'Deception': Christians War Over Worship Day

[Robert]

Quote:

The Sabbath, whether creation, redemption or a new creation (i.e., the new earth) ALWAYS points to a finished work. Always!

Until you realize this your Sabbath keeping will be meaningless and legalistic. Sanctification cannot point to a finished work until we stand perfect at the 1st resurrection. I stand by my statement.

[Robert]

The Sabbath reminds us of the fact that God originally made the world perfect and that He will again have a perfect world in which He is inviting us to live with Him throughout all eternity.

But that's not the reason we acknowledge the Sabbath. It doesn't matter if the world was sinless and perfect, it is not now. And it doesn't matter if in the future it will be made sinless and perfect, it is not now. The only reason for Sabbath observance is at it is tied to redemption. Otherwise SDA are much like the Judaizers who pushed circumcision. There are similarities.

The Judaizers made it a condition of our ultimate salvation, but Abraham was circumcised as a sign of righteous he already had by faith. Hence if we make the Sabbath anything besides a sign of justification by faith we make it legalistic.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The Sabbath reminds us of the fact that God originally made the world perfect and that He will again have a perfect world in which He is inviting us to live with Him throughout all eternity.

But that's not the reason we acknowledge the Sabbath. It doesn't matter if the world was sinless and perfect, it is not now. And it doesn't matter if in the future it will be made sinless and perfect, it is not now. The only reason for Sabbath observance is at it is tied to redemption. Otherwise SDA are much like the Judaizers who pushed circumcision. There are similarities.

The Judaizers made it a condition of our ultimate salvation, but Abraham was circumcised as a sign of righteous he already had by faith. Hence if we make the Sabbath anything besides a sign of justification by faith we make it legalistic.

Why do you believe that the writer of Hebrews used these two different words for "rest":

The LXX makes no verbal distinction between the Sabbath "rest" and the condition of "rest" that Israel was to experience every day in the Promised Land, if faithful. The author associates the two in such a way that shows the weekly Sabbath rest is being used as a sign and pledge of the promised life of rest. I'll have more to say about this tomorrow.

You will notice that in Hebrews 4, two different words for "rest" were used. There is no reason for the writer to use the word, Sabitismos, except for making a major point about the Sabbath.

New American Standard:

9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Compare "rest" in v. 5-- and again in this passage, “THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.”

John Wesley:

4:9 Therefore - Since he still speaks of another day, there must remain a farther, even an eternal, rest for the people of God.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on Hebrews 4: 9--

The rest, or sabbatism, which is the subject of the apostle's reasoning, and as to which he concludes that it remains to be enjoyed, is undoubtedly the heavenly rest, which remains to the people of God, and is opposed to a state of labour and trouble in this world. It is the rest they shall obtain when the Lord Jesus shall appear from heaven. But those who do not believe, shall never enter into this spiritual rest, either of grace here or glory hereafter. God has always declared man's rest to be in him, and his love to be the only real happiness of the soul; and faith in his promises, through his Son, to be the only way of entering that rest.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

9. therefore-because God "speaks of another day" (see on [2548]Heb 4:8).

remaineth-still to be realized hereafter by the "some (who) must enter therein" (Heb 4:6), that is, "the people of God," the true Israel who shall enter into God's rest ("My rest," Heb 4:3). God's rest was a Sabbatism; so also will ours be.

a rest-Greek, "Sabbatism." In time there are many Sabbaths, but then there shall be the enjoyment and keeping of a Sabbath-rest: one perfect and eternal. The "rest" in Heb 4:8 is Greek, "catapausis;" Hebrew, "Noah"; rest from weariness, as the ark rested on Ararat after its tossings to and fro; and as Israel, under Joshua, enjoyed at last rest from war in Canaan. But the "rest" in this Heb 4:9 is the nobler and more exalted (Hebrew) "Sabbath" rest; literally, "cessation": rest from work when finished (Heb 4:4), as God rested (Re 16:17). The two ideas of "rest" combined, give the perfect view of the heavenly Sabbath. Rest from weariness, sorrow, and sin; and rest in the completion of God's new creation (Re 21:5). The whole renovated creation shall share in it; nothing will there be to break the Sabbath of eternity; and the Triune God shall rejoice in the work of His hands (Zep 3:17). Moses, the representative of the law, could not lead Israel into Canaan: the law leads us to Christ, and there its office ceases, as that of Moses on the borders of Canaan: it is Jesus, the antitype of Joshua, who leads us into the heavenly rest. This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical Sacrifice superseded it, As then the antitypical heavenly Sabbath-rest will not be till Christ, our Gospel Joshua, comes, to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then. The Jews call the future rest "the day which is all Sabbath."

