[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

So how come Sabbath is no longer kept by the orthodox church yet the apostles kept it?

The Apostles met on Sunday to have communion. Traditionally, the celebration was an all-night vigil, where it began Saturday evening and continued on to Sunday morning when the Communion took place. Most Orthodox churches I've attended, Saturday evening prayers are held in preparation for receiving communion the next day. There is only one account recorded in acts of breaking of bread and this is in Acts 20:7-11, done on the first day of the week.

[ndigila]

Actually Grip, I just did a quick search on the word Sabbath in Acts, and it turns out that the Apostles went to the synagogues on the Sabbath not to worship but to preach the Gospel to the Jews. So they really didn't keep the Sabbath, they went to the temple during the Sabbath where the Jews were gathered in order to preach to them that Jesus is the Messiah.

[grip_daddy]

Ndigila,

Below is a brief excerpt of Sabbath worship as done by Paul and his companions as recorded in Acts:

Acts 13
In Pisidian Antioch, they went to preach the gospel and "on the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down. After the reading from the Law and the Prophets..." Paul stood up and preached. Vs 13-16 onwards.

Vs 27 reveals that worship was done every Sabbath by these wordings, "the people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognise Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath". Note the phrase are read instead of were read.

To emphasise on the above, the Sabbath worship was the only one known even in Antioch when "the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath...On the next Sabbath the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord". Vs 42-44. To show that the people were not even Jews, vs 45 says that the Jews were jealous of the crowd.

Acts 15
This is the chapter about the first council meeting. The theme of the council is to find what message to pass to the Gentiles where vs 21 clearly says that even this Gentile message "is read in the synagogue on every Sabbath". Please note the present tense and frequency.

Acts 16
This chapter is even more authoritative for it reveals that the act of Sabbath keeping was not a mere worship service, but an act honoured by the apostles. Vs 12- 13 says, "From there we travelled to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia. And we stayed there several days. On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there."

Acts 17 and 18
Here Paul and his companion went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day "as his custom was" Acts 17:2. This parallels Jesus custom to go into the synagogue every Sabbath day. See Luke 4:16.

Paul's custom is further pointed out when he travelled to Corinth where all the days of his stay "he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks". Acts 18:4.

The first day recorded in Acts 20 was Saturday night after sunset of Saturday. Remember the timing was always sunset to sunset so on this Saturday evening after the Sabbath they came to break bread because on the morrow (Sunday day time), Paul was to leave. The breaking of the bread was not tied to Sunday because Jesus broke bread with the twelf on Thursday night, whereas Paul wrote in 1 Corinthianths 11 that it is done as "often as you meet".

[grip_daddy]

Ndigila,

This post seek to reason that the Church of God has always been protected, preserved, and honoured by God since creation. It also seek to point out that the Church is not a physical organisation but rather a collection of individual believers whose sole intention is to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Your response is highly anticipated.

After creating a perfect man, God intended to finally vindicate His righteousness if the created Adam could have overcome the temptation of eating the forbidden fruit. When man failed Him, He decided to let him enjoy a temporal life as he stood up preaching His WILL, the WAY, and the TRUTH to his children, who were to carry out the same message until and after the appearance of the Saviour.

In this regard, Adam stood as the body (temple or church) of God in which God lived to manifest His promise to humanity. Adam used his privileged opportunity to instruct his children with immediate example being given in Chapter 4 of Genesis.

The death of Abel was not an easy thing to this first family and that's why the birth of Seth was received with joy, for through him the church of God could continue. The weakness of human flesh did not allow many to accept the call that man should live by obedience to God and the hope of the coming seed of the woman to crush the serpent's head. This led to deterioration of the number of them who could be relied upon by God to instruct others into God's ways through exemplified life. Thus when the deterioration reached extiction phase, God saw it wise to wipe out man from the face of the earth via flood save the family of Noah.

From Noah's lineage we trace that His name had been held high by Abraham of whom He called out of paganism so as to fully live the life worthy of His name. So we know that from Abraham through the son of faith God formed unto Himself a church; the nation of Israel.

This nation was given the precepts of God and was expected to safeguard it. Other nations were supposed to see how the nation was worshipping a different God; a God with holy laws and commandments, a God who keeps promises and blesses His people. A God who is merciful, gracious, and slow to anger. So God raised to the nation Judges, then Kings, and with them there were prophets and seers.

We do know that the Israel as a nation failed God terribly to the point of rejecting Him in whom they had hoped for. When their deliverer finally arrived as Jesus of Nazareth, they ridiculed Him, insulted Him and belittled His teachings. They then sold Him to the Romans to be crucified.

