Some questions from Roman Catholics...
-
Peter accepted Paul's view 'cos God intervened and gave him that dream.Originally posted by laoda99:Yesterday I read a book abt catholic history
it says paul sets a precedent for pple in the lower hierachy to call on popes to rebuke them if their thelogy go wrong
anyway, Peter accepted Paul's views so we shouldn't debate abt it anymore
The book got tell you who rebuked the Pope and succeeded? -
no...written by catholicsOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Is this book, by any chance, written from the protestant perspective?
i still have the book...borrowed from sengkang library
title is "key moments in church history - a concise introduction to the catholic church" by mitch finley
it says something like this:
He (Paul) insisted that it was a betrayal of the gospel to force gentiles to observe the jewish law in order to be baptised. Paul even gave Peter, in public, a large and long-winded piece of his mind. It was not without precedent., then, when in later centuries saints, theologians, and others felt free to call various popes to task for behaviour or decisions that seemed contrary to the spirit of the gospel. For Paul, the underlying principle was that even Church leaders always must take the gospel as their ultimate standard.
About the year 49, what is sometimes called the council of jerusalem took place, and church historians call this the 1st church council. After many long and conflict-filled debates, Peter stood up to support Paul's position. Gentile converts, he said, should not be required to observe the Jewish Law. All that was necessary for baptism was faith in the risen christ, that is, a personal belief in and relationship with Christ and with the ekklesia, the Church or assembly of the faithful. -
So you are saying that Yahweh is Hebrew? I don't think so. Just because Yehweh chose a particular race does not make Yahweh part of that race. Believing this is tantamount in beliving that the Hebrew race has pre-eminence over Yahweh. Pretty heretical to me.Originally posted by breytonhartge:note I did not say become messianic jews, but to go back to hebraic roots.
and do you think that Yahweh has one set of laws for gentiles and another for jews? i don't think so.
Like I have often said, our God is first the God of the Jews, He was their God before He was ours. So do you think that God will change everything just because of us gentiles? No. If we choose God, then we also choose to be HIS people, just as the Jews are. We are grafted in to the true vine, and guess what the part that is grafted in takes on the properties of the vine itself and does not display any of its own properties anymore.
Going back to fundamentals is also going back to God's ways not just jewish ways. You cannot read the new testament without first accepting and acknowledging that the old testament applies.
Why can you not see that we are Yahweh's children, so we follow HIS ways.
Know this, when Pual was preaching, he was still very much aware of the commandments of Yahweh.
On the contrary, it's the other way round, humankind is to take on the attributes of Yahweh.
I wonder if a banana stalk were to be grafted onto an apple tree, would it yield apples or bananas. -
...cool!Originally posted by laoda99:no...written by catholics
i still have the book...borrowed from sengkang library
title is "key moments in church history" by mitch finley
it says something like this:
He (Paul) insisted that it was a betrayal of the gospel to force gentiles to observe the jewish law in order to be baptised. Paul even gave Peter, in public, a large and long-winded piece of his mind. It was not without precedent., then, when in later centuries saints, theologians, and others felt free to call various popes to task for behaviour or decisions that seemed contrary to the spirit of the gospel. For Paul, the underlying principle was that even Church leaders always must take the gospel as their ultimate standard.
About the year 49, what is sometimes called the council of jerusalem took place, and church historians call this the 1st church council. After many long and conflict-filled debates, Peter stood up to support Paul's position. Gentile converts, he said, should not be required to observe the Jewish Law. All that was necessary for baptism was faith in the risen christ, that is, a personal belief in and relationship with Christ and with the ekklesia, the Church or assembly of the faithful. -
unfortunately no....hahahaOriginally posted by Icemoon:Peter accepted Paul's view 'cos God intervened and gave him that dream.
The book got tell you who rebuked the Pope and succeeded? -
Yeah.Originally posted by Chin Eng:I am one of the other Christians who disagree that we cannot have harsh words for fellow Christians. I have said before that the verse on "Judging" is totally misrepresented. Incidentally, I am also not one of those that believe that as a Christian, one cannot be angry.
