Bible Discussion Thread Page 2

Dear Gigi , thank you for your reply to me , I appreciate it . I do think that you and I are very different people , with very different ideas about this site . I am not a person who desires compliments , in fact I deeply mistrust them . To me , this is a Bible site and I want to read posts about the Word of God and maybe learn some thing that I didn't already know , if and when I do , I will compliment the poster on their knowledge / understanding and thank them for enlightening me . If I read a post on here that in some way moves me , I might reply , if I think I can be of some help to the poster . That's it for me , I'm not a complicated person and the only thing that keeps me on this site is the hope that I might learn some thing about the Bible , the actual Word of God or , the chance that I might be able to help some one else with their understanding . I'm as simple as that . I avoid reading some people's posts only because I know that I don't believe the same things as them and I don't want to get into a pointless debate with them , it's not a personal thing . You are correct , we are all brothers and sisters on here and I have genuine affection for every single person on here . But I am only here for the Word , not for compliments and my mistrust of them is why I don't give them to others , unless it pertains to their knowledge of the Word and to thank them for enhancing mine . God and Jesus are my family and I need them both very much , every day . I look to hear from Them on here :) , They might have some thing to tell me , and maybe They will use me to pass a message on to some one else .

Jema,

Thanks for your reply and explanation of yourself. Good to know.

I agree that we are to share from the Word on this site. And, if we are indeed a fellowship of believers, we are to build one another up and encourage on another ( 1 Th. 5:11; Romans 12:10) through love and supportive words.

Have a good day, Jema. Though we are different in personality, we are one in Christ, thankfully. How wonderful is this that God has called both of us to salvation and into the fellowship of the church!

Jema,

I wanted to get back to you once again in order to define words you used concerning the speech we were using in replying to Momsage. I looked up these definitions online from several sources in order to have a comprehensive understanding of the words you used. Please read these and then you can get back to me and show me what was said that would qualify under these definitions. Such accusations of doing another wrong on this site is serious and it is best if we clear things up now.

Invective: denunciatory or abusive language; vehement denunciation or an utterance of violent censure or reproach; a railing accusation; insulting, abusive criticism that is forceful, unkind and rude; abusive venomous language used to express censure or bitter, deep-seated ill; revilement or rude expression intended to offend or hurt; language that is shouted at people they hate or are angry with characterized by insult or abusive words.

Aggressive speech: speech that blatantly ignores the other person's response; speech that is manipulative or expresses violence; cruel and unkind words intended to cause pain or distress; hate speech; speech that does not consider the feelings of the other; hostile, defensive, demanding, behavior fueled by emotion; speech that readily jumps to conclusions; passionate speech that is combative, assailing, attacking, quarrelsome, war-like, belligerent, barbaric, competitive and lacking empathy; speech that is hostile, demeaning, angry, violent, reproachful, and not open for feedback; speech that is defiant, overtly critical not to be helpful but to belittle or threaten; using words to assault, dominate, ridicule, manipulate, degrade, others negatively as a means of controlling and maintaining power; speech that is mocking, humiliating. judgmental, argumentative

Bullying: intentional harm-doing, harassment directed at vulnerable targets and typically repeatedly so; intentionally trying to upset or exert power over another; coercive; deliberate,

Hi Jema

Although I have been agressive to some people on this site in the past (and I have repented about it) I don't think I have been either agressive to Momsage or used words that insult, neither me nor any other person in that discussion about Sabbath. About singling her out how can that be? We don't know each other here on this site neither we have the same beliefs in every topic. When we list all we know about a topic is for making our beliefs solid, not to diminish the other person. Now to what was discussed. Momsage anchored herself to what she has read somewhere and I listed all historical events that I know to make her think that she may have the wrong impression about things she learned. Anyway, does all that mean that when I want to talk about something with others I should not say all that I know because that other person may feel inferior? Is this what you say? Is this right? Personally when someone talks about things that I don't know, such as history, I am very careful about what is said and then I look it up on the net. There is so much information nowadays on there from all sort of sources and it is good not to single out any church or denomination. But as far as the church history is concerned there is a wide acceptance all over the world about specific events in the history of the early church and when we hear something that sounds a bit strange in our ears then that makes us want to wake up that other person. There are some teachers or churches that in order to promote their ideas they twist some things on purpose, and I firmly believe that Momsage has fallen to that trap, because what she says that they say is not the accepted history of the church. We should be very careful in general when we hear something that is in total contrast to what all the others believe. Is is only us or some other specific teachers that God has revealed His truth? Why? Are we something special? Anyway, I think this is enough. Have a blessed day.GBU

