Letter of Ignatius to Smyrneans

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #7251
    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    About Saint Ignatius of Antioch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

     

     

    Letter of Ignatius to Smyrneans, ca 105 AD. 

     

    Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father and the beloved Jesus Christ; a church mercifully endowed with every gift; overflowing with faith and love; lacking in no gift; radiant with God's splendor, and fruitful mother of saints. To the Church at Smyrna in Asia I send best wishes for irreproachableness of sentiment and loyalty to the word of God.

     

    1. I extol Jesus Christ, the God who has granted you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are thoroughly trained in unshaken faith, being nailed, as it were, to the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ both in body and in soul, and that you are well established in love through the Blood of Christ and firmly believe in Our Lord: He is really of the line of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God by the will and power of God; was really born of a virgin, and baptized by John in order to comply with every ordinance. Under Pontius Pilate and the tetrarch Herod He was really nailed to the cross in the flesh for our sake–of whose fruit we are, in virtue of His most blessed Passion. And thus, through the Resurrection, He raised a banner for all times for His saints and faithful followers, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles, that they might be united in a single body, that is, His Church.

     

    2. All these sufferings, assuredly, He underwent for our sake, that we might be saved. And He suffered really, as He also really raised Himself from the dead. It is not as some unbelievers say, who maintain that His suffering was a make-believe. In reality, it is they that are make- believes: and, as their notion, so their end: they will be bodiless and ghostlike shapes!

     

    3. For myself, I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the Resurrection. And when He came to Peter and Peter's companions, He said to them: "Here; feel me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost." Immediately they touched Him and, through this contact with His Flesh and Spirit, believed. For the same reason they despised death and, in fact, proved stronger than death. Again, after the Resurrection, He ate and drank with them like a being of flesh and blood, though spiritually one with the Father.

     

    4. I am urging these things on you, beloved, although I know that you are of the same mind. I am cautioning you betimes, however, against wild beasts in human form, whom you ought not only not to receive, but, if possible, even avoid meeting. Only pray for them, if somehow they may change their mind–a difficult thing! But that is in the power of Jesus Christ, our true Life. Surely, if those things were done by Our Lord as a mere make-believe, then I in my chains, too, am a make-believe! Why, moreover, did I surrender myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to wild beasts? Well, to be near the sword is to be near God; to be in the claws of wild beasts is to be in the hands of God. Only let it be done in the name of Jesus Christ! To suffer with Him I endure all things, if He, who became perfect man, gives me the strength.

     

    5. Some disown Him through ignorance, or, rather, were disowned by Him, being advocates of death rather than the truth. They were not convinced by the prophecies or by the Law of Moses; no, not even to this day by the Gospel or the sufferings of our own people; for they entertain the same view of us. Really, what good does anyone do me if he praises me, but blasphemes my Lord by not admitting that He carried living flesh about Him? He who does not admit this, has absolutely disowned Him, and what he carries about him is a corpse. Their names–names of unbelievers they are!- -I do not think advisable to write down. In fact, I even wish I did not remember them, until they change their mind concerning the Passion, which is our resurrection.

     

    6. Let no one be deceived! Even the heavenly powers and the angels in their splendor and the principalities, both visible and invisible, must either believe in the Blood of Christ, or else face damnation. Let him grasp it who can. Let no rank puff up anyone; for faith and love are paramount–the greatest blessings in the world. Observe those who hold erroneous opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty.

     

    7. From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.

     

    8. You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God's commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.

     

    9. It is consonant with reason, therefore, that we should come to our senses, while we still have time to change our ways and turn to God. It is well to revere God and bishop. He who honors a bishop is honored by God. He who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop worships the devil. May all things, then, be yours in abundance through grace, for you deserve it. You have brought relief to me in every respect, and may Jesus Christ do so to you! Whether I was absent or present, you have shown me love. Your reward is God, to whom you will come if you endure all things for His sake.