The verse on Judging has to do with hypocritical behaviour. -
the book should have said if you disobey Vatican II .. you can prepare to join Breakaway Society.Originally posted by laoda99:unfortunately no....hahaha -
U mean the society of st pius x har?Originally posted by Icemoon:the book should have said if you disobey Vatican II .. you can prepare to join Breakaway Society.
hmmm...wait ha....the book should have Vatican II.....but I am still at the part abt 1st - 2nd century Christianity....
after i read i tell u got or not.....
anyone knows when did the first ex-communcation took place and who take place? Who become the anathema? -
At the council of jerusalem .. who was on Paul's side ah?Originally posted by laoda99:no...written by catholics
i still have the book...borrowed from sengkang library
title is "key moments in church history - a concise introduction to the catholic church" by mitch finley
it says something like this:
He (Paul) insisted that it was a betrayal of the gospel to force gentiles to observe the jewish law in order to be baptised. Paul even gave Peter, in public, a large and long-winded piece of his mind. It was not without precedent., then, when in later centuries saints, theologians, and others felt free to call various popes to task for behaviour or decisions that seemed contrary to the spirit of the gospel. For Paul, the underlying principle was that even Church leaders always must take the gospel as their ultimate standard.
About the year 49, what is sometimes called the council of jerusalem took place, and church historians call this the 1st church council. After many long and conflict-filled debates, Peter stood up to support Paul's position. Gentile converts, he said, should not be required to observe the Jewish Law. All that was necessary for baptism was faith in the risen christ, that is, a personal belief in and relationship with Christ and with the ekklesia, the Church or assembly of the faithful.
cannot be he solo tackle the 12 apostles right?
maybe timothy, barnabas or titus on his side?
but i read paul complained that the jewish apostles seduced barnabas even, once. -
should be quite early .. during 1st or 2nd century.Originally posted by laoda99:anyone knows when did the first ex-communcation took place and who take place? Who become the anathema?
i wonder what happened to the 2 bishops who casted the 2 famous votes during the council of nicea .. -
maybe he got level 90 Megapreach or something..... can take on 12 opponents one time... but remember, Paul is the scholar - the other 12, the best is, maybe, the the tax collector.Originally posted by Icemoon:At the council of jerusalem .. who was on Paul's side ah?
cannot be he solo tackle the 12 apostles right?
maybe timothy, barnabas or titus on his side?
but i read paul complained that the jewish apostles seduced barnabas even, once. -
yeah...all are uneducated fishermen.....Originally posted by Chin Eng:maybe he got level 90 Megapreach or something..... can take on 12 opponents one time... but remember, Paul is the scholar - the other 12, the best is, maybe, the the tax collector.
the book says Peter became a missionary....but dies obscurely around 60+ AD
It says Peter hand over his power at Jerusalem Church to James and become a missionary.....does it mean that Peter arrived in Rome and become the first bishop of Rome? -
oh i read abt it in wikipediaOriginally posted by Icemoon:should be quite early .. during 1st or 2nd century.
i wonder what happened to the 2 bishops who casted the 2 famous votes during the council of nicea ..
exiled together with Arius I think..... -
This one very interesting man...........................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Separation of Easter from the Jewish Passover
After the June 19 settlement of the most important topic, the question of the date of the Christian Passover (Easter), was brought up. This feast is linked to the Jewish Passover, as crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred during that festival. By the year 300, most Churches had adopted the Western style of celebrating the feast on the Sunday after the Passover, placing the emphasis on the resurrection, which occurred on a Sunday. Others however celebrated the feast on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan, the date of the crucifixion according to the Bible's Hebrew calendar (Leviticus 23:5,John 19:14). Hence this group was called Quartodecimans, which is derived from the Latin for 14. The Eastern Churches of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia determined the date of Christian Passover in relation to the 14th day of Nisan, in the Bible's Hebrew calendar. Alexandria and Rome, however, followed a different calculation, attributed to Pope Soter, so that Christian Passover would never coincide with the Jewish observance and decided in favour of celebrating on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Bible's Hebrew calendar.
