As to the first question, God closed the Mosaic era of the Jewish Church and religion (Hebraic JUdaism) for a more perfect one. The religion of Christ was its perfect fulfillment. Christianity is the perfect development of the Jewish religion just as the perfect tree is the perfect development of the seed from which it grew. 

 

Slavery was a legal, accepted institution in the ancient world and during the first few centuries after Christ. Slavery was deeply interwoven with the Roman Empire when the Catholic Church came into existence in 33AD. Manual labor was beneath the dignity of the Roman citizens under their emperors. The Church labored to better the lot of slaves by teaching their equal human dignity and working for their emancipation came from the very beginning.

In St.Paul's letter to Philemon in which St.Paul asks him to welcome back a runaway slave named Onesimus whom St.Paul had converted to Christ....and to welcome him not just as a slave, but as a brother in Christ and "to do even more than I say" which implies giving Onesimus his freedom. Phil 16:21.

The CC ordained them as priests and by the year 225 even as Pope, to the Chair of Peter. We also know that while the Church was living in the catacombs a religious Order was established for the redemption of slaves by the outright purchase and by the working of liberators as substitutes for them.

In the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine was successful in removing the legal restrictions agains tslaves, recognized that they were men made in the image and likeness of God,and were no longer branded with hot irons or thrust into gladiatorial contests with wild beasts for the amusement of a pagan populace.

By the 5th century.the Church working in these ways led to the virtual eradication of slaves.

But it was short lived becasue slavery returned when the barbarians invaded Europe. Later in history, the inroads of Islam revived slavery for the Moors regarded it as a duty to enslave captive Christians.

When Spain and Portugal captured the new world colonies, slavery surfaced and the Popes did their utmost to prevent slavery. Eugene IV in 1435, Pius II in 1482, Paul III in 1537, (he imposed excommunication on those who took part in the slave trade), Urban VIII in 1689, Benedict XIV in 1741 and Gregory XVI in 1838 all condemned slavery.

The Catholic condemnation of slavery can be found in the Catechism of the CC # 2414,

The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason---selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian, --lead to enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold, and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by  violence to their productive value or to a source of profit."

Bl. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have also condemned this tragic commerce in human misery. In short the CC has condemned slavery everywhere for over 2,000 years.  

No government in the world officially sanctions slavery ...it's banned worldwide...yet slavery thrives in every nation on the face of this planet because of organized crime, corruption and insatiable greed.

 

 

The Old Testament isn't completely obsolete because some of it contains the Natural Law, so, in that way, it has perennial value. The OT is the Word of God and will always until the end of time be the Word of God and still deserves total respect.

The Old Mosaic Covenant enjoined moral, legal and liturgical precepts. The legal and liturgical precepts are done, over with,  since there is no longer the Temple, the Aaronic Priesthood, etc. However, the moral precepts of the OT, namely the 10 Commandments, still hold in the New Covenant. They must for they are, for the most part, Divine positive promulgations of the Natural or Moral Law. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave them greater weight and meaning.

The guy in the clip is decrying the legal precepts of the OT but what he doesn't understand is that the legal and liturgical precepts were laid down by God for a specific stage in salvation history, that is, up to the coming of Christ and Christians are not obliged to observe them.  

Anyway, through Christ, in Christ, and with Christ, the New completes the Old.

I'm thinking of St.Matt. 5:17-18.

In the Old, God spoke through His law and the prophets, but in the New, He speaks through His Son. Christ completes what went before and puts it in new light. Such is what happened with the Sabbath observance. The whole law is brought to perfection and the process begins with Christ. Everything must be accomplished and not one word of God will pass away until "all is accomplished".

God, Creator of all things, including time and space, is eternal. He is, always was and always will be. Time and space are co-terminus with creatures and they too had a beginning and they too will have an end.

The enemies of Almighty God will try to get rid of Sacred Scripture and the CC for that matter, but they are both here and will be until the end of time. We have Christ word on that. 

 

Don't need the Holy Bible to prove that God came first in all things.

Sacred Tradition helps though in the person of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Here's what he has to say more or less.

RIGHT REASONING  asserts every effect has a cause.

Primary effects relate back to First Primordial Cause.

Secondary effects relate back to First Primordial Cause.

Extended effects relate back to First Primordial Cause.