[Gerr]

Quote:

The Sabbath, whether creation, redemption or a new creation (i.e., the new earth) ALWAYS points to a finished work. Always!

Until you realize this your Sabbath keeping will be meaningless and legalistic. Sanctification cannot point to a finished work until we stand perfect at the 1st resurrection. I stand by my statement.

Would you please explain to me how keeping the Sabbath as commanded in the 4th commandment is legalism while keeping the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or the 7th & 10th is not? Or do you consider keeping any of the other 9 legalistic?

Gerry

[Woody]

Wow! Robert and John you are both coming up with some good points. I am blessed by this dialogue.

I have one question John317 ...

You have stated ...

Quote:

For instance, when a smoker comes to Christ, God declares him righteous, as if he is not smoking. At that moment he is set apart for the worship and service of God.

But God does something even more amazing. He sends the Spirit to live in that man and give him the power to stop smoking.

My question is ... Could we plug in a Homosexual into the formula? OR ... Would the Homosexual have to have complete victory BEFORE coming to God and being welcomed to Church.

IOWs how much time is required for victory over the sins that we have and is there a special rule for some sins?

[John317]

Wow! Robert and John you are both coming up with some good points. I am blessed by this dialogue.

I have one question John317 ...

You have stated ...

Quote:

For instance, when a smoker comes to Christ, God declares him righteous, as if he is not smoking. At that moment he is set apart for the worship and service of God.

But God does something even more amazing. He sends the Spirit to live in that man and give him the power to stop smoking.

My question is ... Could we plug in a Homosexual into the formula? OR ... Would the Homosexual have to have complete victory BEFORE coming to God and being welcomed to Church.

IOWs how much time is required for victory over the sins that we have and is there a special rule for some sins?

Yes to your first question.

Of course the homosexual does not have to have complete victory before coming to God. In fact, unless he first comes to God just as he is, he has no real hope of gaining victory. But before he/she accepts Christ, the holy Spirit has already been working to convict of sin and to give a desire for God. (Contrary to what some believe, however, this is NOT salvation or justification or forgiveness, because the person has not yet surrendered his life to Christ or put his faith in Him. All they have done is experience the conviction and the desire.)

The homosexual does NOT have to have complete victory before being welcomed by or to the church.

I didn't have complete victory when I was baptized and was welcomed into the church, but I thought I did. I certainly had no plan to commit those sins again. The truth is that I had no idea how weak and helpless I was. I do not believe that I had the holy Spirit in my life at that time. I was not born again. I still had many, if not all, of my old desires and ways of thinking. I thought that I could stop any time.

I don't tell myself that I have complete victory NOW. All I know is that as long as I have Jesus and His Spirit in my life day-to-day, I am assured of victory if I choose that. That doesn't mean that the temptations or feelings are forever gone-- it just means that God gives me the power to resist and overcome and forsake them. It also means that God is healing me-- that is, God is in the business, by His Spirit, of changing the way people think and feel. It is almost as if He changes the circuits of the brain. That is what He has to do if people like me are going to really be changed on the inside. It is not just my behavior that has to change, because that can be faked for a while. It has to be my thinking and my desires that are changed, and he has been doing that. I no longer have a desire or deep longing for those things as I did virtually all of my life. That is gone. But it took over 40 years to reach this point. 3 years ago I was a completely different person. I was not struggling against that sin or any other sin. I had given up. I was committed to my sin. I thought God couldn't or wouldn't do anything to help me get out of it. I practiced it. That means I lived that sin like you live in your house. I didn't move away from that sin. I wanted it. I loved it. I had no desire to stop it. I was no longer praying for God to help me or forgive me. That is the difference between a gay person who is practicing his sin and one who is resisting it and wants help. There is a world of difference.