According to Duchesne,[13] who founds his conclusions:
on the conciliar letter to the Alexandrians preserved in Theodoret;[14]
on the circular letter of Constantine to the bishops after the council;[15]
on Athanasius;[16]
Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in the mid-4th Century, "Â… the emperor Â… convened a council of 318 bishops Â… in the city of Nicea. Â… They passed certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time decreed in regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous concord on the celebration of God's holy and supremely excellent day. For it was variously observed by peopleÂ…"[17]
The council assumed the task of regulating these differences, in part because some dioceses were determined not to have Christian Passover correspond with the Jewish calendar. "The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord."[18] Constantine wrote that: "Â… it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. Â… Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."[19] Theodoret recorded the Emperor as saying: "It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. Â… Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. Â… avoiding all contact with that evil way. Â… who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. Â… a people so utterly depraved. Â… Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. Â… no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews."[20]
The Council of Nicaea, however, did not declare the Alexandrian or Roman calculations as normative. Instead, the council gave the Bishop of Alexandria the privilege of announcing annually the date of Christian Passover to the Roman curia. Although the synod undertook the regulation of the dating of Christian Passover, it contented itself with communicating its decision to the different dioceses, instead of establishing a canon. There was subsequent conflict over this very matter. See also Computus and Reform of the date of Easter. -
yah lor .. Paul even debated with Greek scholars on the acropolis I think ..Originally posted by Chin Eng:maybe he got level 90 Megapreach or something..... can take on 12 opponents one time... but remember, Paul is the scholar - the other 12, the best is, maybe, the the tax collector.
I think Paul must have used weird arguments to stunt his opponents. -
worse than our POWER OF ONE.Originally posted by laoda99:oh i read abt it in wikipedia
exiled together with Arius I think..... -
dun play play with the pharisees........Originally posted by Icemoon:yah lor .. Paul even debated with Greek scholars on the acropolis I think ..
I think Paul must have used weird arguments to stunt his opponents. 
even ex-pharisees........ -
where got? James headed the Jerusalem Church since the beginning.Originally posted by laoda99:Peter became a missionary....but dies obscurely around 60+ AD
It says Peter hand over his power at Jerusalem Church to James and become a missionary.....does it mean that Peter arrived in Rome and become the first bishop of Rome?
Peter arrived in Rome but there were already Christians there. Their foundation had been laid by Paul. -
he is tent-maker now.Originally posted by laoda99:dun play play with the pharisees........
even ex-pharisees........ -
wah....this book says Peter hand over power to James and then went on missionary leh....bluff one har? It says Peter was acknowledged as the first apostle.Originally posted by Icemoon:where got? James headed the Jerusalem Church since the beginning.
Peter arrived in Rome but there were already Christians there. Their foundation had been laid by Paul.
BTW, I think gospel of Thomas in the apocryha Jesus says "U shall go to James the Just"
Power struggle? -
must be written by Catholic .. go and checkOriginally posted by laoda99:wah....this book says Peter hand over power to James and then went on missionary leh....bluff one har? It says Peter was acknowledged as the first apostle.
BTW, I think gospel of Thomas in the apocryha the Jesus in it says "U shall go to James the Just"
Power struggle? -
Yahweh is Yahweh, yet the feast and festivals which He instituted He did not call jewish festivals, but HIS festivals, make that distinction.Originally posted by Chin Eng:So you are saying that Yahweh is Hebrew? I don't think so. Just because Yehweh chose a particular race does not make Yahweh part of that race. Believing this is tantamount in beliving that the Hebrew race has pre-eminence over Yahweh. Pretty heretical to me.
On the contrary, it's the other way round, humankind is to take on the attributes of Yahweh.
I wonder if a banana stalk were to be grafted onto an apple tree, would it yield apples or bananas.
The jews just so happen to live out His commands and celebrate His festivals. This is bacause to them it is their history. -
when I read this, this event was mentioned in Acts 15Originally posted by laoda99:no...written by catholics
i still have the book...borrowed from sengkang library
title is "key moments in church history - a concise introduction to the catholic church" by mitch finley
it says something like this:
He (Paul) insisted that it was a betrayal of the gospel to force gentiles to observe the jewish law in order to be baptised. Paul even gave Peter, in public, a large and long-winded piece of his mind. It was not without precedent., then, when in later centuries saints, theologians, and others felt free to call various popes to task for behaviour or decisions that seemed contrary to the spirit of the gospel. For Paul, the underlying principle was that even Church leaders always must take the gospel as their ultimate standard.
About the year 49, what is sometimes called the council of jerusalem took place, and church historians call this the 1st church council. After many long and conflict-filled debates, Peter stood up to support Paul's position. Gentile converts, he said, should not be required to observe the Jewish Law. All that was necessary for baptism was faith in the risen christ, that is, a personal belief in and relationship with Christ and with the ekklesia, the Church or assembly of the faithful.