     

    10. As to Philo and Rheus Agathopus, who accompanied me in the name of God, it was good of you to give them a warm reception as to servants of Christ God. For their part, they thank the Lord on your behalf, because you offered them losers. A ransom for you are my life and my chains, which you did not despise and of which you were not ashamed. Neither will Jesus Christ, our consummate hope, be ashamed of you.

     

    11. Your prayer made its way to the Church at Antioch in Syria. Coming from there in chains radiant with divine splendor, I send greetings to all. Not that I deserve to belong to that community, being the least of its members; but by the will (of God) I was granted this favor–no, not because of any conscious deed, but because of the grace of God. Would that this grace were given me in perfection, that through your prayer I may make my way to God! Now, that your own work may be made perfect both on earth and in heaven, it is proper, for the honor of God, that your Church should send a God- empowered delegate to go to Syria and congratulate the people on enjoying peace, having recovered their normal greatness, and having their full status restored to them. It therefore appears to me to be a God-inspired undertaking to send one of your number with a letter for the purpose of joining in the celebration of their God-given tranquillity, and because they have, thanks to your prayer, at last made port. Be perfect, therefore, and devise a perfect method. You need only be willing to do well, and God is ready to assist you.

     

    12. In their affection the brethren at Troas wish to be remembered to you. It is from here that I send this letter through the kindness of Burrus, whom you conjointly with your brethren, the Ephesians, commissioned to accompany me. He has given me every possible comfort. And would that all might imitate him, for he is a pattern of what a minister of God should be. God's grace will reward him in every way. Greetings to the bishop, that man of God, to the God-minded presbytery, to the deacons my fellow servants, to the whole community, individually and collectively, in the name of Jesus Christ, in His Flesh and Blood, in His Passion and Resurrection, both corporal and spiritual, in unity with God and with you. Grace be to you and mercy and peace and patient endurance forever.

     

    13. Greetings to the families of my brethren, including their wives and children, and to the virgins who are enrolled among the widows. Farewell in the power of the Father! Philo, who is with me, wishes to be remembered to you. Offer my respects to the household of Tavia, and I pray that she may be firmly rooted in faith and love, both carnal and spiritual. Give my regards to Alce, that most dear friend of mine, and to the incomparable Daphnus, and to Eutecnus, and to all the rest by name. Farewell in the grace. 

  • #58592

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    "Marcion … displayed a hatred … He was only professedly following the Creator, as being His Christ, in this very hatred of the Sabbath" -Tertullian 

    ""And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and [Marcion] said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan."" -Irenaeus of Lyons 

    Marcion was a heretic who thought that the God of the Old Testament was an angry demi-god, a separate God from the one Christ preached. It was in that context that Tertullian said that Marcion hated the Jewish Sabbath. In another place, actually in many other places, Tertullian makes clear the Sabbath was abolished; 

    "It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary."

     

    -An Answer to the Jews, chapter 4. (a good read btw)

     

    As for Polycarp and the Quartidecimian controversy… Polycarp never broke communion with the other Churches, and the other Churches had received their tradition from the apostles as well.

    Your quoting of Irenaeus was ironic. Here are a couple more quotes from Irenaeus;

     "Nor will he be commanded to leave idle one day of rest, who is constantly keeping sabbath, that is, giving homage to God in the temple of God, which is man's body, and at all times doing the works of justice."

    -Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 96

     

    "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."                                    -Against Heresies, Book III Chapter III

    #58593

    genny
    Participant

    WMS brother wrote:

    The [sic] was not mine, that was already in the editorial source I used.

    I thought that might be the case.  So did you look up the context of those quotes for yourself, I wonder?

    Not the "Jewish" sabbath. The sabbath day was observed, regularly and always, but the "example" given to us by Jesus and Paul is to preach and do the spiritual work of God on those days, in the church (synagogue) rather than the physical Jewish regulations, which are on the exact same day, because it is the exact same sabbath; using the New Covenent given to man.

    The crux of the matter is that Jesus gave the apostles instructions right before ascending into heaven.

    There were some Jewish believers who did continue to follow Jewish Law, as was their custom.  But the Gentile believers were not required to follow the Jewish Law when they became believers.  This is in Acts 15.  And it was the apostles who told them that.  If the apostles were told by Jesus that believers must follow these new regulations, as you say, then they would have told the Gentile believers to do so, but they did not.