Every gay person experiences these things a little differently or even a lot differently. Some seem to gain complete victory almost like overnight. Others go on struggling with it for many years, even decades.

But notice that I said "struggling." They may go for months and even years between times when they fall into sin.

Yet notice that they are "struggling." They are not saying, "I'm going to commit sin," or "I'm just that way and I can't help it and therefore God will just have to save me IN HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICES."

According to the Biblical picture, a person is not "practicing" homosexuality if they are resisting and struggling against it and fall occasionally into that sin. Let's say a person goes months or even a year or two, or maybe even a decade or more, without even wanting to commit a homosexual sin. God is helping him/her gain the victory over that sin. The person has no plan to commit it and he prays that God will fill his life with new thoughts and desires, etc. And God is doing that. But then let's say that a temptation is presented to him at a time when he had no expectations of it. He was not planning it, and he was doing everything in his power to avoid any situations that would make such temptations likely. But for whatever reason, something happens, and the individual "falls." The Bible does not refer to this as a willful and deliberate practice of sin.

Let me know if this is clear, or if you have questions, and then we can go on from here.

[Woody]

Thanks John. I appreciate all that you have said and can see the truth in the examples you provided. It helped me to see the way you put this and shared your experience. Thank you.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

It may, possibly, be of interest that: hermeneutically, the greater part of Xtianity holds-to an antitypical/typical interpretation of the Ark of the Testament in the Temple, as it is noted in the book of Revelation; that is,

the Old Testamental [antitype] Ark of the Covenant prefigured St Mary as its type – in that, it held and encompassed the written word of Gd/ Jeus Christ, the Word; Aaron’s rod, symbol of the High Priesthood/ Jesus Christ, our High Priest; and manna as bread/our Bread of Life, Jesus Christ. [ed.jasd]

Oops, sorry, bassackwards; my functional dyslexia, again.

“typical/antitypical”

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:John317

2) Was the Sabbath commandment valid in Jesus day?

Quote:jasd

Insofar as it was part of the general economy and the economy of law-keeping, per se.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

3) When did Sunday become a part of the New Covenant?

Quote:jasd

Upon its recognition, observance, and sanctification - as The Lord’s Day.

>>When do you believe that occurred?<<

Firstly, let me clarify: I did not mean to imply that “Sunday” was part of the legalese (de jure) of the New Covenant (though it may have been {note: Matthew 28:1}); rather, seemingly, it was by de facto, or practice, that it is part of the New Covenant. That said,

its occurrence would have been immediately preceding Acts 15 – or shortly thereafter; with its “recognition, observance, and sanctification” ...evolving.

>>What is the earliest time in history that the Christians claimed that Sunday was a celebration of the Lord's resurrection?<<

One might proffer “...no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again.” --Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, consecrated ca AD 69 – and written, probably, the earliest years of the second century, AD.

“Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead” --Barnabas, ca AD 120

>>When was Sunday first called "the Lord's day"?<<

Notwithstanding Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day...

Revelation (referencing chapter 1 verse 10), dated approximately ca the cusp of the first and second centuries AD – would have coincided with St Ignatius and his letters, together with the Epistle of Barnabas – and may have, indeed, referred to the accepted day of the Lord’s resurrection – and to none other.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

4) Did Christians keep the Sabbath after Christ's death and ascension?

Quote:jasd

Yes.

>>Question #4 and your answer, which I believe is correct, show that the Sabbath was still being kept by Christians after the beginning of the New Covenant. That is, the Sabbath, not Sunday, was being kept by Jesus' followers after His death and ascension.<<

I disagree. Acts 2:46 states that the early Xtians “continued daily with one accord” – and not, solely, either the Jewish Sabbath or its, in a manner of speaking, ‘supersession’.

