God's seventh-day Sabbath: Its not Sunday.

Originally posted by rstrats

colbe,

re: "... multiple verses saying when Our Lord arose from the dead and no responses."

Actually, there is only one verse - Mark 16:9 - that says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. And even that verse is suspect. Most good study Bible versions in their notes question whether Mark wrote verses 9-20 as opposed to them being added at a later date. But even if verse 9 were authentic it could just as well be translated with the comma being placed after the word "risen" (past tense) instead of after the word "week". As you know, punctuation marks were not in the early writings and had to be determined by the translators according to their subjective understanding of the text's meaning. Several versions that place the comma after "risen" are "The Centenary Translation", "The Sacred Scriptures-Bethel Edition", "The Contemporary English Version", and God's New Covenant-A New Testament Translation". At any rate, the verse says nothing about a first day of the week observance as a special day for rest and worship.

edit on 6-9-2013 by rstrats because: typo

rstrats,

Thank you for replying. The term "on the first day of the week" written in all the Gospels tells you the day of Our Lord's resurrection.

Catholics, Orthodox and many non-Catholic Christians accept this. "Private Judgment" is what is wrong.

Refusal to believe God's change of the Sabbath in the New Covenant by saying if you place a comma somewhere else the words means something else is so lame.

Is it you or the few who deny here, do not want to assemble to worship God? Using the change of day as your excuse. And so silly to reject the very same words used to show when the first Christians assembled is Sunday when those exact words confirm the day of Our Lord's resurrection.

Maybe not, do you celebrate the holiest feast day of two in the year on Wednesday, Easter Wednesday?


colbe

colbe,

re: "The term 'on the first day of the week' written in all the Gospels tells you the day of Our Lord's resurrection."

That is incorrect. Only Mark 16:9 says that the resurrection took place on the first of the week.


re: "Refusal to believe God's change of the Sabbath in the New Covenant..."

There is no scripture that changes the Sabbath to the first of the week.


re: "Is it you or the few who deny here, do not want to assemble to worship God?"

I am not aware of anyone here having said that.


re: "...do you celebrate the holiest feast day of two in the year on Wednesday, Easter Wednesday?"

I've never heard of Easter Wednesday. Also, scripture identifies more than 2 annual feast days as set forth in Leviticus 23.

Originally posted by rstrats


colbe,

re: "The term 'on the first day of the week' written in all the Gospels tells you the day of Our Lord's resurrection."

That is incorrect. Only Mark 16:9 says that the resurrection took place on the first of the week.

Tell me then why do you refuse to accept this is the reason the Sabbath was changed in the New Covenant to Sunday? Are the first Christians liars? They threw out the term Sabbath for no reason?

re: "Refusal to believe God's change of the Sabbath in the New Covenant..."

There is no scripture that changes the Sabbath to the first of the week.

It was passed down orally and revealed in the written Word when it was assembled in the fourth century. Christians know from the teachings of the Apostles. Bible Alone is heresy. No where in Scripture does Scripture say the Bible is our authority, it states the Church is our authority (1 Tim 3:15). So, accept her teachings. You accept her Bible, who can understand such a disconnect.


re: "Is it you or the few who deny here, do not want to assemble to worship God?"

I am not aware of anyone here having said that.

Then share, do you go somewhere each week with others gathered, assembled to worship God? This is your practice, the same as Our Lord. Christians gather on Sunday, who are you meeting with?


re: "...do you celebrate the holiest feast day of two in the year on Wednesday, Easter Wednesday?"

I've never heard of Easter Wednesday. Also, scripture identifies more than 2 annual feast days as set forth in Leviticus 23.

This is why, Sunday is historically the day Christians celebrate Our Lord's resurrection. The Apostles knew when Jesus arose from the dead.

reply to post by colbe


It is very common knowledge that the Roman Catholic Church has admitted many times that they have caused the world to believe the true Sabbath has been changed from Saturday, to Sunday. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that claims the Sabbath was changed.