Have a good evening, Momsage. We can talk more tomorrow on a different topic. I am sort of done with this one.

Hi GiGi:

I am also done with this subject. It was getting a little to heavy. It seemed to me we were all getting a little frustrated and so I ended the discussions with me. Everything is good with all of us. I know the ones I have been discussing the Sabbath with are my brothers and sisters in the Lord and that we will be going on in love and respect.

Hope all is well with you. God Bless :)

Hello Momsage,

I understand that some people get frustrated or offended or worked up over some of the back and forth of discussing matters on here. I do not get this way at all rom discussing matters here. For me, I just do not like it when people make accusations, assumptions, and judgements about the character, motivations, spiritual maturity, or relationship with God in posting to me or others. If a discussion is such that people are sticking to the topic without doing these things then I am fine to go in depth and at length on a topic until it seems that there is an impasse and then it may be time to bow out or bring a peaceful end to a discussion. I am so glad you have remained here with us. We have so much to talk about with each other because God has blessed us so in myriads of ways. I've been pretty busy that past few days. Have a good evening.

Dear Momsage,

I know that you are looking for sources from me and others who are discussing the topic of the Sabbath commandment. I cannot yet give you sources. Giannis is the one who quoted Barnabas, so perhaps he knows more on this. I can (and you can) search online to find out more about the Barnabas quote or any others mentioned in Giannis' post.

On my part, I really am feeling that I am to only be involved in this discussion if the Spirit directs me to, so I'm being prayerful concerning this thread.

Blessings to you in every way.

Hello again, I re-read my post to you. My statements are a summing up of what I have learned about church history on this topic. i do not have quotes for you.

Quotes are good in some ways, and I appreciate the ones you have supplied, but the quotes of a few people may or may not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the majority, nor be the "official" teaching of a sect.

My suggestion to you is to go to sites that cover the history of the early church times between AD 35 and 150 AD to find out more about how the church functioned and what a variety of church leaders have said on certain topics. This can give you the comprehensive information you desire to consider.

I do not expect anyone to just simply take my word for anything, but hope that anyone who is truly serious about finding out about a topic, especially one that is well documented in the early church, that person should do their own study so they can learn for themselves,

Momsage, 2/2

Ignatius of Antioch, chapter 9

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death - whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master - how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, having come, raised them from the dead. Matthew 27:52

Teachings of the 12 Apostles, 14:1

"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

Those were not Catholics, they were Greeks actually not Latins. At the time the church had not been separated into different fractions. The first split of that united church occured in 1054 AD, and the Roman Catholic church emmerged as a separate church.

Hello again, Giannis,

I don't know why that first post was so weirdly formatted. But anyway, Momsage's outright rejection of your reference to these early church teachers shows her serious antimony toward Catholicism and I think it clouds her thinking about the history of our faith.

Sorry, I meant acrimony instead of antimony (wrong word).

I hate the errors of the church over the centuries and the corruption. I hate the errors and corruption in the church in these times, whether these problems are in the Roman Catholic Church or Orthodox Church or Protestantism. There has been and still are so many beliefs that are not biblical that many believers are taught and/or believe. We are to be wise about Scriptures and know that we, too, can be caught up in error if we are not diligent.

