Tradition Versus Scripture

[Brakelite]

In the Law, we see a probation against certain foods. However, in the NT, we see that these laws were FULFILLED in Christ (Col. 2:16-17).

There is no suggestion in that text that God has made unclean meats suitable for eating. Find me a text which refers to unclean food. You won't find one. There's no such thing. If there was something declared by God to be unclean, them it was never intended to be food. Like swine flesh. It's unclean. Always was. Still is. Therefore not food. Not to be eaten. Nothing to do with voluntary fasting and abstinence of certain foods fire religious purposes. The dietary counsels were established for the good of the people by the Manufacturer. You want to put sugar in your gas tank in your car, go ahead.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Almost. Note the question mark.

It was a rhetorical question - and more of an inference.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is no suggestion in that text that God has made unclean meats suitable for eating. Find me a text which refers to unclean food. You won't find one. There's no such thing. If there was something declared by God to be unclean, them it was never intended to be food. Like swine flesh. It's unclean. Always was. Still is. Therefore not food. Not to be eaten. Nothing to do with voluntary fasting and abstinence of certain foods fire religious purposes. The dietary counsels were established for the good of the people by the Manufacturer. You want to put sugar in your gas tank in your car, go ahead.

Either you lack understanding of God's Word - you you are simply a LIAR.
Peter's vision in Acts 10 revealed that ALL meat was now CLEAN and approved for eating:

Acts 10:11-15
He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained ALL KINDS OF FOUR-FOOTED ANIMALS, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that GOD HAS MADE CLEAN.”

 

[BreadOfLife]

But those killings were the direct result of some of the very traditions you claim Jesus was okay with. And you won't find any example of Protestant war against entire communities such as Clovis embarked upon.
I'm glad you condemn such killings. It's a pity your church didn't. On the contrary, your church struck medals to commemorate it. That isn't the action of one or two individuals. That's church policy. And while today the church may exude a more conciliatory tone towards people of other faiths, and which is to be highly commended, what concerns me is the prophetic word that speaks to a time soon to transpire wherein the entire planet comes under the yolk of tyranny in order to enforce Catholic tradition as a commandment purported to be of God..."and ye shall be hated of all nations for My name's sake".
KJV Revelation 18:3
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

MOST of the killing in the medieval Church was done by governments.
Heresy and factionism was bad for commerce and because it lessened the control of the masses. Rabble-rousers were disposed of moreso by kingdoms than by the Church.

It wasn't "Church policy" to kill people. It was government policy. Should Church leaders have protested? Absolutely.
But, being human - there were many who made bad decisions.
And today, you are still claiming Jesus is okay with traditions that contradict scripture. His scripture. And in order to do so, you have to change the meaning of scripture to harmonize with your tradition.

For example. Colossians 2:16,17 says nothing regarding the weekly Sabbath. And your own church scholars admit as much. That text speaks of Sabbaths that were shadows. The weekly Sabbath was instituted before sin, before there was any need of a plan of redemption for man. The annual Sabbaths were shadows. Feast days. You call them holidays. They were the shadows. They pointed to the Saviour. Jesus fulfilled them during the course of His life on earth, and during His intercession in heaven. The weekly Sabbath did not point forward to something, anything, for sin, and the remedy for it, did not then need acknowledgement.

WRONG.

Paul explicitly states:
Col. 2:116-17
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon OR A SABBATH. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

He doesn’t differentiate between a regular weekly Sabbath or an annual Sabbath or feast.

As Paul explains, The Sabbath was a SHADOW that pointed to Christ and was fulfilled by His sacrifice.

And the Sabbath as an observance didn’t exist before sin entered the world. The very FIRST mention of the Sabbath in ALL of Scripture is when the Israelites are in the desert Ex 16:23-30. God commands them to take a day of rest and eat what they gathered.

WHAT did they gather? Jesus tells us about that in John 6:
John 6:31-34
“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

Read CAREFULLY what Jesus says next . . .
John 6:35
Jesus said to them, “I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

HE is the entire reason for the Sabbath – and He FULFILLED it with His death and resurrection.