The 4th commandment distinctly begins with the word "Remember" for a reason. The Lord knew that Satan would eventually cause people to believe Sunday is the Sabbath. He instituted it in the Garden of Eden before a Jew was ever born; the women who were going to anoint Jesus' body postponed doing so "in accordance with the commandment"; and we are told in the book of Revelation that people will worship the Lord from Sabbath to Sabbath.

Almost every church has fallen under the control of the first beast. That is the reason nearly every single church observes the false Sunday sabbath. Look it up, even the SDA Church is beginning to claim it's okay to observe Sunday.

The true Sabbath is a sign between God and His people that He is their God, and they are His people. However, The Roman Catholic Church has openly claimed that the Sunday sabbath is their "MARK" of authority. Really think about that for a second:

Daniel 7:25(AKJV)
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

"Sunday is our mark of authority. . .the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact" Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923.

“The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the Church had changed the Sabbath into Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by its own authority.” Canon and Tradition, p. 263

 “Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” -James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.

 “The Catholic church,” declared Cardinal Gibbons, “by virtue of her divine mission changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.” Catholic Mirror Sept. 23 1983. (Official organ of Cardinal Gibbons)

"Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles .... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first." (Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1990.)

reply to post by jeramie


Much of what you say doesn't make any sense to me because nobody has moved the Sabbath in my point of view. I'm not sure what the Catholic Church's opinion is on the matter but the Sabbath is and always was Saturday. But many worship on Sunday and call it the Lord's day, but it's not the Sabbath when they worship on Sunday.

They just worship on Sunday, but the Sabbath is still Saturday. The argument really shouldn't be if the Sabbath has changed or not, because it hasn't. It's Saturday. The argument should be if Christians should worship on the Sabbath or not.

And there's been very good arguments as to why Christians and Gentiles shouldn't really be worshiping on the Sabbath as it's a special day given to the Jews and the traditional view that Jesus rose on Sunday and why the early church met on Sunday and called it the Lord's Day.

You have to understand one of the fundamental issues that the early church dealt with and what Paul spent a lot of his time focusing on. Is that Pagan Gentiles didn't have to convert to Judaism to worship Jesus. They didn't have to adhere to Jewish dietary restrictions, they didn't have to get circumcised, they didn't have to worship on the Sabbath, a special day of rest given to the Jews.

That it was a New Covenant and there isn't Jew or Gentile only Christians and they don't have to tie themselves to the OT law, in fact shouldn't tie themselves to the OT law, to worship the Lord. They can worship on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or whatever day. It doesn't matter what day a Christian worships. It only matters that they love their God and love each other.

colbe,

re: "Tell me then why do you refuse to accept this [the resurrection] is the reason the Sabbath was changed in the New Covenant to Sunday?"

Because nowhere does the New Covenant do that. Nowhere does the New Covenant say that the resurrection is a reason for scraping the Sabbath in favor of the first day of the week. . Nor does the New Covenant say that anyone ever observed the first day of the week in recognition of the resurrection much less that they did it on a regular basis. Nor does the New Covenant say anywhere that the first day of the week is to be used as a weekly recurring day for rest and worship in place of the Sabbath.

Look, for the purpose of our "discussion" I am not saying that observing the first day of the week isn't a divinely approved activity (although I don't think it is) or that the phrase 'Lord's Day" definitely cannot refer to the first day - although I think the better case can be made that it doesn't. And I'm not denying the TRADITIONS of the Roman Catholic Church concerning this issue. I'm just saying that you can't use the Bible to show a change of rest and worship from the 7th day to the 1st. You have made statements saying that it does, and I am simply telling you that it doesn't. You have to rely solely on the authority that your religious organization thinks that it has to make up new doctrines.

Best evidence on this is ole Jesus himself. If he was real and lived when religionists say he did, then he was Jewish and honored the Jewish Sabbath - sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Case closed, spilt milk mopped up, bread baked and toothpaste put back in the tube.

reply to post by Aleister


It's not that simple. Yes Jesus was Jewish, and he preached to the Jews, but not all Christians are Jewish. In fact none of them are. Once the NT Covenant was put in place there's just Christians.