    I've looked at the instructions Jesus gave to the apostles right before ascending to heaven in Acts 1, and I don't see any instructions about Sabbath or feasts or any other laws.  Can you please point out where the Bible shows Jesus giving these instructions you are talking about?

    #58594

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Also, keep in mind that Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, 

    "These things Caius transcribed from the copy of Irenaeus (who was a disciple of Polycarp), having himself been intimate with Irenaeus. And I Socrates transcribed them at Corinth from the copy of CaiusGrace be with you all."

     

    -from the Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 22 

    #58595

    genny
    Participant

    Hi WMS Brother.  I'm on to the next quote, and I have to say Wow!  It is so not what I expected!  You said,

    5.) (Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 12. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight)

    "Marcion … displayed a hatred … He was only professedly following the Creator, as being His Christ, in this very hatred of the Sabbath"

    Here's a link to the book online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.v.xii.html

    Irenaeus already pointed out above why Marcion was considered a heretic.  Tertullian was speaking out against him, trying to point out how Marcion's own reasoning did not work.  But the context of the quote shows that in this passage Tertullian is NOT saying that Marcion hated the Sabbath.  Here it is in context, and I'll bold the words that were pulled out for your quote (but I'll take out the reference links to make it easier to read):

    And it would have been, of course, but right that a new god should first be expounded, and his discipline be introduced afterwards; because it would be the god that would impart authority to the discipline, and not the discipline to the god; except that (to be sure) it has happened that Marcion acquired his very perverse opinions not from a master, but his master from his opinion! All other points respecting the Sabbath I thus rule. If Christ interfered with the Sabbath, He simply acted after the Creator’s example; inasmuch as in the siege of the city of Jericho the carrying around the walls of the ark of the covenant for eight days running, and therefore on a Sabbath-day, actually annulled the Sabbath, by the Creator’s command—according to the opinion of those who think this of Christ in this passage of St. Luke, in their ignorance that neither Christ nor the Creator violated the Sabbath, as we shall by and by show. And yet the Sabbath was actually then broken by Joshua, so that the present charge might be alleged also against Christ. But even if, as being not the Christ of the Jews, He displayed a hatred against the Jews’ most solemn day, He was only professedly following the Creator, as being His Christ, in this very hatred of the Sabbath; for He exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah: “Your new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hateth." Now, in whatever sense these words were spoken, we know that an abrupt defence must, in a subject of this sort, be used in answer to an abrupt challenge. I shall now transfer the discussion to the very matter in which the teaching of Christ seemed to annul the Sabbath.

    Marcion is not the "He" in your quote–it's Jesus.  Tertullian is saying that even if Jesus displayed a hatred of the Sabbath it was because He was following God.

    Now I'm curious, what was your source for these quotes?  Can you please give us the link?

    #58596

    WMS brother
    Participant

    IranaeusFTW:

    Marcion hated the sabbath (jewish or otherwise) and the law. Polycarp's opinion on the matter in a general sense, was to call Marcion the firtborn of Satan.

    It is thus incorrect to preach against the sabbath and the law in the manner which Marcion did.

    Iranaeus is niether the authority on the Gospel of Christ. For that same Iraenaeus admits that in the passover controversy Polycarp was correct, yet Anicetus was preaching something different.

    That is not apostolic tradition at all. The bible in fact prophesies against such blasphemy ever so severely:

    "But if we, or even an angel of heaven, preach to you a different gospel, let him be eternally condemned."

    It is completely irrelevant that Iranaeus is begging for recognition of authority. Different Gospel is Different Gospel. The bible warns, let them be eternally condemned.

    Genny:

    Yes I did look up the context of the message, before posting it here. I was studying a few things in great detail when I got linked to here and wanted to make sure I didn't miss any historian names or books.

    "they would have told the Gentile believers to do so, but they did not."