Though the nation fell, there were still a people, a remnant, in each generation of their existence that stood firm in the ways of God. During Elijah's time, the people were so down into heathenism until Elijah's wondered if he was the only person remaining faithful to God. But God told him that there were other 7000 individuals who had not turned to other Gods. Thus the true people of God were not those who were circumcised with the circumcision of Abraham, but those who were circumcised at heart.

That's why even Ruth was accepted into the fold of Israelites. That's why strangers who believed in the God of Israel were embraced as blood of Israel.

So after the Jews as nation rejected their promised Messiah, the Jews who believed in Him were instructed to turn to the Gentiles and with them, to form God's group of believers. The believers themselves were to form the Church of God, of which for the purpose of brotherhood and care, they formed themselves into a formal institution, which institution was ratified by God.

But as years went by and all the apostles finally died, together with the fact that non Jews from diverse backgrounds were coming into the Church, strange doctrines creeped in slowly. Some of these doctrines included worship on behalf of the dead, infant baptism, mass, and forsaking of Sabbath observance.

But all believers did not embrace the strange doctrines.

The few who rejected to follow pagan practices were persecuted, killed, tortured, and their families arrested. It reached a point where even possession of the bible by layman was illegalised which offence meant death penalty.

These few persecuted for their faith were the true church. They ran into the wilderness for refuge (see Revelation 12) and when the persecutor's prophesied period was over, they again emerged as the true witnesses of God, to obey the first angel's message, and to speak with a loud voice "fear God and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment has come".

The church of God all through the ages, from Adam to present, has always been the remnant, "who have the testimony of Jesus, and keep the commandments of God."Revelation 12:17.

The children of Israel, as Paul said, are those who have been circumcised at heart ever since. Those whose hopes and faith have been manifested in continual honour of God's laws and will in life, speech, and deed are the true church in whom the promise of Christ holds.

When relying on tradition it is important to know that even the Jews acquired traditions over time of which distinguishing from the commandments of God became a problem. When Jesus told them that they were teaching the traditions of men for doctrine, they got angry with Him. The same can be said about many churches as are seen today.

[ndigila]

Grip, Christian worship is marked by the partaking of communion, not scripture reading. Scripture readings is a part of the prayers done on Saturdays. The Reformation did away almost entirely with communion and so the highlight of the service in the churches after reformation is the preaching.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Ndigila,

This post seek to reason that the Church of God has always been protected, preserved, and honoured by God since creation. It also seek to point out that the Church is not a physical organisation but rather a collection of individual believers whose sole intention is to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Your response is highly anticipated.

But as years went by and all the apostles finally died, together with the fact that non Jews from diverse backgrounds were coming into the Church, strange doctrines creeped in slowly. Some of these doctrines included worship on behalf of the dead, infant baptism, mass, and forsaking of Sabbath observance.

But all believers did not embrace the strange doctrines.

The few who rejected to follow pagan practices were persecuted, killed, tortured, and their families arrested. It reached a point where even possession of the bible by layman was illegalised which offence meant death penalty.

These few persecuted for their faith were the true church. They ran into the wilderness for refuge (see Revelation 12) and when the persecutor's prophesied period was over, they again emerged as the true witnesses of God, to obey the first angel's message, and to speak with a loud voice "fear God and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment has come".

The church of God all through the ages, from Adam to present, has always been the remnant, "who have the testimony of Jesus, and keep the commandments of God."Revelation 12:17.

The children of Israel, as Paul said, are those who have been circumcised at heart ever since. Those whose hopes and faith have been manifested in continual honour of God's laws and will in life, speech, and deed are the true church in whom the promise of Christ holds.

When relying on tradition it is important to know that even the Jews acquired traditions over time of which distinguishing from the commandments of God became a problem. When Jesus told them that they were teaching the traditions of men for doctrine, they got angry with Him. The same can be said about many churches as are seen today.

Grip, I've heard this very many times. I even defended it when I was protestant, however it has many loopholes.

There is no historical evidence of this "remnant" of people who didn't submit to the "Pagan Church." The only historical evidence of those who were condemned as heretics were those who rejected the Tradition of the church.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "worship on behalf of the dead." But anyway, Grip, to prove that a particular doctrine has a pagan origin, you have to show a historical evidence of a change. For instance, if you think that the sacraments were of pagan origin, you need to go back to say, the 100s and show that the Orthodox church didn't have sacraments. You can't say the church fell into paganism because you have a personal doctrinal disagreement with it.

