Biblical Perspective on Sunday Worship 1. No Direct Command: - The New Testament does not explicitly command or even provide a slight indication for the replacement of the Sabbath with Sunday worship. The focus of the New Testament is on the resurrection of Jesus, rather than instituting Sunday as a new day of rest or worship. 2. Continuity with Sabbath Observance: - Jesus observed the Sabbath regularly, as seen in Luke 4:16 and Matthew 5:17-19. The apostles’ observance of the Sabbath is also documented in Acts 13:14, 15:21, 16:13, 17:2, and 18:4. These references underline the Sabbath's importance in their practice. 3. Gentile Converts and the Sabbath: -Gentile converts to Christianity continued to observe the Sabbath, indicating its ongoing importance in early Apostolic Christian practice and highlighting its continued significance. In Acts 13:42 and 44, we see that these converts were present in the synagogue keeping the Sabbath, showing their continued observance and respect for this day. 4. Unscriptural Theological Development: - The practice of Sunday worship developed gradually over time during the post-apostolic era, influenced by theological reflections and traditions prevalent in the Roman Empire at that time. These aimed to honor Sunday observance, using Jesus' resurrection on that day as an unwarranted justification. This development was not based on an explicit New Testament command or practice but diverged from the original Sabbath observance, which is one of the commandments in the Decalogue. 5. Deviation from Apostolic Practice: - The early Church Fathers deviated from the original teaching and practice of Jesus and the apostles regarding the Sabbath commandment. As prophesied by Paul in Acts 20:29 (KJV), "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock", there was a significant departure from the original apostolic teaching and practice. 6. Pagan Origins of Sunday Worship: -Sunday worship has pagan origins steming from historical and cultural practices that predate Christianity. Here's a summary of this perspective: 1. Roman Sun Worship: - In ancient Rome, Sunday was dedicated to the sun god, Sol Invictus. This day was considered auspicious for sun worship, and various sun deities were honored on this day, including the later imperial cults. 2. Heliocentric Influence: - The influence of heliocentric (sun-centered) religion was widespread in the Roman Empire. Sunday was already a day of rest and celebration in honor of the sun, a practice that was integrated into Christian worship practices as Christianity became more entrenched in Roman culture. 3. Early Christian Adaptation: - As Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, church leaders adapted certain cultural and religious practices to facilitate conversion and integration. The observance of Sunday as a day of worship was influenced by the existing Roman tradition of sun worship, helping to bridge the gap between pagan practices and Christian worship. 4. Constantine’s Edict: - In 321 AD, Emperor Constantine issued an edict making Sunday a day of rest from labor, aligning with the established Roman practice and facilitating the transition to Christian observance. This move was part of a broader effort to merge Christian practices with prevailing cultural norms, which is basically paganism. Conclusion The New Testament does not provide a direct command or indication to replace the Sabbath with Sunday. Gentile converts to Christianity maintained Sabbath observance (Acts 13:42 and 44), reflecting its ongoing significance. The emphasis on Sunday as a day of worship developed through tradition and theological reflection, diverging from the original Sabbath observance as established by Jesus and the apostles. The association of Sunday worship with pagan sun worship reflects historical developments where post-apostolic Christians adapted cultural practices to their new religious context with in the Roman Empire. While the Christian observance of Sunday ultimately became centered on the resurrection of Jesus, its timing and some associated practices were influenced by pre-existing Roman traditions dedicated to the sun as a god.
Paul advised the early Christains "Do not go beyond the things that are written" (1 Cor 4:6). The 'trinity' was the result of human reasoning and efforts to explain the relationship between God & His Son and the Holy Spirit. The presense of Greek philosophy in the helenist culture of the 2nd & 3rd century play a significant part in the doctrines of the new 'church' sanctioned by Rome! it is FALSE!
