-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The truth is dangerous... but only for the Luke warm
- Thread starter Elijahsfire
- Start date
Constantine only changed the day of worship. Not the calender. Sorry if I was not very clear on this.
Not to get this thread sidetracked but I have heard this claim from many sources, usually quoting someone else's research. From my own research Constantine simply adopted for his pseudo christianity, what others were already doing. While its true that someone changed the day, Constantine wasn't the culprit. He merely incorporated it into his unholy mix of paganism and pseudo christianity.
For those who would derail this thread, I'm not trying to do so, merely encouraging her to dig deeper. If you want to visit this topic, please start your own thread or PM me for more info. Peace.
I've always wondered if anyone ever really changed the day. It seems like it could have been probable that early Christians observed the Sabbath on the seventh day by not working or participating in commerce as commanded and then obeyed the separate command to gather together (which is a lot of work and probably shouldn't happen on the Sabbath) on the Lord's Day. Over time the Sabbath observance just lessened while the gathering together continued o Sunday.
I have no evidence to back it up but it seems like a logical explanation.
This troubles me . . . because it makes it sound like a person can really be unsure as to whether or not they have 'met the LORD.' To think that a personal encounter with the creator of the universe is a matter that would be subject to confusion troubles me. It is like saying: ' Well , I might have been in a roll over car crash this morning on the freeway . . . but I'm not sure.' It is not something that a person should really be able to be confused about. If we have met the LORD, we should not be able to just 'continue down the road as if nothing happened.' Granted, we can be misled. There is such a thing as heresy. However a 'broken and contrite spirit' the LORD will not despise, who ever seeks will find . . .knock and the door will be open . . .There is just so much that says the LORD wishes to be known . . . and that our friendship with the living LORD is the thing that matters. . . and HE will bring correction.
20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Matt 7:20-23
I am pretty sure, that if we KNOW Jesus . . . and if we really know him. It is not a matter that we can be confused about. Absolutely everything in life has changed. Moreover, looking through life at the saints, their transformation and testimony bear witness to the FACT that they have 'been with the LORD' - Augustine's life was radically transformed . His 'theology' is largely prayer. St. Francis stepped away from wealth and into a vow of poverty. Despite error, there are so many people in the history of the Church who have the LORD's fingerprints all over their lives: from Polycarp to Billy Graham. Faithfulness is absolutely necessary, but it is a faithfulness born out of spiritual friendship with the creator and savior . . .
Love this.
To my earlier comment about 'two houses', two whoring wives, both guilty of idolaty/adultery ...
It should. It's why He put so many clear - and oft-ignored - warnings in Scripture.
But I won't argue with people.
Directly.
(As has been noted in several contexts, it's generally a waste of time, regardless of their religious experience, be it real or car wreck. )
However, I've worked in deliverance, and had enough personal experience to know why we are given "tests". (And not just the one from 1 John/Yochanan that folks no doubt first think of.)
With all due respect, I'd say that Scripture seems to make it clear (as do a number of parables) that obedience matters more to Him than whether we feel friendly.
I have long suggested to people that the "scariest verse in Scripture" OUGHT to be the one ABM quoted, where He has a lot of people saying "didn't we do all this GREAT STUFF in your name!???" And the answer, "I will say to them who work lawlessness [torah-less-ness], I never knew you!"
That ought to raise some eyebrows. Especially when the same Messiah ALSO said the way that leads to life is "narrow," and "few there be that find it!"
Maybe that's why Shaul also told people to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
None of which is going to sit well with most churchianity doctrine.
If we truly have '(Jer. 16:19) "inherited lies from our fathers", and (Matthew 24, etc, etc, etc) the coming Deception and "falling away" if truly of "Biblical proportions," just MAYBE there's a reason for all their warnings.
I know that the Adversary is fully capable of not only massive deception, but convincing people that what "feels GREAT" must MUST be from "God".
It should. It's why He put so many clear - and oft-ignored - warnings in Scripture.
But I won't argue with people.
Directly.
(As has been noted in several contexts, it's generally a waste of time, regardless of their religious experience, be it real or car wreck. )
However, I've worked in deliverance, and had enough personal experience to know why we are given "tests". (And not just the one from 1 John/Yochanan that folks no doubt first think of.)
With all due respect, I'd say that Scripture seems to make it clear (as do a number of parables) that obedience matters more to Him than whether we feel friendly.
I have long suggested to people that the "scariest verse in Scripture" OUGHT to be the one ABM quoted, where He has a lot of people saying "didn't we do all this GREAT STUFF in your name!???" And the answer, "I will say to them who work lawlessness [torah-less-ness], I never knew you!"
That ought to raise some eyebrows. Especially when the same Messiah ALSO said the way that leads to life is "narrow," and "few there be that find it!"
Maybe that's why Shaul also told people to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
None of which is going to sit well with most churchianity doctrine.
If we truly have '(Jer. 16:19) "inherited lies from our fathers", and (Matthew 24, etc, etc, etc) the coming Deception and "falling away" if truly of "Biblical proportions," just MAYBE there's a reason for all their warnings.
I know that the Adversary is fully capable of not only massive deception, but convincing people that what "feels GREAT" must MUST be from "God".
Last edited:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and to fear God and keep His commandments is the whole duty of man.
We would have to do one of our famous word wars on that one probably. I don't have the strength right now.
It was done 'formally' after Nicea (325 AD) and then within the next half century, Sabbath keepers (and other moedim of YHVH) were declared "anathema" to 'the church'. "Judaizing" (and the like) later became capital crimes, and eventually the Inquisition sealed the deal. (Lots of sources, many of them catholic, serve as second and third witnesses.)
All part of the reason, I contend, that the "ten lost tribes," the whoring northern kingdom, aka Israel (after Solomon), are still in exile.
Constantine and the council of Nicea were only officially adopting the day that was most commonly in use since the resurrection. This is not to say that the Seventh day sabbath was not used, but it was primarily only used by the church at Jerusalem who thought if they could show the Jews that there really weren't much differences between them that it would make Jesus as Christ more acceptable. There's lots of documentation (mid first to mid second century) for a first day sabbath and that it was considered the Christian sabbath long before Constantine or the pseudo Christian RCC ever came into being including the first two "8th" days after the resurrection in scripture.
There's lots of claims that the early Christians worshipped in the synagogues on the sabbath. However, the facts recorded in scripture indicate rather that they were witnessing in the locations most likely to have Jews, not worshipping and definitely not seeking to learn from the synagogues. Anyone claiming this appears to me to be taking liberties with the scriptures and revising the history. This is why I like the earlychristianwritings.com site so much. It's easy to favor one interpretation over another, but when the only witness from the era to the church observing Jewish sabbaths etc. limit it to that particular assembly, for the reason of essentially a seeker friendly motive, it puts it into a much better perspective.
I've heard quite a few cite that the first day sabbath was strictly the baby of the RCC and they will quote different men or letters from late in the 3rd to 4th centuries to support those claims, however, when you have people from the 1st &2nd centuries including it in their statements of faith & doctrine, its kind of hard to claim anything other than that the pagans adopted an existing format and terminology and attempted to reverse engineer a religion based upon that.
Not attempting to derail the thread, but if it needs to be moved that's ok
Love ya, bro. Couldn't resist the tweak.