Why are the remnant trusting the pagan's church decision on the Christian canon? The New Testament canon was not as obvious as people claim. The Apocalypse of Paul almost made it in place of the Apocalypse of John. Other disputed books were 2 Peter, Hebrews and Jude. Books that almost made it were the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas. If the remnant really distrusts this church, it follows that they shouldn't trust their canon. At least Martin Luther was honest and removed some books of the Old Testament. You know Martin Luther tried to have much of the New Testament removed, especially the Book of James because of the whole "faith without works is dead" issue.

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Grip, Christian worship is marked by the partaking of communion, not scripture reading. Scripture readings is a part of the prayers done on Saturdays. The Reformation did away almost entirely with communion and so the highlight of the service in the churches after reformation is the preaching.

Communion activities are documented very rarely in the early Church's history. It was also done any time the faithfulls had chance to meet so nothing to do with Sunday, and personally I dont consider it the determining factor to worship because it is simply a ceremony anyone can do without heart searching and true reverence.

By the way the fathers you provided as evidence for Sunday observance are in dispute, therefore it is difficult to convince me about their authenticity.

On remnants, documents could not be written by a people who had been deprived of their freedom, whose writings were destroyed, and who were not an organised group. There presence is factified by the persecution itself and reformation. They were truly in the wilderness as recorded in the prophecy. If God did not say that 7000 individuals were still in Israel in His honour during Jezebel's persecution, how could you know?

Please reason with me why the apostles would look for a place of prayer on a Sabbath day, and specifically a place for prayers.

On sacrament, would you describe for me the current ingredients and shape of orthodox sacrament? I am aware of the Catholics's which is very different from that offered by Jesus at the Lord's supper.

Eastern orthodox is said to have special days to celebrate or honour departed souls. I find this practice very weird.

Something I know about the bible is that not all God's given messages were included. I also know that someone like Jude quoted from the book of Enoch, a book personally I can not agree with on a number of points. So there is more to the canonisation of the scriptures which simply speaks of God's hand in the entire work.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Communion activities are documented very rarely in the early Church's history. It was also done any time the faithfulls had chance to meet so nothing to do with Sunday, and personally I dont consider it the determining factor to worship because it is simply a ceremony anyone can do without heart searching and true reverence.

Again, Grip, its your personal conviction against history. The Roman empire accused Christians of being cannibals. You know why?

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

By the way the fathers you provided as evidence for Sunday observance are in dispute, therefore it is difficult to convince me about their authenticity.

Who's disputing them and why?

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

On remnants, documents could not be written by a people who had been deprived of their freedom, whose writings were destroyed, and who were not an organised group. There presence is factified by the persecution itself and reformation. They were truly in the wilderness as recorded in the prophecy. If God did not say that 7000 individuals were still in Israel in His honour during Jezebel's persecution, how could you know?

Exactly, Grip, there is no evidence of the remnant so for you to insist that the remnant existed is a personal vendetta against the church. To make the remnant story credible, you first have to show where the church erred. And you also have to explain why the remnant insists on using the canon of the pagan church. Remeber the main pillar of the reformed church is sola scriptura (Bible only).

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Please reason with me why the apostles would look for a place of prayer on a Sabbath day, and specifically a place for prayers.

The ancient church met on the sabbath on the eleventh hour to usher in the Lord's day. The celebration continued the whole night in what is commonly called an all-night vigil, and was completed in the morning by Communion.
There's an interesting article about it here

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

On sacrament, would you describe for me the current ingredients and shape of orthodox sacrament? I am aware of the Catholics's which is very different from that offered by Jesus at the Lord's supper.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Tafadhali rephrase.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Eastern orthodox is said to have special days to celebrate or honour departed souls. I find this practice very weird.

Again, you have to show why it's wrong. Not because you personally disagree with it.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Something I know about the bible is that not all God's given messages were included. I also know that someone like Jude quoted from the book of Enoch, a book personally I can not agree with on a number of points. So there is more to the canonisation of the scriptures which simply speaks of God's hand in the entire work.

So Grip, where do you go to find the rest of God's given messages?

[grip_daddy]

Grip, its your personal conviction against history. The Roman empire accused Christians of being cannibals. You know why?

Read Revelation 2-3 and also Paul's tears in Acts 20. We cant say with confidence that an organization calling itself the orthodox church is the true church of God if the identified marks given in Revelation 12 and 14 are lacking in them.

Who's disputing them and why?

Reading the version of history provided by Protestants, I get it that the fathers were influenced by state power and Greek philosophies.

To make the remnant story credible, you first have to show where the church erred.

I am convinced that allowing work on Sabbath day after Sunday was declared a public holiday in 321AD by a monarch speaks for disregarding God's laws. Or asking people to rest (if we forget about communion for a while) on a working day just to respect a pagan's day of worship, and also being in complicence with a persecuting power on a number of dogma do not speak against this church?