@@sexyeur Calvinism/Reformists sadly reverses the meaning of some very plain language scripture. Most disturbingly, it re-interprets the message of God's love for all and his desire that ALL would be saved if only they believed in Christ. Rather, they redefine the original meanings of election and predestination to proclaim that God's love is limited. That Christ's atonement for ALL to be limited to a predetermined select few. That God did not give us a free-will to select or deny Christ on our own accord. For God to tell us that he desires ALL people to be saved, but that many will not be "selected" or "elected" is a false Gospel and not a very good news story at all.
@@r.fortner4661 I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful answer. Thank you. I never knew Calvinism to be so bad, but I see the L in TULIP (the five points of Calvinism) is for "Limited atonement", though the Wiki explains it this way: "Limited atonement (also called definite atonement)[12] asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is intended for some and not all. Some Calvinists have summarized this as "The atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect." Are we reading too much into our objections, based on a few controversial teachers, or is there something fundamentally and insidiously wrong with Calvinism? Similarly, perhaps? One of the things, I haven't liked regarding the preterite approaches to eschatology is its implicit tendency to replacement theology and the disregard of Jewish people in their own state of Israel. I beg what unbelieving Israel is Paul then revealing to us in his mystery of Romans 9. And, further, who rules the nations, as Nebuchadnezzar's bespoken 7-year hiatus as an animal chewing grass would have us believe from the book of Daniel? I never get an answer... We know Who.
in the jewish community it was very usual to use son of God for any one hwo is very religious ,very honest ,very pure.but when the christianity spread to other nations with different culture they understand son of God as its real son of God.son of God in the time of jesus meant a holy man ,and in our time it means a prophet sent by God.
@@reformedcatholic457 Sola Fide is literally against the scriptures as seen in James 2 "20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead?"
@@reformedcatholic457 please provide references where Church Fathers taught sola fide and sola scriptura. A form of sola scriptura is just that, a few statements about the value and authority of the Old Testament, do not constitute the fully developed modern dogma of sola scriptura, which elevated Scripture to a position it has never had in the Church before. Listening to some Protestants today, one would could easily come to the conclusion that Scripture somehow is part of the Holy Trinity. Especially when they carelessly refer to the 'Word of God', both in speech and in writing. There is only one Word of God, the Logos - Jesus.
@@rsgalhero not only that, the phrase 'by faith alone' does not even appear anywhere in the New Testament. Luther insisted on including 'alone' in his translation of the Bible to German. Very much in the same way Judge Russel insisted on incerting 'a' infront of 'God' in John 1:1. Luther was no better than a Jehovas Witness. The academics working on the translation tried everything to dissuade him, but he was resolute. Ironically, the only time the word 'alone' is used in the New Testament is in James 2 where James wrote that salvation is not through faith alone. Luther had issues with James' epistle and, if not stopped by the Tubingen theologians, would have removed it from the Bible, effectively editing the what the Holy Spirit decided to allow.
Heresy is a word used by the early Paulists to justify their torture and murder of Christians whose theology and Canon differed from theirs, and attempts to destroy their ideas. Their theology was closer to the truth than the false doctrines pushed by Ireneus and Augustine.
Reed Scott means the typical calvinist and lutheran problem. They stripped away most of catholicism but kept lots of catholicism as well as infant baptism and nowadays calvinists allow women as pastors as well contrary to John Calvin. I was debating this with an calvinist pastor and they are a bit stuck in bending their beliefs to modern time discarting even John Calvins teachings in many ways (excusing it ad better insigth and times have changed). They have fallen prey to liberal theology. Same thing for anglicans.
These modern theologians also study these heresies, everyone (and it is not limited only to the church fathers) can study the Bible and these heresies.
You cant have God as your father without the Orthodox church as your mother! Christ came to save mankind and create a church that the gates of hell will not prevail against! Orthodoxy the same since 33 AD.
@@HearGodsWord you didnt answer my question. And why do you think it has anything to do about being more? What does calling out prejudicial and bigotted terminology have to do with thinking im ''more''? Its not a pissing contest.
How can you accept original sin yet condemn Gnosticism. Original sin is that the flesh is evil but the spirit is good and to escape original sin we need to die.