>>Now Question 5:

Is there any evidence that Sunday sacredness was instituted before the day Christ was crucified?<<

'Evidence' seems to have prefigured the currently (and, seeming, de facto) commemorated Sunday – in the typical/antitypical Pentecost (one of the three Feast Days requiring a pilgrimage {big time major holiday}) – which was always to be celebrated (or find its fulfillment) upon the first day of the week – and, incorporating a wave offering of two loaves of leavened bread.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Quote:

The Sabbath, whether creation, redemption or a new creation (i.e., the new earth) ALWAYS points to a finished work. Always!

Until you realize this your Sabbath keeping will be meaningless and legalistic. Sanctification cannot point to a finished work until we stand perfect at the 1st resurrection. I stand by my statement.

Would you please explain to me how keeping the Sabbath as commanded in the 4th commandment is legalism while keeping the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or the 7th & 10th is not? Or do you consider keeping any of the other 9 legalistic?

Gerry

I've been over this many times. Go back and read it.

[Robert]

The two ideas of "rest" combined, give the perfect view of the heavenly Sabbath.

"Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest [i.e., the promised land], God would not have spoken later about another day [the heavenly promised land] . 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest [a keeping Sabbath] for the people of God [the Jews]; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest [accepts the gospel - see verse 3] also rests from his own work, just as God did from his [of redemption is the context]. 11 Let us [believers], therefore, make every effort to enter that rest [the heavenly rest], so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience [defined as unbelief in 3:19].

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: John317

The two ideas of "rest" combined, give the perfect view of the heavenly Sabbath.

"Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest [i.e., the promised land], God would not have spoken later about another day [the heavenly promised land] . 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest [a keeping Sabbath] for the people of God [the Jews]; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest [accepts the gospel - see verse 3] also rests from his own work, just as God did from his [of redemption is the context]. 11 Let us [believers], therefore, make every effort to enter that rest [the heavenly rest], so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience [defined as unbelief in 3:19].

Again, verse 9 cannot refer to the earthly or heavenly promised land. For one the Jews were already in the earthly promised land. Secondly when a Jew entered "God's rest" he or she wasn't entering the heavenly Canaan.

Clearly, in verse 9, "God's rest" has already been established to mean the acceptance of the gospel. Let's review this once again:

4:1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest [the heavenly Canaan] still stands, let us [i.e., believers] be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we [again believers] also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did [the Jews of the Exodus]; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith [they didn't accept it by faith]. 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest....

So here's how I read it:

9 There remains, then, a keeping of the 7th day Sabbath for the Jewish people; 10 for the Jew who accepts the gospel also rests from his own work, just as God did from his work of redemption.

[Robert]

Quote:

Ex 20:10... the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, [Why? ] 11 “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day..."

God rested because His work was complete. Accordingly, we are to rest because we acknowledge God's work of creation to be complete. But, in reality, His work has been ruined. Does that mean the Sabbath has no value. Yes, as it points to creation.

Quote:

Hebrews 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest [a keeping Sabbath] for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest [the gospel] also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.

Is God's work "in Christ" Jesus perfect and complete? Yes! By resting on the Sabbath you are outwardly stating that I have a new humanity, "in Christ Jesus", that stands perfect before God and His law. Hence this redemptive Sabbath has full significance for today.

Quote:

Isaiah 66:22 For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before Me, declares the Lord, So your offspring and your name will endure. And it shall be from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the Lord.

Note the context: The new heaven and new earth! In the future we will enter the heavenly Canaan. At that time we will have received what we had by faith when living on this sinful planet. Hence in the future the Sabbath will point to a perfect and complete recreation. This, however, has no significance now.

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:

JOHN3:17-->>When do you believe that occurred?<<

Quote:

JASD--Firstly, let me clarify: I did not mean to imply that “Sunday” was part of the legalese (de jure) of the New Covenant (though it may have been {note: Matthew 28:1}); rather, seemingly, it was by de facto, or practice, that it is part of the New Covenant. That said,

its occurrence would have been immediately preceding Acts 15 – or shortly thereafter; with its “recognition, observance, and sanctification” ...evolving.

In terms of Matt 28: 1, I believe I know what you have reference to, but that phrase is correctly translated "the first day of the week," despite what you can find a few translations reading at that point.