Fire, mist, Time, Matter, or a tree on a hillside all are effects of ONE FIRST CAUSE.

The Universe presupposes a casue, a being necessarily outside the thing produced. All creation stands in contrast to the cause of its production; one produced the other unproduced.

This uncreated cause...this being having no cause, no beginning, Christians name God. Almighty God, the Eternal Creator is necessarily sovereign Lord and Master over all created beings.

I guess it won't surprise you that I disagree with some of this and the reason is that the Third Commandment of the Old Law goes to Natural or Moral Law and that part of it can not be changed or abrogated for it's one of God's unchangeable commandments. I think we may disagree over what "keep holy" means.

 

"Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day" was partly moral, the natural law, obliging all men to devote some time exclusively to the worship of GOd and partly ceremonial in as much as the Jews had a divine authoritative right to detemine the time and the details of its observance.They chose the 7th day in honor of God's completion of His Creation as you said.  

For Christians, the Sabbath became the Lord's Day and the commandment is "Remember thou keep holy the Lord's day."

The Church would not/could not ever abrogate the natural law part of God's command which obliges all Christians to devote some time exclusively to the worship of God, and that Scripture testifies the Apostles did. Acts. 20:7. So for the early Chruch and the Chruch today, it wasn't just a matter of rest, it was also a matter of worshipping God on the Lord's Day. That's what "keep holy" means.

The Lord's Day is celebrated in the CC, "from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof" (Malachais) as it was celebrated by the Apostles and the Christians in the catacombs by the "Breaking of Bread", later called the Holy Mass. 

With the end of the mission of Hebraic Judaism came a change, not in the Commandment, but rather the selection of Sunday to supercede the Saturday sabbath of which, as you said, was selected by the Jews for the Jews only.

What the sabbath was to the Jews, while they were "a kingdom of priests, a holy nation" Ex. 9:16, the sabbath of the New Covenant is to the Christians, since they became the "chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation." 1St.Peter 2:9.

Re: the highlighted:

While the NT does not contain the word, Sunday, it has in it the equivalent, "the Lord's Day". While there is no announcement of a change of sabbath day there, it does not lack evidence the first Christians assembled on the first day of the week for their religious solemnities.

The Apostles, to whom Our Lord gave the power to "bind and loose" met on the first day of the week, the Lord's Day to fulfill the requirements of the Third Commandment. They who were the teaching body of the universal Church Christ established, the Catholic Church, exercised their infallible power of changing the seventh day sabbatical reckoning.

The Apostles could and did change the time, the motive and the details of the Sunday observance. The day of the week to Sunday. They made it commemorate the Resurrection of Christ instead of the Creation. they mitigated in great measure the severity of the Jewish law, abolishing for example, the death penalty Ex. 31:15 and certain prohibitions. Ex. 35:3.

Now, Apostolic Tradition absolutely confirms what is here.

The Didache, Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles written between 65 and 80 reads, "On the Lord's day come together and break bread. And give thanks, offering the Eucharist, after confessing your sins that your sacrifice might be pure."

In 110, St.Ignatius, a contemporary of St.John, spoke of Christians as "not sabbathizing" but living in the spirit of the Lord's Day."  In 112, Pliny wrote much the same, in 140, Justin Martyr, in 170, St.Melito, Bishop of Sardis, in 200, Tertullian of Carthage, in 253, St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in 300, St.Peter of Alexandria, and the list goes on. 

The Catholic Church requires Catholics to keep Sunday by hearing Holy Mass, and by resting from servile work.

The abstention from servile work is first mentioned by Tertullian who speaks of "deferring even our business on the Lord's Day. lest we give place to the devil.". 

Catholics are told from the pulpit that they should not work on Sunday unless it is absolutely necessary. Yet we see so many that do and this is an absolute scandal. That's why the guy in the clip had at least half a point on this one.

You know I remember that it used to be that everything was closed on Sunday. No one rests anymore...and it shows!   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Show me anywhere in the NT where it says that we are to Keep the "Lord's Day."  I've already given you ACTS 15 where there were ONLY two requirements for the Christians coming into the faith as far as the Old Covenant was concerned.  

1.  Avoid idolatry

2.  Avoid sexual immorality

Now I'll give you the scriptures that show that we are NOT under the OT law when it comes to the Sabbath..