Paul got his revelation from Jesus and wrote to the Gentile Christians and addressed what ways Gentile Christians are to worship. And Paul said it doesn't matter what day you worship on.

Jesus was killed on the Gentile Wednesday or called the Preparation Day by the Jews which is their forth day of their week. The following day was the Gentile's Thursday and the Jewish fifth day of the Jewish week. But this Thursday was also a High Day Sabbath and was revered just the same as the Gentile's Saturday Sabbath. The following day was known as the Gentile's Friday and the Jewish sixth day of the week. This was the day that Mary bought the spices for Jesus' body. Then the following Gentile's day of Saturday was the seventh day of the week and the regular Jewish seventh day Sabbath. So after the preparation day (forth day) to the seventh day the Jews had two Sabbaths days but only the seventh day counted as the regular Sabbath. Don't forget that the Jews used the new moon (Lunar calender) to begin their first day of the week and down through the many years of observation they could have slipped up a bit.

Now regardless of how you observe all of this you also must realize that the Jews had to set their lunar day before the gentile could name their first day of the week. The Jew did bot accept the gentile calendar except as the secular portion of their life. They always had to personally view the new moon through their expert observations. The Sabbath was very sacred in their mindset. So in their opinion the Greco Roman count was polluted but necessary for them to do business with the gentiles. The question in my mind is did they make a mistake in over two thousand years?

Originally posted by jeramie
reply to post by colbe

 

It is very common knowledge that the Roman Catholic Church has admitted many times that they have caused the world to believe the true Sabbath has been changed from Saturday, to Sunday. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that claims the Sabbath was changed.

The 4th commandment distinctly begins with the word "Remember" for a reason. The Lord knew that Satan would eventually cause people to believe Sunday is the Sabbath. He instituted it in the Garden of Eden before a Jew was ever born; the women who were going to anoint Jesus' body postponed doing so "in accordance with the commandment"; and we are told in the book of Revelation that people will worship the Lord from Sabbath to Sabbath.

Almost every church has fallen under the control of the first beast. That is the reason nearly every single church observes the false Sunday sabbath. Look it up, even the SDA Church is beginning to claim it's okay to observe Sunday.

The true Sabbath is a sign between God and His people that He is their God, and they are His people. However, The Roman Catholic Church has openly claimed that the Sunday sabbath is their "MARK" of authority. Really think about that for a second:

Daniel 7:25(AKJV)
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

"Sunday is our mark of authority. . .the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact" Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923.

“The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the Church had changed the Sabbath into Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by its own authority.” Canon and Tradition, p. 263

 “Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” -James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.

 “The Catholic church,” declared Cardinal Gibbons, “by virtue of her divine mission changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.” Catholic Mirror Sept. 23 1983. (Official organ of Cardinal Gibbons)

"Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles .... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first." (Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1990.)

edit on 8-9-2013 by jeramie because: (no reason given)

Jesus told Peter, His chosen authority on earth, leader of the Apostles, leader of His Church, the first Pope, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven (Matt 16:19).

Peter and the Apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday to keep and honor the day God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ, Savior of mankind arose from the dead. Christians gather to worship God on Sunday now. Two verses in the Gospel give proof and we know by the oral Word passed down. The first Christians assembled on Sunday not on Saturday. You accept and talked about here, in the Gospel of Mark (chapter 16:9), Jesus arose on Sunday, which was referred to back then as "the first day of the week." The same term is used concerning the first Christians' assembly (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2) .

This is the New Covenant, Jesus fulfilled all the Old, He came to make things "new" and He did.

You do not see Incarnation or Trinity written in the Bible but you believe them both. Both are described in the Gospel and later given an exact word, further defined by the RCC.

How can people sell Judaism and Old Covenant Laws and include Christ? Judaism rejects Our Lord. Israel will convert some day, that day is not far off.

It is not nice but funny when anti-Catholic groups -Let There Be Light Ministries- try to use Catholic writings to come against the faith. Another not true, Messianic Judaism and their breakaways, are a modern Protestant sect.