I don't think that's a good definition of original sin. Man is born tainted in every aspect of his being and with God's death sentence upon him. "And you were dead in you trespasses and sins...and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." (Eph 2:1-3).
@@skyking690 nature is habit within that context. Jesus was tempted in every single way we are yet without sin. Jesus would be a sinner if original sin is true. As you may know to get around Jesus being a sinner Catholics made Mary sinless so Jesus would be sinless. I'm sure you reject that notion since Mary offered a sin offering in the gospels. If I send you quotes from early church fathers would you reconsider the original sin doctrine. I think there is a strong case to suggest original sin doctrine first started with Augustine of Hippos who was a former Gnostic.
@@ClarkAboudaz You know original sin is clearly taught in Romans 5:12-21? Also, St. Augustine didn't come up with the doctrine of original sin but it was St. Irenaeus he lived from about 150-210 AD and a few others apart from Irenaeus taught it as well.
@@reformedcatholic457 have you read Romans 5:19 that says many were made sinners rather than all? What about Hebrews 4:15 that Jesus was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin? Jesus wasn't a sinner yet experienced everything we do.
@0 0 Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Biblical Perspective on Sunday Worship
1. No Direct Command:
- The New Testament does not explicitly command or even provide a slight indication for the replacement of the Sabbath with Sunday worship. The focus of the New Testament is on the resurrection of Jesus, rather than instituting Sunday as a new day of rest or worship.
2. Continuity with Sabbath Observance:
- Jesus observed the Sabbath regularly, as seen in Luke 4:16 and Matthew 5:17-19. The apostles’ observance of the Sabbath is also documented in Acts 13:14, 15:21, 16:13, 17:2, and 18:4. These references underline the Sabbath's importance in their practice.
3. Gentile Converts and the Sabbath:
-Gentile converts to Christianity continued to observe the Sabbath, indicating its ongoing importance in early Apostolic Christian practice and highlighting its continued significance. In Acts 13:42 and 44, we see that these converts were present in the synagogue keeping the Sabbath, showing their continued observance and respect for this day.
4. Unscriptural Theological Development:
- The practice of Sunday worship developed gradually over time during the post-apostolic era, influenced by theological reflections and traditions prevalent in the Roman Empire at that time. These aimed to honor Sunday observance, using Jesus' resurrection on that day as an unwarranted justification. This development was not based on an explicit New Testament command or practice but diverged from the original Sabbath observance, which is one of the commandments in the Decalogue.
5. Deviation from Apostolic Practice:
- The early Church Fathers deviated from the original teaching and practice of Jesus and the apostles regarding the Sabbath commandment. As prophesied by Paul in Acts 20:29 (KJV), "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock", there was a significant departure from the original apostolic teaching and practice.
6. Pagan Origins of Sunday Worship:
-Sunday worship has pagan origins steming from historical and cultural practices that predate Christianity.
Here's a summary of this perspective:
1. Roman Sun Worship:
- In ancient Rome, Sunday was dedicated to the sun god, Sol Invictus. This day was considered auspicious for sun worship, and various sun deities were honored on this day, including the later imperial cults.
2. Heliocentric Influence:
- The influence of heliocentric (sun-centered) religion was widespread in the Roman Empire. Sunday was already a day of rest and celebration in honor of the sun, a practice that was integrated into Christian worship practices as Christianity became more entrenched in Roman culture.
3. Early Christian Adaptation:
- As Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, church leaders adapted certain cultural and religious practices to facilitate conversion and integration. The observance of Sunday as a day of worship was influenced by the existing Roman tradition of sun worship, helping to bridge the gap between pagan practices and Christian worship.
4. Constantine’s Edict:
- In 321 AD, Emperor Constantine issued an edict making Sunday a day of rest from labor, aligning with the established Roman practice and facilitating the transition to Christian observance. This move was part of a broader effort to merge Christian practices with prevailing cultural norms, which is basically paganism.