    Yes, they did. The sabbath-keeping Christians who were deemed so "heretical" didn't come from nowhere, and they didn't make it up on their own. Do you understand that once "Christians judiazing on the sabbath" was deemed illegal, that nation is saying that the actions of Jesus and Paul were illegal?

    I understand that Jesus didn't explicitly say "keep the Sabbath holy", because it shouldn't have been at all necessary.

    On days when Jesus kept the sabbath, indeed as his custom was, where do you think his followers were?

    On days when Paul kept the sabbath, indeed as his custom was as a Christian in the New Covenent under the Law of Christ. Where do you think his followers were?

    They have all, always, been keeping the sabbath, so it comes as no surprise to me that Jesus doesn't explicitely say it, instead commanding: "teach them to obey everything".

    So it is perfectly clear what Jesus instructions were; because after hearing the instructions of Jesus:

    Apostle Paul takes those instructions, and with those instructions in mind sets the example of keeping every sabbath.

    The instructions of Jesus directed Apostle Paul. Apostle Paul, after the death of Christ, continued to keep the sabbath throughout his lifetime. Even "every" sabbath.

    Apostle Paul did as Jesus did, and was also commanded to pass on everything to his believers.

    Everything.

    Not just one thing, not just a few things, but everything they did, every example they set, every Christ's law they kept. Absolutely everything was commanded to be passed down to the next generation, and indeed all generations to come; Until the end of the age.

    "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ"

    It becomes plain that the instructions were passed on. In fact it even becomes a mandatory requirement to pass it on.

    REIrenaeusFTW:

    To be honest I don't really care who Iranaeus was. Polycarp's opinion was profound because everyone admitted to his direct roots with the apostles, even as he had doctrinal arguments with other people.

    The same people, who were told by the apostles before controvery began "let no one preach to you a different Gospel". Yet obviously they ignored that if divisions occured in the first place.

    So before Irenaeus, even before any argument you you can possibly think of begins, someone had to have told someone a different Gospel; first. Their concern for church unification is cute, even calling it more important than doctrinal issues; how benevolent and diplomatic they must seem? But I follow the commands of Christ, which explicitely warns against such different gospels, even if an angel from heaven were to preach it; which certainly the "changed" churches were not.

    It then becomes profoundly evident, where the Church is begging for people to recognize its authority explicitely and in spite of its different gospel to Polycarp; that they care more about their authority than keeping Christs Law; indeed even to the point of preaching a different Gospel to Polycarp as they tried to persuade him.

    Let them be, eternally condemned.

    REgenny:

    I am completely aware of that, I redacted it for brevity because Iranaeus is simply explaining where Marcion himself got his train of thought from. Marcion himself held perverted views based upon those things, and preached about them enough that it provoked Polycarp and Irenaeus into speaking.

    Polycarp rebukes Marcion's way of thinking, that he is the first-born of satan.

    By examining what Marcion thought and what key points he derived his "perversion" from, we too can learn how to avoid them and not be like the "first-born of Satan".

    I have no interest in providing that many links, I have a bookmark folder full of them and I've already provided the original sources. This took a long enough time to write without having to then defend internet links, which are redundant compared to the original source.

    But above all else, and beyond any nitpicking.

    Theese writers merely to help see that the Sabbath-worshipping Christians and the Passover-observing Christians have roots with the Apostles and Jesus himself. And that they did in fact exist, despite this forum's previous claims that they did not. The controversies and laws alone clearly point to their very hated existance.

    The fact that Polycarp could not persuade Anicetus, who went on to do something different than the true Gospel taught by Polycarp, and that "something different" was easter; should be alarming to you in the extreme. Indeed there is even a Bible verse about the singular type of people who change God's set times and Laws, which then reveals every action they ever took to be a perversion.

    It still remains that the instructions of Jesus lead Apostle Paul to keep every sabbath religiously. And that there is the beginning and end of my argument.

    #58597

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Paul did not keep the Sabbath religiously. He had no problem being out to sea and travelling. That's not keeping the Sabbath. This is the heresy of the Judaizers, who Paul was vigorously against. Christ fulfilled the law, there is no more circumcision, passover, or sabbath. You are just forcing your assumptions onto the scriptures. He said not to let anyone judge you when it comes to new moons or sabbaths. 