God bless you jeramie,

Muslims holy day is Friday. Jews holy day is Saturday. Christians holy day is Sunday.

IMHO God isn't doing to ding anyone for having the wrong holy day.

Read his book, Unearthing the Bible.

After reading the Amazon.com reviews that trash this book as lacking scholarship, highly controversial, failing to take into account alternative explanations and interpretations, and reflecting a major lack of evidence on the authors' biased claims, I think I'll have to pass.

I thought you could do better. Oh well.

There is no such thing as a land of Israel other than in a story. Probably the the Assyrians recorded the name of a Canaanite tribal leader who they killed, and a myth was made up about that person, as having been a king. Then of course a king needs to have an ancestry, so then the other stories come along.

Humorous. A minority viewpoint perhaps, and that's about all.

The number one thing with being an Adventist, at least the way I was taught years ago, is to believe the Bible rather than man-made myths. There is no straight-forward prophecy about the type of Messiah that Jesus became. He invented his own version rather than accepting a pre-existing version. I would be happy to be proven wrong, so take a shot if you think that you can.

I'd much rather you explain it to Him in person on the Day of Judgment. I'll be in the background waving, okay?

You may become a Christian yet.

If "being a Christian" of your brand of Christianity means denying the authenticity of the Bible, and denying Christ as the Messiah, I think I'll pass.

Exactly. Otherwise Christianity serves no purpose.

A class in world religions might help. Believe me, there are, in fact, other religions besides Christianity, and each has their own take on repentance.

And I am supposed to just believe it because you said so? I'm not a cult member who believes whatever they are told out of admiration for the leader. You need to provide an example. As I understand the rules, they seem rather lenient compared to doing practically nothing according to Moses.

I have already given you several examples in this thread, as well as references, and direct quotes from the New Testament. You just choose to simply ignore, and talk in circles. If you care to discuss the examples already given, just let me know.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

I thought you could do better. Oh well.

My point was that it is you making the great claims, so the burden of proof lies with you.
You seem to take the position that questioning your claims is in itself outlandish and I need proof that my questioning is somehow approved by some higher authority.
None of that rhetoric on your part would be necessary if you had anything to back up your claims in the first place.

The Old Covenant regulations are no longer binding in the New Covenant. God's moral laws are, one of them, the obligation to worship God. Christ said Himself:

John 14:15
If you love me, keep my commandments.

Christians gather together on Sunday to worship God.


Colossians 2:16-17
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, [17] Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.


[16] In meat: He means with regard to the Jewish observations of the distinction of clean and unclean meats; and of their festivals, new moons, and sabbaths, as being no longer obligatory.

www.drbo.org/

reply to post by colbe

Peter and the Apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday.

No they didn't. The Sabbath never changed it's still Saturday. People that think that the Sabbath changed are in error. Sunday could be called the Lord's Day or a NEW Sabbath, if one understands the concept of multiple Sabbaths such as the Sabbath year every seven years, but the old Sabbath which the thread is focusing on hasn't changed and is still Saturday.

Paul says
Romans 14:5
, 6: "One person esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

It's not that the Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday. It's still Saturday. It's just it doesn't matter what day a Christian worships on and it doesn't matter if they worship on the Sabbath or on the Lord's day or Tuesday for that matter.

But it's a logical error to say that just because we don't have to worship on the Sabbath and can worship on Sunday instead that the Sabbath has moved from Saturday to Sunday. It hasn't moved, we just choose to worship on a different day. A true Christian actually worships EVERYDAY. That doesn't mean the 7th day Sabbath is everyday of the week however.

My church considers Jesus himself the new Sabbath, not a day of the week. You no longer find your rest in a day of the week, but you find your rest in the spiritual relationship you have with Jesus. You find your rest in Jesus himself ANY day of the week. The Sabbath is no longer a day of the week, it's Jesus himself.

reply to post by colbe


And while this has confused many people I'm pretty sure if you check the Catholic Church's official position on the matter and the Catechism and the different councils like the Council of Laodicea you'll find out that indeed the CC did change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

However if you read them carefully you'll see they did NOT change the Sabbath. The CC's official position is not that the Sabbath has been moved from Saturday to Sunday. It's that the day of worship has been moved from Saturday the Sabbath to Sunday the Lord's Day. So now we worship on the Lord's Day, but the Sabbath itself is still Saturday.