If we read further down,
Acts 15:1-2
1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
1) it seems the dispute is not between Paul and the apostles, but rather its one between the gentiles christians (represented by Paul, Barnabas) and the the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees (not the Apostles).
2) this issue was brought before the Apostles and Elders for a descision.
3) There was no let down from Paul to Peter
4) Peter was the one who first stood up to relate to the conversion and the sending of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles Believers (Acts 15:6-11), its only after the speach from Peter that the rest are willing to listen to what Paul have to say about the things God had done among the Gentile Believers.
The one that Paul oppose Peter is in Gal 2:11-21, and it happens in Antioch and not in Jerusalem, the reason is that its seems to Paul that Peter was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group and draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles (un circumcised).
Acts 15:6-11
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." -
okay lah....so the whole bunch of Christians here in EH... plus the millions of Christians in the world are wrong... and you are right....Originally posted by breytonhartge:Yahweh is Yahweh, yet the feast and festivals which He instituted He did not call jewish festivals, but HIS festivals, make that distinction.
The jews just so happen to live out His commands and celebrate His festivals. This is bacause to them it is their history.
Colossians 2:
9 For in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily,
10 and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power;
11 in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 You were dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh. He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14 wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;
15 having stripped the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no one therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day,
17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's.
18 Let no one rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels, dwelling in the things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding firmly to the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and ligaments, grows with God's growth.
20 If you died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordinances,
21 "Don't handle, nor taste, nor touch"
22 (all of which perish with use), according to the precepts and doctrines of men?
23 Which things indeed appear like wisdom in self-imposed worship, and humility, and severity to the body; but aren't of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.
COMMENTARIES
GENEVA STUDY BIBLE
2:16 {15} 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]:
(15) The conclusion: in which also he means certain types, as the difference of days, and meats, and proves by a new argument, that we are not bound to them: that is, because those things were shadows of Christ to come, but now we possess him who was exhibited to us.
PEOPLE'S NEW TESTAMENT
2:16 Let no man therefore judge you. As the law was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14), let no man compel you to keep its ordinances.
In meat, or in drink. By requiring you to eat only what the Jewish law prescribes (Le 7:10-27). See Ro 14:17 1Co 8:8 Heb 9:10. Compare 1Ti 4:3.
Or in respect of an feast day. Such as the Passover, Pentecost, etc.
Or of the new moon. The monthly observances (Nu 28:11).
Or of the sabbaths. The Jewish Sabbath had passed away with the law.
WESLEY'S NOTES
2:16 Therefore - Seeing these things are so. Let none judge you - That is, regard none who judge you. In meat or drink - For not observing the ceremonial law in these or any other particulars. Or in respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly Jewish sabbaths.
MATTHEW HENRY COMMENTARY
2:8-17 There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasonable faculties; a study of the works of God, which leads us to the knowledge of God, and confirms our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful; and while it pleases men's fancies, hinders their faith: such are curious speculations about things above us, or no concern to us. Those who walk in the way of the world, are turned from following Christ. We have in Him the substance of all the shadows of the ceremonial law. All the defects of it are made up in the gospel of Christ, by his complete sacrifice for sin, and by the revelation of the will of God. To be complete, is to be furnished with all things necessary for salvation. By this one word complete, is shown that we have in Christ whatever is required. In him, not when we look to Christ, as though he were distant from us, but we are in him, when, by the power of the Spirit, we have faith wrought in our hearts by the Spirit, and we are united to our Head. The circumcision of the heart, the crucifixion of the flesh, the death and burial to sin and to the world, and the resurrection to newness of life, set forth in baptism, and by faith wrought in our hearts, prove that our sins are forgiven, and that we are fully delivered from the curse of the law. Through Christ, we, who were dead in sins, are quickened. Christ's death was the death of our sins; Christ's resurrection is the quickening of our souls. The law of ordinances, which was a yoke to the Jews, and a partition-wall to the Gentiles, the Lord Jesus took out of the way. When the substance was come, the shadows fled. Since every mortal man is, through the hand-writing of the law, guilty of death, how very dreadful is the condition of the ungodly and unholy, who trample under foot that blood of the Son of God, whereby alone this deadly hand-writing can be blotted out! Let not any be troubled about bigoted judgments which related to meats, or the Jewish solemnities. The setting apart a portion of our time for the worship and service of God, is a moral and unchangeable duty, but had no necessary dependence upon the seventh day of the week, the sabbath of the Jews. The first day of the week, or the Lord's day, is the time kept holy by Christians, in remembrance of Christ's resurrection. All the Jewish rites were shadows of gospel blessings.