    You have not proved that Polycarp kept the Sabbath. 

    As for the Quartodecimian controversy, the fact is he did not break communion with anyone, and he never accused them of departing from the Gospel. 

    You say that Polycarp speaks for the apostles. I agree he can speak for John as he was his disciple. But you must apply the same logic to Irenaeus, who was Polycarp's disciple. And you cannot prove that Sunday worship wasn't an apostolic tradition. 

    You are forcing your assumptions onto the texts.'

    "THEREFORE DO NOT LET ANYONE JUDGE YOU BY WHAT YOU EAT OR DRINK, OR WITH REGARD TO A RELIGIOUS FESTIVAL,  A NEW MOON CELEBRATION, OR A SABBATH." Colossians 2:16

    #58598

    WMS brother
    Participant

    IrenaeusFTW

    "Paul did not keep the Sabbath religiously"

    Acts 18:4

    Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue

    Acts 17:2

    As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them

    "THEREFORE DO NOT LET ANYONE JUDGE YOU"

    In context, this was spoken to believers who already did things correctly, believers who were being being told by non-believers and members in the faith that had strayed, that their current custom of keeping the sabbath was wrong. He was saying not to worry about what such foolish people think.

    For if Paul did not intend on setting the example of making the sabbath his custom.

    HE WOULD NOT HAVE.

    Further, all of his disciples followed him constantly, them too keeping the sabbath, as it is written all came to the synagogue to listne to Paul give a sermon about the Lord. This happened all the time because it was his custom.

    Do you understand the definition of the word custom?

    We are done here, either the example of Paul is good enough for you, or its not. I choose to follow his example, as he follows the example of Christ.

    #58599

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    The synagogue WAS and IS where the JEWS meet. He was EVANGELIZING. THAT was his custom. 

    Do you guys celebrate the "breaking of the bread" on Sundays? If not, you're not following his example. 

    #58600

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Do you abstain from pork and shellfish? Then you're not following Peter's example. You do? Then you just contradicted your own interpretation of Colossians 2:16. 

    #58601

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Sorry, that was supposed to read that if you do abstain from unclean food you are not following Peter's example.(Acts 10 & 11) 

    If you do not abstain then you have contradicted WMS brother's interpretation of Colossians 2:16. According to his interpretation of the verse it meant that you should follow all the Jewish laws. 

    The verse puts the clearly defunct dietary laws on the same level as the Jewish feasts and sabbaths. 

    #58602

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Also, if it was "Paul's custom" to go to the synagogue, that implies that it was just that, Paul's custom.

    Where was everybody else? It doesn't say that it was the custom of the Christians  to gather at the synagogue. The scriptures are silent about what the whole community of Christians did on the Hebrew sabbath. But it does mention them gathering as a community to break the bread on Sundays. 

    #58603

    WMS brother
    Participant

    IrenaeusFTW

    Nowhere did I say Jewish laws had to be kept. Everywhere I said that the Apostle's examples should be kept. You are confusing the two because you want to insult me and my intelligence, but I did not say what your implying. God told peter "it is all clean", thus it is all clean. Paul kept the sabbath, thus I keep the sabbath.

    Jesus set the example of Breaking the Bread on Ressurection Day. Biblically that example is only repeated on a Sunday after Passover. Once per year.

    There exist other verses about breaking bread, but not in the context of a weekly worship ceremony.

    Further, few churches actually believe that breaking bread is at all significant to keeping the Sunday service.

    Hippocrites testify that breaking bread -means- sunday service. Yet they do not do it.

    Yet for someone who likes to quote "DO NOT LET ANYONE JUDGE YOU" you sure are fast to judge us about your opinions.

    But it is plain that "do not let anyone judge you" was spoken to believers, in the context of beleivers who were faithfully doing everything correctly, yet they were judged harshly for their observance of the sabbath, so Paul says "do not be judged about the sabbath". He was not talking to Jews, he was talking to Christians. Christians who were being judged for keeping the sabbath.

