / Apostolic Tradition: Acts 20:7 states: And upon the first day of the week (Sunday), when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. The Didache, is also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". It is an ancient Christian text that was probably a catechism, used by the early Church. Ignatius of Antioch Justin Martyr "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 Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
were accustomed to observe the Sabbath and other Jewish customs but on the Lord's days to celebrate the same practices as we in remembrance of the resurrection of the Savior. (Church History Ill.xxvii.5) "They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things" (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 312]). "[T]he day of his [Christ's] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord's day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality" (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).
"You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul's words, that the observance of the law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?" (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]). "The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews' account, forasmuch as the law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath" (Homilies on Philippians 10 [A.D. 402]).
Augustine
"The [Catholic] church took the pagan buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan Roman Pantheon, [the Roman] temple to all the gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs: so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sun day . . . The Sun was a foremost god with heathendom. Balder the beautiful, the White God, the old Scandinavians called him. The sun has worshipers at this hour in Persia and other lands . . . There is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church would seem to have said, 'Keep that old, pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus. The sun is a fitting emblem of Jesus. The Fathers often compared Jesus to the sun; as they compared Mary to the moon."--William L. Gildea, "Paschale Gaudium," in The Catholic World, 58, March, 1894, p. 809. [Dr. Gildea (1856-19 14) was rector of St. James Catholic Church in London]. OFFICIALLY CHANGED TO SUNDAY This was the first in a series of steps taken by Constantine and by later "Christian emperors" in regulating Sunday observance. It is obvious that this first Sunday law was not particularly Christian in orientation (note the pagan designation "venerable Day of the Sun"); but very likely Constantine, on political and social grounds, endeavored to merge together heathen and Christian elements of his constituency by focusing on a common practice. In A.D. 386, Theodosius I and Gratian Valentinian extended Sunday restrictions so that litigation should entirely cease on that day and there would be no public or private payment of debt.[33] Laws forbidding circus, theater, and horse racing also followed and were reiterated as felt necessary. "In the year 321 the Emperor Constantine, who was not yet a declared Christian, but was still hovering between paganism and Christianity, issued a decree making Sunday a compulsory day of rest: but the fact that he speaks of Sunday as 'the venerable day of the Sun' [the pagan sun-worship title for the day] shows that he was thinking of it as a traditional sun-festival at the same time that he thought of it as a Christian holy-day . . . Sunday came to be observed throughout Europe as it is still observed by Roman Catholics, namely, as a day on which, like our Christmas, people went to church in the morning and then gave themselves over to rest or to holiday-making and sports."--Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 236-237. [A. D. Weigall (1880-1934) was a British historian, Egyptologist and inspector-general of antiquities for the Egyptian Government]. "At this time in early church history it was necessary for the church to either adopt the Gentiles' day or else have the Gentiles change their day. To change the Gentiles' day would have been an offense and a stumbling block to them. The church could naturally reach them better by keeping their day."--William Frederick, Three Prophetic Days, pp. 169-170. Sylvester I (314-337 A.D.) was the pope during the reign of Constantine. Here is what he thought of the Bible Sabbath: "If every Sunday is to be observed joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every Sabbath on account of the burial is to be execration [loathing or cursing] of the Jews."--quoted by S. R. E. Humbert, Adversus Graecorum calumnias 6, in Patrologie Cursus Completus, Series Latina, ed. J.P. Migne, 1844, p. 143. Council of Nicea I (325 AD): When Constantine defeated Emperor Licinius in 323 AD he ended the persecutions against the Christian church. Shortly afterwards Christians faced a trouble from within: the Arian controversy began and threatened to divide the church. The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation. The Council of Nicea, a gathering similar to the one described in Acts 15:4-22, condemned the beliefs of Arius and wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius." Council of Nicea II: This gives a snapshot of the thinking of the early church fathers about keeping the Jewish Customs:
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
The Alternative Argument: This argument denies that Christians are free from the bondage of the Law (Galatians 4:1-26; Romans 6:14). It says that Sabbath (Saturday) keeping is required of the Christian. In Mark 2:23-28. Jesus allowed His disciples to pluck heads of grain to eat as they walked through grain fields on the Sabbath. He was challenged on this point by the Pharisees, who had addedmore than 60 legalistic "dos and don'ts" to the Sabbath—of theirown human devising. But Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath".
Genesis 2:2-3 begins to provide the answer in this argument. "And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God BLESSED the seventh day and sanctified it,because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made." Notice that God "ended" or completed His work of creation byresting on the seventh day of the week. The word "Sabbath" is derived from the Hebrew word Shabath, which literally means "rest" or "cessation." God created the Sabbath by resting on this day and ceasing from creating material things. And He "blessed" and "sanctified"—that is, set apart for holy use—this day and no other! By blessing and sanctifying the seventh-day Sabbath, God showed that His presence is IN this day in a very special way. For of all the days of the week, this one ALONE points to Him in a unique way as the true God, the One who created and now governs the entire universe. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away [and they still have not!], one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the LEAST of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19). |
From: Bible Probe |