 

[GEN2REV]

Yes you are so right!! The problem with the work the Lord has me doing in scripture is that there is obvious tradition and there is imbedded tradition. For example, many hold the gospel author names as something that is indisputable, however it is tradition. I don’t want to publicize me, the investigations I’ve completed, or the books I’ve been asked to write, but the Lord has had me using my background and expertise to investigate tradition to find the truth. The truth is that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony and Jesus is the son of God. Does it matter whether the Gospels have been misnamed or not? It does if it was intentional and that is the message I’ve been asked to share. No speculation or opinions; just a data based scripture finding and discussion.

I get kicked off because even though most Christians pray to God for intervention, when I report that God is working wonderful things in my life, somehow that becomes offensive. Also, concluding in these investigations as I have that the Gospel authors have been misnamed, somehow makes me a heretic - even though my results prove the story of Jesus as true, turned me from a doubter to a fully dedicated follower and promoter of Jesus, and provided names of authors who are more believable than the accepTed tradition.

What do you believe are the true names of the gospels?

 

[Brakelite]

Either you lack understanding of God's Word - you you are simply a LIAR.
Peter's vision in Acts 10 revealed that ALL meat was now CLEAN and approved for eating:

Acts 10:11-15
He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained ALL KINDS OF FOUR-FOOTED ANIMALS, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that GOD HAS MADE CLEAN.”

Peter explained to the other apostles what the vision meant, and it had nothing to do with food. Peter explained to Cornelius
KJV Acts 10:26-29
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for
me?

You think I don't understand scripture, or am lying? Why do you think it is that God forbade the eating of swine flesh, and shellfish, and birds of prey? Why is that BoL. Was our Creator being arbitrary, and simply wanting to exert His authority? Was He being hyper religious, that only by eating clean creatures could anyone be His child or be saved? Think about it BoL. Think, instead of shooting from the hip thinking that by your pompous words and arrogant grammar you can lord it over others? Such tactics don't change the meaning of scripture. Of course, of you can show me that Peter and the other apostles celebrated their freedom from bondage to such a terrible diet of clean animals and ate out at the nearest Vietnamese restaurant with pork belly rolls, them I will believe you.
As I said BoL, consider what those creatures were that man was forbidden to eat. It wasn't food. Nowhere in scripture is a pig referenced as approved food. Anywhere. Even in reference to the last days, Isaiah condemned the eating of swine flesh. Why?
God being Boss? Or God being loving Manufacturer with expert counsel and recommendations regarding how our wonderfully and fearfully made bodies work?

 

[quietthinker]

Tradition Versus Scripture​

My tradition is checking verses in Scripture.

 

[Aunty Jane]

There is no suggestion in that text that God has made unclean meats suitable for eating. Find me a text which refers to unclean food. You won't find one. There's no such thing. If there was something declared by God to be unclean, them it was never intended to be food. Like swine flesh. It's unclean. Always was. Still is. Therefore not food. Not to be eaten. Nothing to do with voluntary fasting and abstinence of certain foods fire religious purposes. The dietary counsels were established for the good of the people by the Manufacturer. You want to put sugar in your gas tank in your car, go ahead.

Interestingly, all of God's creatures were originally designed to be vegetarians.
Genesis 1:29-30 says...
"And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so." (ESV)

So the eating of flesh was never in God's original purpose for earth dwellers. Humans only ate fruit provided in the garden of Eden.
But for some reason, not stated in the scriptures, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat the flesh of animals after they had disembarked from the ark. His original instructions to Noah were...."Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth." (Gen 7:1-3)

The "clean" animals before the flood were clean for sacrifice. (not food) and seven of these were taken in to the ark. Three pairs for breeding and one for sacrifice. As for the animals considered "unclean" only one pair were to be taken.

Israel were limited to the eating of clean animals by law, but when Gentiles began to come to Christ, dietary restrictions did not apply to them. Like Sabbath observance and circumcision, it pertained only to Jews....it was not binding on Gentile Christians.

Gen 9:3-6...
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

There was at first no restriction on the eating of flesh of any kind....only the prohibition about consuming blood was stated......but with the law given to Israel, certain classifications were made and the Israelites were to avoid those foods considered "unclean". They developed a revulsion for them.....which explains Peter's reaction to the unclean foods offered to him in a vision. Never had he eaten anything "unclean"....and never would he have entertained such a thing, but God showed him that "unclean" things could become acceptable to God under different circumstances. He was told...."Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.” (Acts 10:10-15) When he was sent to Cornelius he said to those gathered there...."You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean."