 

Paul wrote in Romans 14:1-5

Him that is weak in the faith receive but not to doubtful disputations.  For one believes that he may eat all things; another who is weak, eats only herbs.  Le not him that eats despise him that eats not; and let not him which eats not judge him that eats for God has received him....one man esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike.  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.  He that regards the day regards it to the Lord and he that regards not the day to the Lord he does not regard it.  He that eats eats to the Lord for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks...

Basically what Paul is doing in v1-12 (more than the above) is giving us the proper attitude Christians should have toward each other in debatable areas of conduct (things that are not clearly stated to be wrong).  God has received both the weaker and stronger believer.  

Speaking to the Galatians who were trying to adhere to the Mosaic Law (Old Covenant) he wrote this in 4:9-11:

"But now, after that you have known God or rather are known of God, how turn you again to the weak and beggarly elements where you desire again to be in bondage?  (OLD LAW) You observe days and months and times and years.  I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."  

He's telling them that they are not acting like heirs of God and are being influenced by the Judaizers observing the days and festivals of the Jewish calendar.  

and my favorite verse that is very clear..

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us which ws contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.  Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a holyday or of the new moon or the Sabbath days.  Which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ.  Col 2:16-17

False teachers were insisting on abstinence from certain foods (RCC did this on Fridays with no meat) and observance of certain days.  These Pauls says are shadows that have been dispersed by the coming of Christ.  The command to observe the Sabbath is the ONLY one of the 10 commandments NOT repeated after Pentecost.  

Paul was saying also that all those ordinances (now blotted out) were a shadow of what was to come but now that we see the body (Christ came) we no longer look at the shadow but the real thing in front of us.  

You will find no scriptures at all about keeping the "Lord's Day" or the "Sabbath" directed to the New Covenant.  We are under grace, not the law.  

The closest you will come is found in Hebrews where it says "do not forsake the gathering together."  But that can be anywhere, anytime or place.  A field, a tent, a building etc. on a regular basis.  Could be weekly, (preferably) monthly, yearly.  There are no specifics.  This is where legalism sets in when man dictates outside of what is in scripture.  That's what the Pharisees did constantly.  

See the problem with having one day set aside for God is that for many the rest of the week they live like the devil.  God says whatever we do, eat, drink, sleep etc we are to do for Him.  So instead of giving God one day, we should give Him all week.  We shouldn't be limited by one day in lieu of the great work done for us on the Cross.  

"Let every man be persuaded in his own mind."  

 

another thought...

Paul was like Moses of the Old Testament.  Like Moses who was raised up to deliver the Israelites from bondage, so too Paul, was sent to set the people free from the bondage of the Old Covenant.  

 

Lula, you are conceded beyond reason as are most people with agendas. Normally when I am asked a question I answer it as I can … but you refuse to acknowledge my own answer preferring instead to provide my answer for me because of what, you’re innate natural reasoning or something just as meaningless … or maybe it is just because of your agenda. As you should know, I do not have an agenda … I just do not believe in your one God. The only real thing I ever needed answering was for proof that God ever existed. And you, you have given me nothing but litany after litany, parable after parable, tradition after tradition and excuse after excuse. You know the old saying “Shit only stinks when one is outside the pen”? Well you should think about it…

 You may think that “God inspired men to write down His revelations” but seemingly He forgot to teach them to read and write which would have been helpful. If you want to be taken seriously by anyone besides another moon-bat, you need to remove words like mosaic revelation, patriarchal revelation, our (meaning your) natural reason, supernatural (Divine) revelation, Sacred Tradition, Divine Tradition or Apostolic Tradition etc. out of the discussion if one is going to discuss proof of the Truth. None of these things are even remotely capable of being proven and you count on this fact for all your arguments. This is why you try to put the onus of proof in my court. You cannot prove these things ever transpired so you know damn well that I cannot disprove them. Do you know anything about psychological warfare … I wonder indeed? How about catch 22 … ditto.

Enlightenment from the mind of man through science and technology (something they didn’t have, your founders) was therefore never even considered a possibility as they wove their web for dominance of the flat world. Seemingly you are under the impression that the ‘ordinary’ tradition of Halloween as practiced today has much to do with its founding … I would say about as much as your traditions do. In the end, it all boils down to dysfunctional MAN keeping track of God, His activities and of course all the translations of His word, hahaha. Yea, the Bible is clear as a bell … it just needs a representative of the RCC to explain all the nonsense is all.
 