The Didache, written in the early 2nd century, proves that Luke 24: 1 (and Matt. 28:1) should be translated "first day of the week." The Didache uses sabbaton-- plural noun-- for "week." (See Didache 8:1.) See NASB, NIV, NRSV, and NKJV.

Also, it should be noted that over 99% of the translations read "first day of the week," and all of the Greek lexicons do so. I don't know of a single Greek grammar text that teaches that this phrase should be translated in any other way.

In any case, it appears you believe that Sunday is not part of the New Covenant, is that right?

Quote:

JOHN3:17-->>What is the earliest time in history that the Christians claimed that Sunday was a celebration of the Lord's resurrection?<<

Quote:

JASD--One might proffer “...no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again.” --Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, consecrated ca AD 69 – and written, probably, the earliest years of the second century, AD.

The letter from which the quote was taken was almost certainly written about 110 AD, because the letter was written while on his way to be martyred in Rome, and died about 110 AD.

I would like to point out two things right away: your translation does not agree with other translations. The Latin text, on which your translation was based, also does not contain anything about "keeping" or even the word "day."

Both the Latin translation and the underlying Greek text actually simply has "living according to the Lord's.... in which our life sprang up." The noun is missing after the adjective, but that is common in the Latin if the noun is used shortly thereafter. Therefore, if we supply the closest noun to the adjective, it reads, "living according to the Lord's life, in which our life sprang up."

All authorities agree that Ignatius died about 110 AD.

The phrase you quote has been variously translated:

---keeping the Lord's day

--- keeping holy the Lord's day

--- regulating their calender by the Lord's day

None of the above are accurate translations because, as mentioned already, the Latin text does not contain the word "keeping" or "regulating," nor the word, "day."

---fashioning their lives after the Lord's day

If you check the Wikipedia, you will find: " ...no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him...."

None of the above, then, are accurate translations, for even the Wikipedia supplies the word "day" where it is lacking in the Latin text (which was translated from the original Greek text).

The Bishop James Usher published a Latin edition in 1642 that is now accepted as the genuine epistles of Ignatius. After consulting the Greek manuscripts, Usher translated it as "according to the Lord's life living..."

Quote:

“Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead” --Barnabas, ca AD 120

It was probably written closer to about 130 AD, and it contains many things contrary to the rest of the Bible. For instance, it teaches that the Jews were never in a covenant relationship with God, and he also teaches that the Romans were going to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This "Barnabas" was under the influence of Gnosticism, for his epistle is an attempt to teach his gentile readers about the "gnosis," a special knowledge linked to the gnostic religions. The genuineness of the letter is questioned by virtually all authorities. It is certain that it was not written by the Barnabas mentioned in the book of Acts.

But in any case, all that your quote shows is that there were some believers in Christ who were "keeping" Sunday, and this is something all knowledgeable Christians realize. However, it is indisputable that the majority of Christianity outside of Rome and Alexandria were keeping the Sabbath. In much of the world, by the second century, Christians kept both days. Well-recognized 5th century historians, Socrates and Sozomen, both wrote that "almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week." (See Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 19; and book 5, chapter 2. Also The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 2, p. 132.)

All this establishes is that there were Christians about 150 years after the time of Christ who were keeping Sunday as well as the Sabbath, and that in Rome and Alexandria, the Christians fasted on the Sabbath and kept the first day of the week.

Quote:

JOHN3:17--->>When was Sunday first called "the Lord's day"?<<

Quote:

JASD--Notwithstanding Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day...

Revelation (referencing chapter 1 verse 10), dated approximately ca the cusp of the first and second centuries AD – would have coincided with St Ignatius and his letters, together with the Epistle of Barnabas – and may have, indeed, referred to the accepted day of the Lord’s resurrection – and to none other.

As shown above, Ignatius' letter does not contain the word "day," or "Lord's day," and Barnabas' letter also does not mention "the Lord's day," either. Clement of Alexandria (about 190 AD) is the first sure reference that we have to Sunday as the Lord's day.

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Yes.