Conclusion
The New Testament does not provide a direct command or indication to replace the Sabbath with Sunday. Gentile converts to Christianity maintained Sabbath observance (Acts 13:42 and 44), reflecting its ongoing significance. The emphasis on Sunday as a day of worship developed through tradition and theological reflection, diverging from the original Sabbath observance as established by Jesus and the apostles. The association of Sunday worship with pagan sun worship reflects historical developments where post-apostolic Christians adapted cultural practices to their new religious context with in the Roman Empire. While the Christian observance of Sunday ultimately became centered on the resurrection of Jesus, its timing and some associated practices were influenced by pre-existing Roman traditions dedicated to the sun as a god.
Pastor said he's an angel since he teaches the bible
May YAH Bless you, I'll listen again, Arianism had some good reasoning
May Father bless your understand.
Knowing what is true, well, means you can spot what is false quickly.
Except when someone thinks they know what is true but really are in something false... seeing this all over the place sadly 😢
Is there a primer on ousia and hypostaseis as used in all councils?
Paul advised the early Christains "Do not go beyond the things that are written" (1 Cor 4:6). The 'trinity' was the result of human reasoning and efforts to explain the relationship between God & His Son and the Holy Spirit. The presense of Greek philosophy in the helenist culture of the 2nd & 3rd century play a significant part in the doctrines of the new 'church' sanctioned by Rome! it is FALSE!
Calvinism is a doctrine from hell. It is "another gospel" and is damnable. 23 years
Can we have Calvin apart from Calvinism? How is Calvinism another Gospel?
@@sexyeur Calvinism/Reformists sadly reverses the meaning of some very plain language scripture. Most disturbingly, it re-interprets the message of God's love for all and his desire that ALL would be saved if only they believed in Christ. Rather, they redefine the original meanings of election and predestination to proclaim that God's love is limited. That Christ's atonement for ALL to be limited to a predetermined select few. That God did not give us a free-will to select or deny Christ on our own accord. For God to tell us that he desires ALL people to be saved, but that many will not be "selected" or "elected" is a false Gospel and not a very good news story at all.
@@r.fortner4661 I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful answer. Thank you. I never knew Calvinism to be so bad, but I see the L in TULIP (the five points of Calvinism) is for "Limited atonement", though the Wiki explains it this way:
"Limited atonement (also called definite atonement)[12] asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is intended for some and not all. Some Calvinists have summarized this as "The atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect."
Are we reading too much into our objections, based on a few controversial teachers, or is there something fundamentally and insidiously wrong with Calvinism?
Similarly, perhaps? One of the things, I haven't liked regarding the preterite approaches to eschatology is its implicit tendency to replacement theology and the disregard of Jewish people in their own state of Israel. I beg what unbelieving Israel is Paul then revealing to us in his mystery of Romans 9. And, further, who rules the nations, as Nebuchadnezzar's bespoken 7-year hiatus as an animal chewing grass would have us believe from the book of Daniel? I never get an answer... We know Who.
in the jewish community it was very usual to use son of God for any one hwo is very religious ,very honest ,very pure.but when the christianity spread to other nations with different culture they understand son of God as its real son of God.son of God in the time of jesus meant a holy man ,and in our time it means a prophet sent by God.
How about heresies among the "reformed"? You know, like sola fide and sola scriptura
Then you condemn the Church fathers who taught Sola Fide and a form of Sola Scriptura as Roman Catholic scholars agree.
@@reformedcatholic457 Sola Fide is literally against the scriptures as seen in James 2 "20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead?"
@@rsgalhero Do you know what the doctrine of Justification by faith alone teaches?
@@reformedcatholic457 please provide references where Church Fathers taught sola fide and sola scriptura. A form of sola scriptura is just that, a few statements about the value and authority of the Old Testament, do not constitute the fully developed modern dogma of sola scriptura, which elevated Scripture to a position it has never had in the Church before. Listening to some Protestants today, one would could easily come to the conclusion that Scripture somehow is part of the Holy Trinity. Especially when they carelessly refer to the 'Word of God', both in speech and in writing. There is only one Word of God, the Logos - Jesus.