Hello GiGi

It is true that the church who was established by Jesus on Pentecost, along the centuries slowly but steadily departed from their initial faith and doctrines. Both the R Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church became secular churches whose function does not result in leading people to Christ and save them from distruction, although there is a small fraction in both churches who love Jesus and strive to live according to the Bible, although they follow some wrong traditions and practises. I think the Orthodox church stands closer to the truth than the R/Catholics but still...

But just because those churches are now away from the truth, that doesn't mean that they were always like that. And we cannot definitely reject all the early christians and their writtings especially those who lived at the same time or shortly after the apostles. Their writtings can shed light on the practises and beliefs of that ancient church. Sunday/Lord's Day was very soon separated as a the main day of them meeting to pray and teach and have holy communion, it is very obvious in their writtings. In addition their writtings are not in any contrast with the Bible. In the Book of Acts it is very evident that the apostles tought people not to follow the Old Testament's ordinances including Sabbath. The Jews who became christians did actually keep the Sabbath as well as all the Mosaic Law but that was not right and was only tolerated by the apostles in Jerusalem. Paul was not in agreement to that tolerance and tought the Jews who were spread among the nations that the Law was abolished and there was not any need to keep any of those ordinances as they were in contrast with our Lord's grace. I hope that bothers who still keep the Sabbath may sometime realize that the do something which is not right It is good to stand as close to the truth as possible. GBU

Hi Giannis,

I read your reply to me again and I just would like to clarify a few things. It is true that secularism has been taken into churches of every denomination. Yet, this does not mean that they are now TOTALLY secular. The Scriptures are still read at services and God is still important to the life of the congregation for the most part. Prayer is still encouraged for those in need. And help for the poor and needy is still promoted.

We can commend churches who continue to do these things as well as adhering to doctrines that are biblically sound. And we can speak against teachings and practices that are worldly, secular, and in error as pertains to biblical teachings and doctrines that depart from the doctrines of the apostles or are added such as the doctrines concerning Mary or the prosperity doctrine or the "little gods" doctrine, or universalism, or other doctrines that have become popularly accepted over the centuries in both the Catholic church and Protestant sects. We are all to watch our life and doctrine carefully, as Paul instructs and to check ourselves to see that we are truly of the apostolic faith passed down to the church of Jesus our Lord.

I pray that His church will come to the unity of faith based on the inspired word of God and through the knitting of us together in love and common doctrine by the Holy Spirit.

Hello GiGi

You are absolutely right. Also it is prefferable to have those churches than nothing. In Europe in countries where those churches play a significant role in the society, usually Southen/Eastern Europe, people are closer to God and His commandments than the North where people are almost completely atheists and this is obvious from the no. of divorces, rate of crime, etc. But I wish they could just open their eyes and see and follow the truth. How a great salvation it could be done. In my country more than 95% of people have been baptized as Orthodox christians when they were infants. They often attend the church liturgies, take part in celebtations, festivals, fastings, everything...but their everyday life doesn't show Christ. If that church could see the truth and preach it, my God what a great salvation would result, I believe thousand and millions of people would have been saved. Another thing is that we must honor those churches, apart from condemning them all the time. This may sound strange but let us not forget that Christianity was spread throughout the world mainly by those 2 churches, the Catholics in the West and the Orthodoxes in the East. If those didn't exist, probably we wouldn't have learned anything about Christ. As we owe honor to Israel because they kept the faith to the real God for so many millenia so that the church found it at the end, the same way we owe honor to those churches because they kept the faith for so many centuaries untill we found it. This is justice. But we also have to talk to them about their errors. We really can not do much, but God is powerful to change that all completely. I believe that as we are approaching the end and the sin in the world is becoming biger and biger, the stonger our God's power will be revealed to the world. We can talk to everybody about our faith but if God doesn't show His strength not much will be done. So our prayes here is to see God powerful again, as the ancient times. ( Joel 2:23)

GBU

Agreed, Giannis,

No matter what church group we affiliate with there is always the possibility of wrong teaching and practice to creep in and be widely accepted. I have seen it happen many times in my lifetime in many different church groups.