Quote:

JOHN3:17--->>Question #4 and your answer, which I believe is correct, show that the Sabbath was still being kept by Christians after the beginning of the New Covenant. That is, the Sabbath, not Sunday, was being kept by Jesus' followers after His death and ascension.<<

Quote:

JASD---I disagree. Acts 2:46 states that the early Xtians “continued daily with one accord” – and not, solely, either the Jewish Sabbath or its, in a manner of speaking, ‘supersession’.

Acts 2: 46 does not mean that the Christians at that time saw every day of the week as the same. The fact that they studied the Bible or "continued daily with one accord," does not contradict the plain evidence that Christians went to the synagogues on Sabbath and worshipped with the Jews. See Acts 13: 42, 44.

Archelaus, bishop of Cascar, in Mesopotamia, writing about A.D. 277 or later, states, "Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished, we deny that He has abolished it plainly; for He was Himself also Lord of the Sabbath." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 217.) Archelaus makes no allusion to the first day of the week.

The Apostolical Constitutions says, "Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 17, p. 66.)

The same book, p. 88, says, "But assemble yourselves every day, morning and evening, but principally on the Sabbath day."

Book 5, chapter 20, p. 143 says, "Every Sabbath day excepting one, and every Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice."

So by about 200 AD, Christians in many parts of the world were keeping both Sabbath and what was referred to as "the Lord's day."

However, in the book of Acts, the first day of the week is not portrayed as a day being kept by the Christians. It was viewed as one of the work days and was a day on which Paul traveled, according to Acts 20. The Sabbath was still the day held sacred by the Christians of Paul's time.

Even if we were to say that some Christians were holding services on the first day of week as early as the time of Paul, it would make no difference for the purposes of what we are discussing. We can hold a service any day of the week, and it does not make it sacred or mean that God has either abolished or changed the Sabbath.

The point here is simply that Christians continued to keep the Sabbath and to worship with the Jews in their synagogues. There is no evidence that they believed at that time that Jesus had abolished or changed the weekly Sabbath.

Besides the writers quoted above, we have the evidence of Luke 23: 56, which says plainly that after Jesus' death, the women followers closest to Jesus "returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment."

Quote:

JOHN317-->>Now Question 5:

Is there any evidence that Sunday sacredness was instituted before the day Christ was crucified?<<

Quote:

JASD-- 'Evidence' seems to have prefigured the currently (and, seeming, de facto) commemorated Sunday – in the typical/antitypical Pentecost (one of the three Feast Days requiring a pilgrimage {big time major holiday}) – which was always to be celebrated (or find its fulfillment) upon the first day of the week – and, incorporating a wave offering of two loaves of leavened bread.

The Feast of Weeks, or the festival of the first fruits, did not always fall on the first day of the week. It came at the end of the grain harvest, which was on 6 Siwan (Third Month), our May or June, depending on the year. It did fall on the first day of the week at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, and so Jesus was raised from the dead on Pentecost. It was one of the ceremonial sabbaths. For the Jews, "the morrow after the sabbath" meant the 16th of Nisan, the day after the ceremonial sabbath that began the Feast of Unleavened Bread following the offering of the Passover lamb on the 14th of Nisan. (See Exodus 23: 16; 34: 22; Lev. 23: 15-21; Numbers 28: 26-31; and Deut. 16: 9-12.)

Is there any other evidence that you see that Sunday was a part of the New Covenant prior to the death of Christ?

[Robert]

I would like to point out two things right away: your translation does not agree with other translations. The Latin text, on which your translation was based, also does not contain anything about "keeping" or even the word "day."

Boy...I have a feeling very few, maybe the extremely intelligent, are going to make it to heaven. I mean it seems that no one has the correct translations here on CA and you (John) have to set them straight. Well, while I agree that paraphrased Bibles are opinions at best, no one as all truth (e.g. see 1 Corinthians 13:9-12).

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I would like to point out two things right away: your translation does not agree with other translations. The Latin text, on which your translation was based, also does not contain anything about "keeping" or even the word "day."

Boy...I have a feeling very few, maybe the extremely intelligent, are going to make it to heaven. I mean it seems that no one has the correction translations here on CA and you (John) have to set them straight. Well, while I agree that paraphrased Bibles are opinions at best, no one as all truth (e.g. see 1 Corinthians 13:9-12).