“A full dogmatic articulation of the canon for Roman Catholicism was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546, as until then the authority of the Scriptures was not considered to be higher than that of Sacred Tradition, papal bulls, and ecumenical councils.” … I know, God made the Catholics do this somehow or another because surely the Churches motives were pure and just, go figure. If it weren’t for Catholic dogma we might not be having this discussion at all. My fall (for lack of a better term) is the direct result of the usurping of God’s authority … by man and church for the edification of Catholicism above God’s presumed words.

Please see previous reply ... proof my arse. I am curious though how is can be that when you quote the ‘word of God’ it is all prim and proper and makes perfect sense (after translation of course), but when someone else who has fallen through your clutches quotes the Bible … it is just their opinion, go figure. Unlike you I do not take anyone’s speculations to heart but most especially yours simply because they are not but the opinions of others which you have come to believe through no fault of mine. Sooo … slavery was legal back then as if that makes it right and proper. Seems like a long jump from ‘Adam and Eve’ to slavery … but it was legal you say, hehehe. Maybe you could put in a few words to our black Americans … and explain to them how proper and right slavery is because it was legal and flourishing for centuries before someone (The Devil I suspect) stuck a straw into the earth and blew it round. I guess so He could hide all those fossils of prehistoric man and the dinosaurs and whatnot to deceive simple minded man.
A little research huh … repulsive was the word he used and that is an opinion word??? First was the 4th Commandment … my research turned up no errors … please enlighten me??? Next was the 1st commandment … ditto??? What were the errors citing MATT 18:7-9 (KJV) … ditto??? And what part about the inferiority of woman in the Church is the least bit untrue??? Likewise, you will have to show me where the bible states anything in opposition to slavery before you deride the author on this point. I believe Titus 2:9 of the NT does in fact condone slavery so what gives. Isaiah 13:15, Hosea 13 and Numbers 31:15 are word for word from God’s mouth to your books … I am having a difficult time understanding what is in error??? And just so you know that I know … there was only ONE person in the clip and for the most part, all he did was quote God’s own words out of your Bible. I am not impressed with your truthfulness…

  If this is so, then why was this ‘concept’ not cemented until 1546, less than 500 years ago? It only took a thousand years to concoct all this nonsense you so grace yourself with, all the while acting as God’s hit men (and women), hahaha. There is not one scrap of factual evidence from the historical records of MAN that proves that anything at all in the OT ever took place … in the real world.

Sorry, this comment was for the article you mentioned above so it has been mooved there.

of course there is.  They're digging up artifacts all over the place.  They've got coins, pottery, inscriptions all that point to the OT narratives.  And I've heard it said that only 1% of Israel has been excavated so far.  Israel is an excavator's dream.  

Archeology has confirmed the history of the OT not only in its general outline but in many details.  

For instance we have learned a great deal about the Assyrians (who took Israel captive in 722 BC) because of 26,000 tablets found in the palace of Ashurbanipal, the son of Esarhaddon who had taken the Northern Kingdom into captivity.  These tell of the many conquests of the Assyrian Empire and record with honor the cruel and violent punishments that fell to those who opposed them.  Several of these records confirm the Bible's accuracy.  Every reference in the OT to an Assyrian King has proven correct.  

In every period of the OT history we find that there is good evidence from Archeology that the Scriptures are accurate.  While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Scriptures are better informed than its critics.  

After the period of the Judges the archeological evidence becomes increasingly clear that the biblical authors knew what they were talking about.  By the time of the NT the evidence for its historical reliability becomes overwhelming.  

It's not so much as condoning as it is addressing the relationships between slaves and masters; how they should be treated.  We can transfer much of this relationship subject to the work place today between employer and employee.  The principles are the same.  

You didn't mention Col 3:22-4:1 but you might want to read that little section before you get to gung ho on this subject.

There you will see Paul addressing the Masters to treat their slaves fair and equal.  And while you're at it look at Ephesians 6:5,6,9

Paul also made it very clear (addressing slavery and women) that "there is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  Gal 3:28

Biblically speaking there is no distinction.  