And you also have to explain why the remnant insists on using the canon of the pagan church. Remeber the main pillar of the reformed church is sola scriptura (Bible only).



It happens that the canonised books do not contradict the old testament. I was also amazed to read Peter's and Paul's apocalypses to see how the orthodox could have promoted their acquired doctrines about life, death, heaven, and hell; doctrines contrary to general biblical teachings about the same topics. Here, I would say that God could not allow His words to be tarnished.

[b]The ancient church met on the sabbath on the eleventh hour to usher in the Lord's day. The celebration continued the whole night in what is commonly called an all-night vigil, and was completed in the morning by Communion.
There's an interesting article about it here
[b]


This is an interesting twist. This picture does not sound as the mood recorded in Acts 16. That chapter sounds to have occurred very early in the day even, maybe, before lunch time. Anyway, secular history records strict Sabbath keeping by the apostolic church.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Tafadhali rephrase.


The sacrament administered by the catholic church is circular, white, and dipped in wine. This resembles some early pagan communion very different from what we see in the Lord's supper setting. What is the orthodox's resemblance?

Again, you have to show why it's wrong. Not because you personally disagree with it.

Because the dead die and become unconscious. And Old Testament has strong warnings against honouring the dead. Remember no one was to do any ritual activities, not even shaving or cutting part of the hair, for the sake of the dead. Read Isaiah 8 which has a better insight.

So Grip, where do you go to find the rest of God's given messages?

God's messages are many and no one will ever access all. What I know is that His standards to weigh any messages that may come by are outlined in the "law and the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them". Isaiah 8:20.

[ndigila]

read revelation 2-3 and also paul's tears in acts 20. we cant say with confidence that an organization calling itself the orthodox church is the true church of god if the identified marks given in revelation 12 and 14 are lacking in them.

Yes we can. For instance, in acts 9:10-19, god commands Ananias to meet Paul in Damascus in a street called straight. The orthodox church of Antioch continues in unbroken succession to this day and is headquartered in Damascus on the street called straight. Same thing, with the Indian orthodox church which can trace its roots back to st Thomas, same thing with the Coptic orthodox church which can trace its roots back to st mark.

So you see, anyone can claim that Jesus started their church, but only the orthodox and the catholic church have the historical evidence to prove it. The only problem with the catholic church is that you can clearly pinpoint areas in history where their tradition changed and with the orthodox (at least as of yet) you can't.

reading the version of history provided by protestants, i get it that the fathers were influenced by state power and greek philosophies.

I could provide you with links that disprove this assertion (they're really long essays by the way, respond if you're interested). Besides, st ignatius of antioch became the bishop of the antioch church around 70a.d. And this was the time most of the new testament texts were being written. So if he was influenced by greek philosophies, then even the apostles and christianity in general was influenced by greek philosophies.

i am convinced that allowing work on sabbath day after sunday was declared a public holiday in 321ad by a monarch speaks for disregarding god's laws. Or asking people to rest (if we forget about communion for a while) on a working day just to respect a pagan's day of worship, and also being in complicence with a persecuting power on a number of dogma do not speak against this church?

But Grip, i've provided you with references dating to before 321 ad that show that christians met on sunday.

it happens that the canonised books do not contradict the old testament. I was also amazed to read peter's and paul's apocalypses to see how the orthodox could have promoted their acquired doctrines about life, death, heaven, and hell; doctrines contrary to general biblical teachings about the same topics. Here, i would say that god could not allow his words to be tarnished.

2 things:
1) you're refusing to accept by what standard that the bishops in carthage used to determine whether the new testament texts are genuine or not. They used the tradition of the church.
2) you've equated the bible with the word of God. Jesus is the word of God (john 1:1), what Jesus taught his apostles is the word of God, what the apostles taught the church, both oral and written tradition (2 thess 2:15) is the word of God, and the scriptures are the word of God.

the sacrament administered by the catholic church is circular, white, and dipped in wine. This resembles some early pagan communion very different from what we see in the lord's supper setting. What is the orthodox's resemblance?
The orthodox church uses leavened bread.

Because the dead die and become unconscious. and old testament has strong warnings against honouring the dead. Remember no one was to do any ritual activities, not even shaving or cutting part of the hair, for the sake of the dead. Read isaiah 8 which has a better insight.

First of all, this is not something that all protestants agree on. Secondly, don't you think that the state of the dead changed when Jesus conquered death?

god's messages are many and no one will ever access all. What i know is that his standards to weigh any messages that may come by are outlined in the "law and the testimony, if they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them". Isaiah 8:20.

Again, you've equated scriptures with the word of god. Anyway, let me ask you this, does the bible contain everything that a christian needs for his christian life?