@@rsgalhero not only that, the phrase 'by faith alone' does not even appear anywhere in the New Testament. Luther insisted on including 'alone' in his translation of the Bible to German. Very much in the same way Judge Russel insisted on incerting 'a' infront of 'God' in John 1:1. Luther was no better than a Jehovas Witness. The academics working on the translation tried everything to dissuade him, but he was resolute. Ironically, the only time the word 'alone' is used in the New Testament is in James 2 where James wrote that salvation is not through faith alone. Luther had issues with James' epistle and, if not stopped by the Tubingen theologians, would have removed it from the Bible, effectively editing the what the Holy Spirit decided to allow.
There was no canon in the first several hundred years...depending on where you lived that would deternine what your congregation believed
I use to be a modalist. You misrepresented modalism.
He explained it correctly
Heresy is a word used by the early Paulists to justify their torture and murder of Christians whose theology and Canon differed from theirs, and attempts to destroy their ideas. Their theology was closer to the truth than the false doctrines pushed by Ireneus and Augustine.
Who are the early Paulists?
Reed Scott means the typical calvinist and lutheran problem. They stripped away most of catholicism but kept lots of catholicism as well as infant baptism and nowadays calvinists allow women as pastors as well contrary to John Calvin. I was debating this with an calvinist pastor and they are a bit stuck in bending their beliefs to modern time discarting even John Calvins teachings in many ways (excusing it ad better insigth and times have changed). They have fallen prey to liberal theology. Same thing for anglicans.
RL S but isn't John Calvin's disallowing women to preach, itself, a carryover of Roman Catholicism?
How is infant baptism heresy
Scripture still says the same as it did in Calvin's day, or the first century.
th-cam.com/video/qRz4-RkeB44/w-d-xo.html
Salvation by tithes
He is a heratic. Only through the teaching of the church fathers explain the bible., not these modern theologians.
These modern theologians also study these heresies, everyone (and it is not limited only to the church fathers) can study the Bible and these heresies.
th-cam.com/video/qRz4-RkeB44/w-d-xo.html
You cant have God as your father without the Orthodox church as your mother! Christ came to save mankind and create a church that the gates of hell will not prevail against! Orthodoxy the same since 33 AD.
Heresy? False doctrine? What kind of academic are you? Rofl!
Clearly more of an academic than you
@@HearGodsWord how so?
@@boxerfencer you think you are more so than him then?
@@HearGodsWord you didnt answer my question. And why do you think it has anything to do about being more? What does calling out prejudicial and bigotted terminology have to do with thinking im ''more''? Its not a pissing contest.
@@boxerfencer I think you actually just gave me the answer and proved my point unintentially👌
How can you accept original sin yet condemn Gnosticism. Original sin is that the flesh is evil but the spirit is good and to escape original sin we need to die.
I don't think that's a good definition of original sin. Man is born tainted in every aspect of his being and with God's death sentence upon him. "And you were dead in you trespasses and sins...and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." (Eph 2:1-3).
@@skyking690 nature is habit within that context. Jesus was tempted in every single way we are yet without sin. Jesus would be a sinner if original sin is true. As you may know to get around Jesus being a sinner Catholics made Mary sinless so Jesus would be sinless. I'm sure you reject that notion since Mary offered a sin offering in the gospels. If I send you quotes from early church fathers would you reconsider the original sin doctrine. I think there is a strong case to suggest original sin doctrine first started with Augustine of Hippos who was a former Gnostic.
@@ClarkAboudaz You know original sin is clearly taught in Romans 5:12-21? Also, St. Augustine didn't come up with the doctrine of original sin but it was St. Irenaeus he lived from about 150-210 AD and a few others apart from Irenaeus taught it as well.
@@reformedcatholic457 have you read Romans 5:19 that says many were made sinners rather than all? What about Hebrews 4:15 that Jesus was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin? Jesus wasn't a sinner yet experienced everything we do.
@0 0 Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.