    But I could concede all of these arguments to you, and still the identity of the Beast is made clear.

    Because it is not the government of Christ, to make laws which put unfaithful people to death.

    Neither is it the government of the Apostles, to say judaizing the sabbath is illegal, especially if someone like you believe that people should not be judged based off of the sabbath.

    It remains that the government and church which put Christians to death by the direct order of bishops, popes, and so called "holy people" in politics, are evil in the extreme.

    Indeed even if you were to say "they were heretics" or "they were jews". Still Jesus would never have ordered people be put in jail and executed. Apostle Paul would never have ordered people be sent to the salt-mines for their sins against Christ.

    Rather they would say "God, do not hold this sin against them".

    You defend the doctrines and practices of murderers, and laud the writers who were accomplice to testifying that the "Lords Day" was to be idolized, and the weight of those words were brought to the point where not observing it would get you killed.

    Then, you discount the legitimacy of people who take examples from Paul.

    It is the people who turned the other cheek, laid down, and died, which belong to our father God.

    It is the people who put men to death, which belong to their father Satan.

    It should be even more plain now, which doctrines survived and who they belonged to.

    #58604

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    That was a long post. I'm going to copy and paste in and reply in bold: 

     

    Nowhere did I say Jewish laws had to be kept. Everywhere I said that the Apostle's examples should be kept. You are confusing the two because you want to insult me and my intelligence, but I did not say what your implying. God told peter "it is all clean", thus it is all clean. Paul kept the sabbath, thus I keep the sabbath.

    You said that Colossians 2:16 meant that Paul wanted them to keep the sabbath. If that were what he meant he would have meant it for the dietary laws as well, because he refers to them in the same verse. I'm not insulting your intelligence, I'm trying to make a point. 

     

    Jesus set the example of Breaking the Bread on Ressurection Day. Biblically that example is only repeated on a Sunday after Passover. Once per year.

    Paul indicated that it is done more than once a year, see Corinthians 11:26. 

    There exist other verses about breaking bread, but not in the context of a weekly worship ceremony.

    That is an assumption which early Church history such as the Didache seems to contradict. 

    Further, few churches actually believe that breaking bread is at all significant to keeping the Sunday service.

    The ancient historical Christian Churches do. Jesus was pretty emphatic about too.  

    Hippocrites testify that breaking bread -means- sunday service. Yet they do not do it.

    My Church does. 

    Yet for someone who likes to quote "DO NOT LET ANYONE JUDGE YOU" you sure are fast to judge us about your opinions.

    I'm judging doctrines and claims to truth, not your heart or your soul. 

    But it is plain that "do not let anyone judge you" was spoken to believers, in the context of beleivers who were faithfully doing everything correctly, yet they were judged harshly for their observance of the sabbath, so Paul says "do not be judged about the sabbath". He was not talking to Jews, he was talking to Christians. Christians who were being judged for keeping the sabbath.

    They were being judged for NOT keeping the sabbath, and dietary laws and new moons. 

    But I could concede all of these arguments to you, and still the identity of the Beast is made clear.

    If you conceded all these points your entire belief system crumbles and nothing is clear. 

    Because it is not the government of Christ, to make laws which put unfaithful people to death.

    I really don't want to go into the Inquisition here, lest we get waaaay off topic, but the Church never claimed any operation of the inquisition was infallibe. Those appointed to watch over Our Lord's house in his absence will all receive their just desserts, for good or ill. In the mean time, He left them in charge. (Matt 24:45-51)

    Neither is it the government of the Apostles, to say judaizing the sabbath is illegal, especially if someone like you believe that people should not be judged based off of the sabbath.

    It remains that the government and church which put Christians to death by the direct order of bishops, popes, and so called "holy people" in politics, are evil in the extreme…. yada yada yadda… 

    Yawn.

     

     

    #58605

    WMS brother
    Participant

    IrenaeusFTW

    "The scriptures are silent about what the whole community of Christians did on the Hebrew sabbath."