The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church became more and more institutionalized and hierarchical over the years and this did not prevent them from falling into error and corruption. ALL church groups can learn a lesson from what happened to the universal church over the centuries and be very careful about what they teach from the pulpit, what is taught in Sunday School, in home Bible Studies, and in personal study and practicing one's faith daily.

You have done well in this conversation with Momsage. It is up to her to do with the information she found and we supplied according to how the Spirit leads her.

Thank you for offering us these quotes from these believing leaders in the time when apostle John was still alive (before 95AD. and/or in the decades shortly after he died. Many of the writers of the 100's AD were appointed to their offices by the apostles or by one who was appointed by an apostle. They were men of faith in our Lord.

They, more than any of us knew what was taught and practiced in the early times of the church after Pentecost. Certainly, they valued the teachings and writings of the apostles as being paramount tenets of the faith they held and taught to others.

I agree with you, these men were NOT Catholics. The church in the early centuries was universal as you say. There were heretical sects and teachers in those early times just as there are now and have been throughout the centuries. However, these men were godly believers who desired to live and lead the brethren in godliness according to the faith passed down from the

apostles.

Momsage, the Ignatius of Antioch writting is from his First Apology

Hello Momsage 1/2

Barnabas 15:9

"Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens." (The eight day is the day after the last/seventh day of the Jewish Sabbath, that is Sunday or Lord's Day as the early christians used to call it)

Justin the Martyr, chapter 67

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen;.... But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Where did Barnabas 15:9 come from? Not the KJB?

A post from GiGi: "Thank you for offering us these quotes from these believing leaders in the time when apostle John was still alive (before 95AD. and/or in the decades shortly after he died. Many of the writers of the 100's AD were appointed to their offices by the apostles or by one who was appointed by an apostle. They were men of faith in our Lord."

If this is biblical or a historical please give me references. Also, please tell me, with historical proof, why this quote is not authentic. "It was the Holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest form Saturday to Sunday, the first day of the week. And it not only compelled all to keep Sunday, but at the Council of Laodician, AD 364, anathematized (cursed) those who kept the Sabbath and urged all persons to labor on the 7th day under penalty of anathema (excommunication.)" Catholic Priest T. Enright, CSSRR, Kansas city, Mo

God Bless :)

Momsage, 3/3

In 1 Cor 16 Paul asks Corinthians to gather money for Corinthians every Sunday, "2.Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

Why on Sundays when they could all meet on Saturdays (assuming they celebrated Sabbaths)? If Sunday was a congregation day why did they postpone the offerings untill the next day, and if Sunday was not a congregation day for them why bother coming again to the church to do that?

From the practise of my church. We meet twice during the week and on Sundays (some churches in big cities meet every day). During the week not everybody comes to the church, people are busy with their jobs, kids, all sort of things or are very tired to go to the church. But on Sundays everybody comes because they are free and also want to take part in the breaking of the Bread, etc. So it is Sundays that we offer money for the the needs of the church, so that we can get the most of it. So if one wants to get the most of it they would gather money on Sundays, not say Wednesdays It is obvious, isn't it? So the main service of the church was done on Sundays when apart from taking part in the breaking of the bread, they offered money for the function of the church or the poor, etc, thus Sunday was the most important day for them, not Saturday.

Sometime later on I will go on with what Paul says about Sabbaths.

GBU

Thank you brother Giannis for sharing more information of the practises of the early Church - all this should be very helpful to those seeking better understanding of what took place in those meetings. And just to add, I've never found any of your posts to be aggressive or hurtful in any way, and have always valued very much your understanding of the Word especially when bringing us added knowledge from the Greek. And of course, calling upon history, if outside of biblical revelation, can always be a sore point; one must investigate further the facts presented rather than blind rejection, for whatever our reason. Truth is paramount: if we believe that the Bible is wholly true (even under testing), then anything that would complement biblical facts must also be given equal scrutiny. Blessings.

Thanks for your good words brother Chris. Have a blessed week.