The Gentiles were considered "unclean" in their worship and practices, so we see when the circumcision issue arose and certain Jews demanded that Gentiles be circumcised, the apostles and older men in Jerusalem declared that the holy spirit had directed them to tell the congregations by letter, that nothing more was demanded of all Christians than the "requirements" they listed......
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:28-29)

As the Jews were already bound by God's law concerning these things, these requirements pertained mainly to their Gentile brothers. There is no command regarding circumcision, or holding of the Sabbath, or anything else that Jews had to observe.....though there was no prohibition concerning these things either. We are no longer bound by the Law, as Jesus came to fulfill it, and to end it. (Rom 10:4)

 

[Brakelite]

He doesn’t differentiate between a regular weekly Sabbath or an annual Sabbath or feast.

Yes, Paul did differentiate between the annual feast days and weekly Sabbath. When mentioning the Sabbaths, he qualified them by calling them shadows. "The Sabbaths which are shadows"... Thus excluding the Sabbaths which were not shadows.

Having a hierarchy of Priests the Church that acts as mediators not only does NOT nullify the Word of God – it certifies it.

I didn't say that the traditions of "the church" (original Christianity) were corrupted, but those who carried on from the original apostles, later introduced traditions that did not originate from scripture, but from corrupted men who came in as "wolves in sheep's covering". (Matt 7:15-20; Acts 20:29)

Jane, exactly.
Many of the "church fathers" had been pagans, not a few of them pagan philosophers, and these were not slow to assume the position of teachers, and to leave their fancies and vagaries on record as the faith of the church. But with all the
warnings of the apostles, with all the exhortations to cling to the law and the testimony alone, to the Scriptures of truth, they who follow these false lights away from the words of life, are without excuse.

 

[Cassandra]

Either you lack understanding of God's Word - you you are simply a LIAR.
Peter's vision in Acts 10 revealed that ALL meat was now CLEAN and approved for eating:

Acts 10:11-15
He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained ALL KINDS OF FOUR-FOOTED ANIMALS, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that GOD HAS MADE CLEAN.”

And what did Peter say that he learned from this? I took this from the Douay version
Acts 10:28
28 And he said to them: You know how abominable it is for a man that is a Jew, to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man common or unclean. Man, not meat.

The Lord was readying him to go see Cornelius, a Gentile. considered unclean, because not a Jew.

Not to mention the fact that clean and unclean are not Mosaic--even Noah knew the difference.

Gen 7:2.Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
I'm sure Abel did too, when he sacrificed.

 

[Brakelite]

MOST of the killing in the medieval Church was done by governments.
Heresy and factionism was bad for commerce and because it lessened the control of the masses. Rabble-rousers were disposed of moreso by kingdoms than by the Church.

It wasn't "Church policy" to kill people. It was government policy. Should Church leaders have protested? Absolutely.
But, being human - there were many who made bad decisions.

Mmm. So you agree that control of the people was foremost in the political mind. Most governments of that period, if not all, were monarchical. For you however to suggest that in mediaeval Europe those monarchs weren't manipulated, controlled, influenced, coerced, intimidated, or otherwise at the very least, suggestive to papal authority be it through marriage to Catholic Princesses, (which was part of the plan for European hegemony, see Daniel 2:43 for prophetic insight) is either obtuse, naive, or obfuscation, it downright ludicrous. I favour the latter.
But the result was devastating for non Catholic communities. Imagine. An entire army approaching your village with the sole aim of destruction. Both man and property. And every soldier promised instant forgiveness through an official papal indulgence for every murder they commit, every coin they steal, every home they destroy.
And the king to be dethroned, excommunicated, and removed from society if he refuses to obey the bull signed by the current pontiff who considers himself as having complete authority over all secular rulers.