    Acts 13

    13Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos … John left them 14But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.15After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.”

    Do you deny that Paul is testified to having even crowds of followers? Do you say that all the people following him, stopped going into the synagogue with him? That they did not follow his example, even as they had been instructed to?

    But instead of saying "I see how someone could believe sabbath is saturday. Even though I think you are wrong your heart is in the right place" you say "You are forcing your assumptions onto the texts. You have contradicted yourself." and all manner of controversies and arguments. Even when it is not I who is adding words to the scripture. Rather, sabbath is sabbath as written, ressurection day is ressurection day as written.

    #58606

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Please check out the context of Colossians chapter 2 for yourself. It's pretty clear he's telling them that the customs and practices of the Old Law have passed away. 

    http://www.esvbible.org/Colossians+2/

    #58607

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    WMS brother wrote:

    IrenaeusFTW

    "The scriptures are silent about what the whole community of Christians did on the Hebrew sabbath."

    Acts 13

    13Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos … John left them 14But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.15After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.”

    Do you deny that Paul is testified to having even crowds of followers? Do you say that all the people following him, stopped going into the synagogue with him? That they did not follow his example, even as they had been instructed to?

    But instead of saying "I see how someone could believe sabbath is saturday. Even though I think you are wrong your heart is in the right place" you say "You are forcing your assumptions onto the texts. You have contradicted yourself." and all manner of controversies and arguments. Even when it is not I who is adding words to the scripture. Rather, sabbath is sabbath as written, ressurection day is ressurection day as written.

    Good point about Acts 13. You hadn't raised that point before. I think that probably indicates his fellow missionaries, like Barnabas. That's my assumption I can't prove based on those verses alone. 

    It remains clear though that in Colossians chapter 2 the sabbath is no longer binding on Christians. 

    #58608

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    Actually, since they were travelling with him across the sea they were almost certainly fellow missionaries, not a settled Christian community. 

    #58609

    WMS brother
    Participant

    IrenaeusFTW

    "he meant he would have meant it for the dietary laws as well"

    The Jews are clearly the ones critizing them for eating unclean things, because that is a Jewish law, yet Paul reminds them not to worry about unclean things. I too do not worry about unclean things.

    The romans and Christians fallen from grace are clearly the ones criticizing them about the sabbath; for Jews would not tell somoene that the Sabbath is wrong. I too keep the sabbath without fear of reproachment by authority, roman or otherwise.

    "Paul indicated that it is done more than once a year"

    Yet in biblical example, they never actually do the deed except during the feast of unleavened bread.

    I would not want to push my assumptions onto the text.

    "I'm judging doctrines and claims to truth"

    Based off of the sabbath, which you just got done critizing me not to do.

    "the Church never claimed any operation of the inquisition was infallibe."

    Its funny you think I'm talkign about the inquisition, because I haven't gotten to that vile thing yet. In the Edict of Milan, people were beign thrown in salt mines, arrested, executed, and the Edict was supposed to protect them from the Church's authority to have people arrested and killed in light of a newer more benevolent church government. Yet after that enemy nations were targeted based off of their religion and then they went to war and killed them. Those are the deeds of the evil one, and the institution which began such a bloody path of murder is in no way shape or form, nor has ever been, of Christ or pursuing the doctrines of Christ. Regardless of them admitting their guilt now, their deeds were directed and endorsed by the Church then, and by the rulers who were Christian officials.

    I do not make excuses for murderers, who cannot follow even the most basic tenents of mercy and love, let alone the examples of Paul.

    "fellow missionaries"

    Such are mentioned by name, true, but that does not imply that others werent still following them, as all their previous journeys testified to large and zealous gatherings which followed them everywhere around town; perhaps they even left town to follow them everywhere.

    Of which such people there is a non-zero amount, for brothers and missionaries in high regard crop up all the time as "people we had been journeying with".

    In any case calling them missionaries can not deny that they all together as brothers sat and observed Sabbath services, especially to preach afterwards in the name of Christ; yet that did not stop them from keeping Sabbath services. Indeed after their preaching, sabbath services were transformed into Christ Services on the sabbath saturday, the people regularly returned and appointed Paul as the church speaker.