Momsage, 2/3

Lets talk from the scriptures.

1. Acts 20:7, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

Isn't obvious here that the Breaking of bread was done during Sunday? Why does the text mention the breaking of bread? Answer, because at that time the breaking of bread was not done during the church service in the morning, but christians sat on tables in the evening and had it then, exactly the way Jesus did it with His disciples before He was crucified. (also see 1 Cor 11:20-32 where Paul talks about Lord's supper which was done on Lord's day/Sunday. If you look this up in history books those suppers were called "agapae" [grk for love, plural] and that habit was eventually abandoned sometime during the 2nd century) So we can understand how Paul kept teaching until midnight, otherwise one may wonder how true can be that Paul preached from morning to midnight. But from that little detail we know now that the breaking of bread was done on Sundays. We also find out that the breaking of bread was done every Sunday, not once every 2-3 months or whenever some planned it, like in some churches (If it was done once in a while the text would say "on one of the first days or a first day, in greek this is more clear than the Engl translation)

Now if Sabbath was still the main congregation day and holiday, would the christians perform the most important act of the church function on another day? I wouldn't think so.

How do you know when Paul started to preach that day? Even if it says that in other writings you can't add meaning to a scripture because someone in the first century says so. I think, Giannis, that because you have decided to believe that "breaking bread" could only be done on the first day of the week as a weekly church gathering Acts 20:7 can only be interpreted that way. If the premise I presented to you in my reply, before this one, cannot be true, tell me why without the assumption that the breaking of bread could only be done on Sunday at a regular church service. Maybe the church, in that verse, met to break bread on another day other then the Sabbath, maybe Sunday. I don't understand what you are saying about 1Cor. 11: 20-23. Paul was rebuking the church for eating their evening meal together, considering it to be the Lord's Supper, and not sharing with those who didn't have to eat. Maybe they were doing this on the Sabbath. If history tells us anything not told us in these verses we can't claim it to be a backup for the truth. History is necessary but it is still just the thoughts and words of men. When I used the quotes I did I was only telling of a man, who was quoting something from history not stating it as a biblical truth.

I apologize that I am continuing this Sabbath discussion if you'd rather go on to something else, but before we finish would you please show, with KJB scripture only, why "the breaking of bread" and the gathering of the church can only be done on Sunday or if it is done on Sunday why it can't possibly be an extra day of the week the church is getting together? Why Acts 20:7 and

1 Cor. 16:2 has to be interpreted the way you see it. God Bless :)

Hi Giannis: I'd like to discuss the Sabbath some more unless you'd rather not. Just let me know. I've done some additional research on the first century Church Fathers and I have learned more. I do agree with you that some of these authors were indeed Christians and probably did know some of the Apostles, however, what they wrote can't be presented as scripture but should only be presented as historical writings. I guess since I misunderstood that the Barnabas 15:9 was presented as a scripture, I overreacted (Who me? LOL) and let it chase me away for awhile. I apologize if I offended you or GiGi in anyway when I did that. But, while these men recorded a history of their experiences with the Early Church it can't be taken as scripturally true and can't be presented that way. The OT is our foundation and the NT builds on that foundation, to me this means that as children of God we need to accept the only true bible canonized by the Holy Spirit, as I'm sure you will agree. I know that we all love the Lord and each other and want only the truth. These discussions give us the opportunity to do that. I also apologize if my feelings toward the Catholic DOCTRINE has offended you or GiGi in any way. I was raised a Catholic and I have had a personal experience in how it destroyed a precious soul that I knew.// Why is it not possible that 1 Cor. 16:2 says they were asked to put aside a donation at the beginning of each week after the offering done on the Sabbath for something else when Paul came and he didn't want it to be done while he was there, maybe out of humility, maybe it was for him. They didn't have to gather together to do this. Also, Acts 20:7 The church met on the Sabbath for it's regular service but this time they also met on Sunday because Paul was going to be there and he would be leaving again the next day. No reason it was a weekly church service just because it says 'they broke bread together." God Bless :)

Momsage .