...maybe all these great commentaries are wrong too.... -
I agreed with Unker Chin Eng
Breyton is too influenced by jewish practises liao.....Originally posted by Chin Eng:
okay lah....so the whole bunch of Christians here in EH... plus the millions of Christians in the world are wrong... and you are right....
Colossians 2:
9 For in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily,
10 and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power;
11 in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 You were dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh. He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14 wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;
15 having stripped the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
[b]16 Let no one therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day,
17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's.
18 Let no one rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels, dwelling in the things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding firmly to the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and ligaments, grows with God's growth.
20 If you died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordinances,
21 "Don't handle, nor taste, nor touch"
22 (all of which perish with use), according to the precepts and doctrines of men?
23 Which things indeed appear like wisdom in self-imposed worship, and humility, and severity to the body; but aren't of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.
COMMENTARIES
GENEVA STUDY BIBLE
2:16 {15} 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]:
(15) The conclusion: in which also he means certain types, as the difference of days, and meats, and proves by a new argument, that we are not bound to them: that is, because those things were shadows of Christ to come, but now we possess him who was exhibited to us.
PEOPLE'S NEW TESTAMENT
2:16 Let no man therefore judge you. As the law was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14), let no man compel you to keep its ordinances.
In meat, or in drink. By requiring you to eat only what the Jewish law prescribes (Le 7:10-27). See Ro 14:17 1Co 8:8 Heb 9:10. Compare 1Ti 4:3.
Or in respect of an feast day. Such as the Passover, Pentecost, etc.
Or of the new moon. The monthly observances (Nu 28:11).
Or of the sabbaths. The Jewish Sabbath had passed away with the law.
WESLEY'S NOTES
2:16 Therefore - Seeing these things are so. Let none judge you - That is, regard none who judge you. In meat or drink - For not observing the ceremonial law in these or any other particulars. Or in respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly Jewish sabbaths.
MATTHEW HENRY COMMENTARY
2:8-17 There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasonable faculties; a study of the works of God, which leads us to the knowledge of God, and confirms our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful; and while it pleases men's fancies, hinders their faith: such are curious speculations about things above us, or no concern to us. Those who walk in the way of the world, are turned from following Christ. We have in Him the substance of all the shadows of the ceremonial law. All the defects of it are made up in the gospel of Christ, by his complete sacrifice for sin, and by the revelation of the will of God. To be complete, is to be furnished with all things necessary for salvation. By this one word complete, is shown that we have in Christ whatever is required. In him, not when we look to Christ, as though he were distant from us, but we are in him, when, by the power of the Spirit, we have faith wrought in our hearts by the Spirit, and we are united to our Head. The circumcision of the heart, the crucifixion of the flesh, the death and burial to sin and to the world, and the resurrection to newness of life, set forth in baptism, and by faith wrought in our hearts, prove that our sins are forgiven, and that we are fully delivered from the curse of the law. Through Christ, we, who were dead in sins, are quickened. Christ's death was the death of our sins; Christ's resurrection is the quickening of our souls. The law of ordinances, which was a yoke to the Jews, and a partition-wall to the Gentiles, the Lord Jesus took out of the way. When the substance was come, the shadows fled. Since every mortal man is, through the hand-writing of the law, guilty of death, how very dreadful is the condition of the ungodly and unholy, who trample under foot that blood of the Son of God, whereby alone this deadly hand-writing can be blotted out! Let not any be troubled about bigoted judgments which related to meats, or the Jewish solemnities. The setting apart a portion of our time for the worship and service of God, is a moral and unchangeable duty, but had no necessary dependence upon the seventh day of the week, the sabbath of the Jews. The first day of the week, or the Lord's day, is the time kept holy by Christians, in remembrance of Christ's resurrection. All the Jewish rites were shadows of gospel blessings.
...maybe all these great commentaries are wrong too....[/b]