    Paul did not say "let us gather now on the Lord's Day, sunday, and we shall have services on that day in honor of Jesus". Rather, after acquiring a faithful congregation, he remained in keeping the Sabbath.

    #58610

    WMS brother
    Participant

    Further the Council of Laodecia's law not to Judiaze on the Sabbath, is further testament to the persecution of Christians.

    For Jesus and the Apostles would never tell someone "if you don't keep Sunday we'll throw you in jail".

    Nor would they tell Jews "You can no longer keep sabbath, or we will throw you in jail"

    On every level, in every department, with every decree, every ruler and authority of the entire institution, from church to inquisition to politics; they all have bloody hands. Those are not the hands of Christ, and not a single one of them exists who did preach the True Gospel. Rather every one of them are murderers, or accomplice to murder.

    The true identity of them and their deceptions are made even more abundantly clear.

    #58611

    IrenaeusFTW
    Participant

    My new statements are underlined. 

     

    "he meant he would have meant it for the dietary laws as well"

    The Jews are clearly the ones critizing them for eating unclean things, because that is a Jewish law, yet Paul reminds them not to worry about unclean things. I too do not worry about unclean things. 

    The romans and Christians fallen from grace are clearly the ones criticizing them about the sabbath; for Jews would not tell somoene that the Sabbath is wrong. I too keep the sabbath without fear of reproachment by authority, roman or otherwise. 

    "Paul indicated that it is done more than once a year" 

    That’s called having your cake and eating it too. Your argument is based on fantastic assumptions, 

    Yet in biblical example, they never actually do the deed except during the feast of unleavened bread. 

     

    Prove it.That is a huge assumption. I Corinthians 11:26, whensoever you do this. Not once a year.

     

    I would not want to push my assumptions onto the text. 

    "I'm judging doctrines and claims to truth" 

    Based off of the sabbath, which you just got done critizing me not to do. 

    "the Church never claimed any operation of the inquisition was infallibe." 

    Its funny you think I'm talkign about the inquisition, because I haven't gotten to that vile thing yet. In the Edict of Milan, people were beign thrown in salt mines, arrested, executed, and the Edict was supposed to protect them from the Church's authority to have people arrested and killed in light of a newer more benevolent church government. Yet after that enemy nations were targeted based off of their religion and then they went to war and killed them. Those are the deeds of the evil one, and the institution which began such a bloody path of murder is in no way shape or form, nor has ever been, of Christ or pursuing the doctrines of Christ. Regardless of them admitting their guilt now, their deeds weredirected and endorsed by the Church then, and by the rulers who were Christian officials.

    I do not make excuses for murderers, who cannot follow even the most basic tenents of mercy and love, let alone the examples of Paul. 

    I don’t make excuses for murders either, those who abuse authority will get what’s coming to them. Its not our job to cast off the authority God has established. And I'd like to see some sources for things you just said.  

    "fellow missionaries" 

    Such are mentioned by name, true, but that does not imply that others werent still following them, as all their previous journeys testified to large and zealous gatherings which followed them everywhere around town; perhaps they even left town to follow them everywhere. 

    Show me a settled community of Christians that kept the Sabbath. 

    Of which such people there is a non-zero amount, for brothers and missionaries in high regard crop up all the time as "people we had been journeying with".

    In any case calling them missionaries can not deny that they all together as brothers sat and observed Sabbath services, especially to preach afterwards in the name of Christ; yet that did not stop them from keeping Sabbath services. Indeed after their preaching, sabbath services were transformed into Christ Services on the sabbath saturday, the people regularly returned and appointed Paul as the church speaker.

    Paul did not say "let us gather now on the Lord's Day, sunday, and we shall have services on that day in honor of Jesus". Rather, after acquiring a faithful congregation, he remained in keeping the Sabbath. 

    If the purpose was to try and convert Jews in the SYNAGOGUE there would be no point in gathering there on a Sunday. 

Viewing 20 replies - 41 through 60 (of 69 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.