So if you have it in your mind that not observing Sabbath is a sin (like others consider eating pork as a sin), then for you this becomes a sin (although not cosidered as sin by God) and that brings feelings of guilt inside you. But why, since Jesus has freed us from all those? Why put ourselves under that bondage?

Next I will go back to what we have talked so far about the Lord's Supper and the first day of the week. But tomorrow. Here it is almost midnight now. Have a blessed night.

Momsage 2/2

In Galatians, Paul says:

Galatians 4: 8-11, 8Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

It is obvious that Paul asks us not to observe days.

In Galatians 5:1-2, Paul also says, "1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

In the epistle to Galatians Paul makes clear that we are not saved by the Law. We are freed from its rule.And in the Law he includes observing days and months and times and years and all those that the Law commanded the Israelites to obey.

In Romans, chapter 14, Paul talks about days and meat and drink

Verse 5, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

Does that mean that it is OK to observe days? Although in verse 6, he says, "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." in verse 1 he calls those who consider some days as holy, also avoiding specific meats and drinks, as weak in faith.

Verse 1 "1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs."

And in verse 14 he goes on "14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is"

Hello Momsage. 1/2

Before going back to what I have written so far about Sabbath I would like to see what Paul says about it in Colossians.

Colossians 2:16-17, " 16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17. Which are a shadow of things to come ; but the body is of Christ.(it means that the real thing that saves is Christ, like a shadow is an image of a real body under the sun)"

Paul calls Sabbath, among other things, as "shadow of future things(this is the exact translation)". Now since those verses are often presented as meaning the opposite of what they do really mean, lets see what Paul was talking about. In preceding verses Paul says, (verses 6- 8 and 14), "6. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7. Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.8.Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

And verse 14." Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

And then he goes talking about meat and drink, holy days etc and Sabbath (verses 16-17). It is obvious that Paul includes Sabbath in the ordinances of the Old Testament for which we are not to be judged for not holding them. Why? Because they served as a shadow (metaphor, allegory) of future things, which actually came to us now through Christ. He also says that we must root and build up ourselves in Christ and not on those other things. He then goes on and says that Jesus nailed all those ordinances to the cross, thus blotting them out.

But the main thing is that Paul includes Sabbath in the ordinances, together with all other things like what it was accepted to eat and drink and days that were considered as holy.

Hello Momsage

No I am not offended, so don't worry. I will reply as soon as I have some free time, maybe today. Have a blessed day.

Hello Momsage, 1/2

The Epistle of Barnabas as well as the Didache were books that were very popular among christians during the first 2-3 centuries AD. Although not God inspired like the NT they shed light to the practises and beliefs of the ancient church and fill the gaps of knowledge we have about things not described (or are not very clear) in the NT about the beliefs, the church function, etc of those early times.

Well you keep mentioning the catholic church and what some catholic priests and catholic encyclopedias claim. On the internet one can find the history of the church, there is a lot of information, so you can look all those things up, not always from the catholic side of view. In general the catholic church didn't emerge as a separate church before 1054 AD although the Pope and the church of Rome were a significant part of christianity many centuries before.The so called Post Apostolic Fathers like Ignatius and Justin and Clement and many others were Greeks who lived during the time the church was united. If you pay attention to their writtings the way they say the Holy Communion(or breaking of bread, Eucharist) was to be done is very different to the way the catholics do it.

For your own information, in the following centuries the greeks never became catholics, they formed the Eastern Orthodox church which was always in "war" with the catholics. For a greek at those later times to call them a catholic was like a big insult really.

So you have been given a lot of references on the writtings and beliefs of those early christians, what else would you like? Maybe you should try to read what others say as well about these things, not only very specific books.

About historical proofs about what catholics say, I can not do that. I came out of the Greek Orthodox church many years ago and joined a reborn congregation. So I know quite a few about the church at that time etc, but I am not really intersted in searching things like that in such a detail.