 

[Brakelite]

for some reason, not stated in the scriptures

Well, not directly perhaps, but I think it is obvious that the reason would be there was nothing to eat apart from what was on the ark. Everything on the earth was destroyed, and is today coal and oil. There would have been seed, but that would have taken time to grow. That bird that plucked off the branch of olive tree probably destroyed the only tree living within 100 miles

 

[Aunty Jane]

Jane, exactly.
Many of the "church fathers" had been pagans, not a few of them pagan philosophers, and these were not slow to assume the position of teachers, and to leave their fancies and vagaries on record as the faith of the church.

Yes, and with power comes corruption. What is also that interesting is how much Roman Catholicism borrowed from Judaism, rather than from the teachings of Christ. The Christian 'priesthood' for example......like the Temple, human priests were part of Jewish worship that was a type and shadow of heavenly things. There was no Christian priesthood on earth...it was attained upon their resurrection to heaven as Jesus told the apostle John....
Rev 20:6....
"Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." (ESV)

They "WILL BE PRIESTS" but the priesthood is in heaven, not on earth. What we have are shepherds who watch over the flock until the thousand year reign of Christ and his anointed ones, when those 'chosen ones' will rule with him in the Kingdom of a thousand years, bringing redeemed mankind back to the very beginning, to start again. Christ purchased us with his precious blood so that the life we lost in the beginning can be returned to us.

But with all the warnings of the apostles, with all the exhortations to cling to the law and the testimony alone, to the Scriptures of truth, they who follow these false lights away from the words of life, are without excuse.

Exactly...there is no excuse for the corruption that engulfed both Judaism and Christianity....all they had to do was what Adam didn't...obey God in all things. But after the death of the apostles the rot that "was already at work" took over without protest. They warned about this apostasy but Christendom pretends it never happened despite the heinous abuse of power that the church participated in and sanctioned.
The bloodshed of innocent victims will be avenged.
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.""

Well, not directly perhaps, but I think it is obvious that the reason would be there was nothing to eat apart from what was on the ark. Everything on the earth was destroyed, and is today coal and oil. There would have been seed, but that would have taken time to grow. That bird that plucked off the branch of olive tree probably destroyed the only tree living within 100 miles

That explains the short period of time after the flood, but not the ongoing permission to eat flesh on into this 21st century.
Just after the flood, all flesh was allowed to be consumed, so what made some animals "unclean" for Israel? It appears to be pictorial, allowing Peter to understand God's acceptance of Gentiles into the Christian arrangement.

The eating of the Passover Lamb was a mandatory part of the Law for Israel.....also pictorial. "Eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood" had to be figurative because it was against God's Law to do that literally. The very thought of it is repugnant.
The Catholic response to that is disgusting to me, as it would be to any Christian who took it literally.
How many ways can you offend God?

 

[Cassandra]

The Christian 'priesthood' for example......like the Temple, human priests were part of Jewish worship that was a type and shadow of heavenly things. There was no Christian priesthood on earth...

Yep.

"Heb 10:10-12
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;"

Here's the Douay version:
" 10 In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.
11 And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God."

I heard recently and this is sad, that in the RC church, Jesus is portrayed:

1 As a victim, hanging on a cross.
2 Helpless, as a baby in Mary's arms
3 As a wafer.

Looks like people are always shown in authority over Him. But He is the one who has authority over all.

He is risen, and is now Our High Priest, sacrificed ONCE, Son of God. Where is that represented?

 

[BreadOfLife]

And what did Peter say that he learned from this? I took this from the Douay version
Acts 10:28
28 And he said to them: You know how abominable it is for a man that is a Jew, to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man common or unclean. Man, not meat.

The Lord was readying him to go see Cornelius, a Gentile. considered unclean, because not a Jew.

Not to mention the fact that clean and unclean are not Mosaic--even Noah knew the difference.

Gen 7:2.Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
I'm sure Abel did too, when he sacrificed.

You’re missing the point.

Peter’s dream is not only in reference to the fact the Gospel was open to the Gentiles – but that God no longer considered certain foods “unclean”.

God didn’t say, “Do not call anyONE impure that GOD HAS MADE CLEAN.”
He said “Do not call anyTHING impure that GOD HAS MADE CLEAN.”