My point was that it is you making the great claims, so the burden of proof lies with you. You seem to take the position that questioning your claims is in itself outlandish and I need proof that my questioning is somehow approved by some higher authority. None of that rhetoric on your part would be necessary if you had anything to back up your claims in the first place.

You made the rather absurd claim that ancient Israel did not exist. I did not make this claim - You did.

Your only evidence is a book that is highly controversial at best, and pure propaganda at worst. If you make a claim, it is up to you - not me - to support said claim with sound evidence and support. At a minimum, you could provide a logical explanation for such nonsensical claims.

colbe,

re: "The Old Covenant regulations are no longer binding in the New Covenant."

Was the commandment that says "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain..." one of the Old Covenant's regulations?




re: "God's moral laws are..."

I'm not aware of any scripture that uses the word "moral" with regard to any of the supreme being's laws. What do you have in mind?

reply to post by CookieMonster09

You made the rather absurd claim that ancient Israel did not exist. I did not make this claim - You did.

I'm saying that I don't think so, based on a lack of evidence. The only "proof" that I have is that there is no proof that there was an ancient Israel.
As I already pointed out, you can't really prove a negative, but you can reasonably reserve belief until the time that any proof emerges.
To review, you are stating a personal belief as being as good as an accepted fact. I am just saying, "I don't think so".
I think you need proof, and I don't.

Your only evidence is a book that is highly controversial at best, and pure propaganda at worst. If you make a claim, it is up to you - not me - to support said claim with sound evidence and support. At a minimum, you could provide a logical explanation for such nonsensical claims.

It's not "evidence" as much as one way to get quickly up to date on the situation with the former so-called biblical archeology.
I've been studying this for years and it would not be easy to go through every single book I ever read that brings it up.
So, really, rather than sitting there criticizing people, why don't you just present some evidence?
I know the answer, which is you can't, because there isn't any.

I'm saying that I don't think so, based on a lack of evidence. The only "proof" that I have is that there is no proof that there was an ancient Israel.

First, you have to define the word "ancient". There is a ton of archaeological evidence, not to mention the evidence in Holy Writ, that ancient Israel existed.

Just this past week, it was publicly announced that archaeologists found gold coins at the Temple Mount stamped with the Temple Menorah. shofar (ram's horn used in the Rosh Hashanah liturgy and throughout the Bible), and Torah scrolls.

In an article written by Nir Hasson on September 9th, entitled, "A Once in a Lifetime Discovery: Ancient Golden Treasure Trove Found at Foot of Jerusalem's Temple Mount", in the news edition of Haaretz:

"Hebrew University archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar disclosed the contents of the discovery Monday morning: Two bundles containing thirty-six gold coins, gold and silver jewelry, and a gold medallion, ten centimeter in diameter, adorned with images of a menorah, (Temple candelabrum) a shofar, (ram’s horn) and a Torah scroll."

The coins are 1,400 years old. From the same article in Haaretz:

"Mazar has been participating in excavations in the area known as the Ophel - a stretch of land between the Temple Mount and the City of David - for some 30 years. While the majority of her work pertains to the Biblical period, this summer's excavation was dated to the late Byzantine period, which stretches between the fourth and seventh centuries. "We have been making significant finds dating to the First Temple Period in this area, a much earlier time in Jerusalem's history, so discovering a golden seven-branched Menorah from the seventh century CE at the foot of the Temple Mount was a complete surprise," she said."

Read that again. First Temple archaeological finds at the Temple Mount. To suggest that ancient Israel is a fiction is pure nonsense. I don't know what kind of Aryan propaganda you are reading, but good grief, wake up, chap.