If you check out other translations, you will see that the quote being referred to is translated very differently even in those sources that you can access on the Internet. I am not saying anything that I do not offer evidence for. I am not asking anyone to simply take my word for it, but I cite documentation, as here:

If you check the Wikipedia, you will find: " ...no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him...."

My point is, that the above is much different from the following:

“...no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again.”

I am not talking about "people making it to heaven." I don't believe this has anything to do with people's salvation. I am talking about accuracy of translation. It often matters for our understanding of what the texts actually say.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Boy...I have a feeling very few, maybe the extremely intelligent, are going to make it to heaven. I mean it seems that no one has the correction translations here on CA and you (John) have to set them straight. Well, while I agree that paraphrased Bibles are opinions at best, no one as all truth (e.g. see 1 Corinthians 13:9-12). [/quote']

I am not talking about "people making it to heaven." I don't believe this has anything to do with people's salvation. I am talking about accuracy of translation. It often matters for our understanding of what the texts actually say.

So the guy who believes Sunday is the Sabbath is going to make it to heaven?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I am not talking about "people making it to heaven." I don't believe this has anything to do with people's salvation. I am talking about accuracy of translation. It often matters for our understanding of what the texts actually say.

[/quote']

Quote:

Robert-- So the guy who believes Sunday is the Sabbath is going to make it to heaven?

Most people in heaven, I believe, will be people who kept Sunday as the Sabbath. It's just like there will be people there who had multiple wives and didn't know any better. Having perfect knowledge or doctrine is not required.

God doesn't hold us responsible for what we don't know and never had an opportunity of knowing.

[Robert]

God doesn't hold us responsible for what we don't know and never had an opportunity of knowing.

1] This assume you know the truth and others don't.

2] Just because you (or others) say it's truth doesn't make it so. Conviction and knowledge are two different things.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

God doesn't hold us responsible for what we don't know and never had an opportunity of knowing.

1] This assume you know the truth and others don't.

2] Just because you (or others) say it's truth doesn't make it so. Conviction and knowledge are two different things.

Yes, so true.

Is Christ the Truth?

Do you believe that works aren't what saves us?

These are truths, then, that you know but which many people in our world don't know, yet desperately need to know. There are millions of people who know nothing of Christ. I believe they need to know Him, and I'm sure you agree. So we both believe we know Someone others don't know and important Bible truths also that people need to know. Some of these truths are called the Three Angels' Messages. Many know nothing about the Sabbath or the loving God who made the Sabbath. They need to know.

[Robert]

These are truths, then, that you know but which many people in our world don't know, yet desperately need to know.

Yes and no.

No because you don't need to have a Bible or a church to be convicted and saved. Case in point Romans 2:14-16.

Yes because before the end can come everyone must hear the gospel to make a choice for or against Christ*. By the gospel I do not mean Christian living or what's best to eat and not to eat, etc. I mean the gospel.

* “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come."

[John317]

Quote:

ROBERT--... you don't need to have a Bible or a church to be convicted and saved. Case in point Romans 2:14-16.[/quote']

Romans 2: 14-16 isn't teaching that people will be saved by works, is it? If you believe those verses teach that people will be saved apart from faith in Christ, what are you teaching but salvation by works?

What is verse 13 teaching? Is he saying that those who practice the law will be recognized as righteous?

Those verses, in context, cannot be legitimately used to teach that, because that is not Paul's purpose. Paul's purpose is to show that God is righteous in judging everyone as a sinner, Jew and gentile alike, because even the gentiles know God's righteous requirements. But notice that Paul does not say that gentiles will be saved that way. No one can be saved by doing the right thing, can they? In order to be saved by our works, wouldn't we have to obey perfectly?

COMPARE ROMANS 10: 11-17. That shows the urgency of teaching the gospel. Why? Because people will die without it. The word is, "Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But then Paul adds, "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?" Good question. They won't. It's up to Christians to make sure people have the opportunity to hear the gospel so they too can believe in Him and call on Him.

What do you think?