Remember – Jesus said:
Mark 7:15
“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them.
Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, Paul did differentiate between the annual feast days and weekly Sabbath. When mentioning the Sabbaths, he qualified them by calling them shadows. "The Sabbaths which are shadows"... Thus excluding the Sabbaths which were not shadows.

WRONG - that s NOT what Paul wrote.
He said:
Col. 2:16-17
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

"A Sabbath Say" - NOT a "special" Sabbath or "Annual" Sabbath feast.
"A Sabbath" - period.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mmm. So you agree that control of the people was foremost in the political mind. Most governments of that period, if not all, were monarchical. For you however to suggest that in mediaeval Europe those monarchs weren't manipulated, controlled, influenced, coerced, intimidated, or otherwise at the very least, suggestive to papal authority be it through marriage to Catholic Princesses, (which was part of the plan for European hegemony, see Daniel 2:43 for prophetic insight) is either obtuse, naive, or obfuscation, it downright ludicrous. I favour the latter.
But the result was devastating for non Catholic communities. Imagine. An entire army approaching your village with the sole aim of destruction. Both man and property. And every soldier promised instant forgiveness through an official papal indulgence for every murder they commit, every coin they steal, every home they destroy.
And the king to be dethroned, excommunicated, and removed from society if he refuses to obey the bull signed by the current pontiff who considers himself as having complete authority over all secular rulers.

The whole p[oit i that it wasn't "Csatholic policy" to go around killing heretics or non-believers.

Many governments took ot upon themselves to do this snf had their own reason for doing so. Some Church leaders protested - but manay didin't. Those will be hels accounatbe for their sins - but tis was NOT Church doctrine.

As for the "fear" of the Church by kings - name ONE king who was dethroneed and excommunicated for defying the Church.
Henry VIII not only defied the Church - he butchered the clergy.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I heard recently and this is sad, that in the RC church, Jesus is portrayed:

1 As a victim, hanging on a cross.
2 Helpless, as a baby in Mary's arms
3 As a wafer.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.....so portraying Jesus as a dead man, or a helpless infant, is to rob him of his status as a mighty conquering King. He is also portrayed as weak and effeminate, and the army he leads of powerful angels is lost when we see in Catholic art, babies with wings as if this is what angels are. Disempowerment is everywhere.

The wafer is in the shape of the sun which also features strongly in Catholic worship. Roman sun worship is even seen in the Vatican, where an Egyptian was obelisk has pride of place in the middle of a Babylonian sun wheel in St Peter’s Square (which is not square at all). The obelisk is directly related to the worship of the sun god Ra, and being imported from Egypt shows it was the real thing, not simply a replica. What is it doing there? Do any Catholic people even ask?

Looks like people are always shown in authority over Him. But He is the one who has authority over all.

Indeed.....there is no more powerful King in office at this time. Jesus himself said....”All authority has been given me in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18) so the authority he has, was given to him by the supreme authority, Jehovah.......his God and Father.

He is risen, and is now Our High Priest, sacrificed ONCE, Son of God. Where is that represented?

There was to be no hierarchy in Christianity.....no high sounding titles...no distinctive garb.....no “lording it over the flock” as if there were CEO’s instead of humble shepherds and overseers.
1 Peter 5:1-4....
“Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

If all would just do as the “chief shepherd”, Jesus commanded, instead of creating their own convenient version of what he taught, there could be no division in Christianity (1 Cor 1:10)....but the apostasy that Jesus and his apostles warned about, has created something that Jesus will never recognise as his own. (Matt 7:21-23) Love of power and dishonest gain took the “church” in a completely different direction. What masquerades as “Christianity” today....never was.

 

[Cassandra]

WRONG - that s NOT what Paul wrote.
He said:
Col. 2:16-17
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

"A Sabbath Say" - NOT a "special" Sabbath or "Annual" Sabbath feast.
"A Sabbath" - period.

Col 2:16 "16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths

The word in the Douay is plural, not singular.

 

[Brakelite]

What is also that interesting is how much Roman Catholicism borrowed from Judaism

Basically, what Rome has done is resurrected that which Jesus laid aside. Not only this, they have re-erected the curtain between God in the Most Holy Place and man, which God Himself tore down. Did you know there is a curtain in the confessional between the priest and the penitent?