 

KFC, in your ascribed manor, what supports anything from the invention of the cosmos, Adam and Eve and their children with their extreme longevity, their inability to sustain themselves in the world your one God made what … perfect. Continue this nonsense up to Noah, his family and their longevity and of course, The Ark (do you want to discuss the Ark?) I would be happy if you could show me where any of this is documented in historical or archeological or scientific records, besides you telling me this is so. The people of those barbaric times were megalomaniacs, but they weren’t stupid. They would of course use what they could of the real world in passing. So all these coins, pottery and inscriptions POINT to the OT narratives … how so??? Points to: is hardly proof of anything besides the fact that people were smart enough to actually produce things way back then. And if Israel is such a treasure trove of knowledge, why didn’t anyone do something to find out over the last thousand years … not my problem at all and simply conjecture on your part. Overwhelming for sure, but not to me. Do you even know what a preponderance of the evidence means let alone proof … I think not?

Now if I meandered into some town and they told me a mere mortal that they practice slavery, I would jump in their ‘stuff’ for their barbarianism. Why is that you might ask … well I despise slavery and any entity or organization that supports it. But your one God just tells them how to do it properly (but that is not an endorsement, hahaha) … why do you guys always make excuses for biblical atrocities is beyond me. If you are looking into the comment I made to Lula, you need to consider the fact that the clip she didn’t watch, stressed these passages and they were all spot on. Whenever you guys quote the bible or other such nonsense you pick and choose what small blurbs you find useful … but when someone quotes the bible to you (your bible), they must consider everything in the complete book … you guys are funny that way. If it takes a sinless soul to enter your paradise … I would think your Hell is going to be real crowded. Oh I forgot, you guys of the inner circles just have to ask for forgiveness and all is ok, hehehe.

 

 

The Apostles and the first Christians in the early Church kept holy the Lord's Day.

The "first day of the week" is there and the first day of the week is Sunday, "the Lord's Day". That's there too.  

"Acts 20:7 ,"And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them...."

1Cor. 16:1-2, "now concerning the collections that are made for the saints; as I given order to the churches of Galatia, so you (the church of Jerusalem) are also to do: 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside, and store it up that he might prosper, so that the contributions need not be made when I come."

The Apocalypse 1:10, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day.."

It happened that the Spirit of God came over St. John to make him a prophetic Seer and a preacher of the word of God, which Jesus wanted to communicate to His Church on the Lord's Day! On a Sunday, the first day of the week, the day of Jesus' Resurrection, with the Eucharistic "Breaking of Bread" has already replaced the Jewish Sabbath (Acts. 20:7, 1Cor. 16:2)

"The Lord's Day", the day which the Chruch, ever since the Apostolic age, keeps as its holy day in place of the Jewish sabbath, because it is the day on which Jesus rose from the dead. The Resurrection made Sunday, the first day of the week, the Lord's Day, holy to believers.

 

In Ex. 20:8-11, we read at the end of the Third Commandment, "....wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." Note the end--- "Sanctified it".

God sanctified the Jewish Sabbath; Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath and by His Resurrection, He sanctified "The Lord's Day". And that's why we are to "keep the Lord's Day" holy. How do we do that?

Well, by "hearing the Church" and what does the Church say about keeping holy the Lord's Day? The Catechism has it spelled out quite clearly. In brief:

2191 The Church celebrates the day of Christ's Resurrection on the Sunday, which is rightly called "the Lord's Day".

2192 Sunday ... is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church" On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.

2193  On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound ... to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.

To Catholics the Lord's Day is sanctified by hearing Holy Mass and also by giving time to other devotions, resting, doing activities which help build friendship with others, and especially in the  family circle.

So I asked you this:

and you gave me what?  

I showed you clearly in my Post 275 that we are not commanded to keep any certain day.  

What you wrote above is of course, correct.  The Apostles and early church met on the first day of the week.  The reason?  They were celebrating the resurrection which was on the first day of the week.  

There's no command in your above posting.  It's just a matter of fact.  There are commands in scripture and there are recordings of fact.  You did not give me anything substantial here outside of telling me what their habit was after the resurrection.

Again, we are not commanded anywhere in the NT to celebrate any certain day like the Jews had for their Sabbath, which was their 7th Day.  

Not based on any scripture I see.  It's church tradition which is what I've been telling you all along contradicts scripture.  Here's just another one pointed out by you to me.