|
Author
|
Topic: Catholics are making it up.
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 216 of 507 (768968)
09-15-2015 11:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by Tangle
09-15-2015 4:34 AM
|
|
Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
Tangle writes:
It's pretty clear that the Catholic church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday as a pure policy matter, presumably to make it different from Jewish practice. The protestant believers came along after and didn't bother changing it back to the biblically correct Saturday. Now they have to dissemble to justify it.
This claim seems to be a good example of something that the Catholic Church "made up." There is biblical evidence that Christians had begun meeting on Sunday as early as the first century, long before Constantine, Pope Gregory, or any organized Catholic Church existed:
quote:
Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul began to speak to the people, and because he intended to leave the next day, he extended his message until midnight.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by Tangle, posted 09-15-2015 4:34 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 226 of 507 (768999)
09-15-2015 1:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 219 by ringo
09-15-2015 12:46 PM
|
|
Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
ringo writes: They met because he was leaving on the next day. Presumably, if he was leaving on the fourth day, they could have met on any day before that.
The text doesn't say that; read it again. Perhaps the NIV translation makes it a bit clearer:
quote:
Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
The text says two things: 1) they met together on the first day for the purpose of breaking bread ( not necessarily because Paul was leaving the next day) 2) they extended their meeting until midnight because Paul was leaving the next day Was this meeting on the first day their normal habit, or was it an unusual occurrence? We can't say for sure from this text alone. But since the purpose of their meeting was to "break bread", and this was a regular habit (Acts 2:42 "They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer") it is likely that they had already begun to habitually meet on the first day of the week.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 219 by ringo, posted 09-15-2015 12:46 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 237 by ringo, posted 09-16-2015 3:12 PM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 227 of 507 (769013)
09-15-2015 3:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
09-15-2015 1:09 PM
|
|
Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
jar writes:
Nor is Sunday necessarily "the first day of the week". In Jewish tradition the Sabbath is sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. Sunday is considered the first day of the week. In Roman times Monday (Diana's day) was considered the first day of the week.
The Hebrew names for the days of the week are simply the numbers of the days. I.e. the Hebrew name for "Sunday" is "first day". The book of Acts was written in a Jewish context. The "first day of the week" in Acts was Sunday.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 1:09 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 228 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 3:57 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 229 of 507 (769024)
09-15-2015 4:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 228 by jar
09-15-2015 3:57 PM
|
|
Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
jar writes:
No one is arguing otherwise as I pointed out and you quoted. Abe: But neither the Jews or Early Christians used Sunday as the name for the first day of the week. We really have no way to accurately determine what day would correspond nor is it of any importance.
Agreed, they did not use the name "Sunday" for the first day of the week. They were Hebrews, so they used the name "first day" for the first day of the week. There should be no question that the "first day" is really the first day of their week. This corresponds to Sunday, the first day of our week.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 228 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 3:57 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 231 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 6:59 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 232 of 507 (769044)
09-15-2015 8:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 231 by jar
09-15-2015 6:59 PM
|
|
Re: " ...a thousand other laws..."
jar writes: kbertsche writes:
There should be no question that the "first day" is really the first day of their week. This corresponds to Sunday, the first day of our week.
So you claim but where is the evidence to support that assertion? Our week has seven days, numbered one through seven. The first day is named "Sunday" and the seventh "Saturday". The Hebrew week as followed by Jews (OT, NT, and modern) has seven days, numbered one through seven. The first day of their week is named "First Day" and the seventh is named "Sabbath", a word related to the word for "seven". To this day, the Jewish Sabbath is the same day as our Saturday (yes, the Jewish Sabbath day starts at sundown the previous evening and continues through the daylight hours of Saturday, but this is a minor correction). So when the NT speaks of the "Sabbath", we should understand this as "Saturday" (but realizing that the Sabbath day actually started at sundown Friday evening). When the NT speaks of the "first day of the week", we should understand this as "Sunday" (again realizing that the first day actually started at sundown after the Sabbath). This should all be obvious and self-evident. Why is there any question or confusion at all about this?!? It would be nonsensical to say that the Jewish Sabbath is not Saturday. This would mean that the Jews had mixed up their own calendar. This is possible, of course, but one would need evidence for this assertion. Where is your evidence?
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 231 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 6:59 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 233 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2015 8:54 PM | | kbertsche has not replied | | | Message 234 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 9:59 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 236 of 507 (769052)
09-15-2015 10:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 234 by jar
09-15-2015 9:59 PM
|
|
Re: Thank God religions evolve
jar writes:
What evidence is there though that the sequence has been continual and consistent? BUT... I repeat... all that is still irrelevant!!!!
I agree; this is completely irrelevant. It is doubtful that the Jewish calendar slipped a day or two; but even if it did, it would be irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not the sequence has been continual and consistent.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 234 by jar, posted 09-15-2015 9:59 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2