The Lord's day.

[from scratch]

In the book of Revelation the day of the Lord and the Lord's day is the same as saying a house made of wood and a wooden house. Before I figured out there was no difference my wife and I settled on a brick home to cut down the argument.

Nope cause they are entirely 2 different subjects.

 

[WailingWall]

Say its been a long time of no see em. Where ya been hiding out?

Had to lay low from here for a bit. How ya been?

 

[WailingWall]

Sorry, you are wrong on that. I have now read everything I can find that was written by the First and Second Century Church Fathers. It doesn't matter if they were in isolated India with no contact to the Apostles. Unanimously, the "lord's day" in hundreds of entries is ALWAYS Sunday. When they want to say the "Sabbath," they DO. From 50 AD on, the "Lord's Day" is unanimously distinguished from the "Sabbath."

Larry? You bringin me back to India again today? You took me there yesterday

 

[By Faith Alone]

Nope cause they are entirely 2 different subjects.

The entire book of Revelation is about the day of vengeance of the Lord. The last 3 and 1/2 years of the 70th week of Daniel

Isa 61:1-2
1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God;


In the temple the Lord "closed the book" at the "and". The NEXT portion, He did not quote, is another dispensation and that is EXACTLY the subject of Revelation.

 

[Elder 111]

REV.1 [7] Behold, HE COMETH WITH CLOUDS; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of THE EARTH SHALL WAIL because of him. Even so, Amen.[8] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.[9] I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.[10] I was in the Spirit on THE LORD'S DAY, and heard behind me a GREAT VOICE, as of A TRUMPET,

he cometh with clouds - of a trumpet - the Lord's day - a great voice - the earth shall wail

ZEPH.1 [14] The great DAY OF THE LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even THE VOICE of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall CRY THERE BITTERLY.[15] That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a DAY OF CLOUDS and thick darkness,[16] A day of THE TRUMPET and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers

a day of clouds - of the trumpet - The great day of the LORD - even the voice - man shall cry there bitterly


Its not sunday. Its the Day of the Lord. Today someone told me there were 2 Days of the Lords{so as their rapture would fit into scripture}. Im still laughing

From verse 9 of Revelation 1 you would find that John is dealing with the "present".

 

[LarryP2]

Larry? You bringin me back to India again today? You took me there yesterday

No, I am taking you back to St. Thomas: One of the original 12. And I am taking you back to ALL of the First and Second History Christian Fathers who were disciples of the original Apostles.

They all Called Sunday "The Lord's Day" and distinguished from the Sabbath.

 

[LarryP2]

From verse 9 of Revelation 1 you would find that John is dealing with the "present".

If John was NOT equating "The Lord's Day" with "Sunday", it would be the only time in about 500 times in my review of Early Christian Fathers, starting after AD 50. When they said "Lord's Day" they meant Sunday. When they said "Sabbath," they meant the Seventh Day.

You can always tell when they are meaning "The Sabbath:" because they are ALWAYS denouncing Sabbath Keeping as a Satanic, anti-Christian, anti-Grace, anti-Resurrection heresy.

 

[from scratch]

The entire book of Revelation is about the day of vengeance of the Lord. The last 3 and 1/2 years of the 70th week of Daniel

Isa 61:1-2
1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God;


In the temple the Lord "closed the book" at the "and". The NEXT portion, He did not quote, is another dispensation and that is EXACTLY the subject of Revelation.

Rev 1:10 has nothing to do with the subject matter of Revelation.

 

[By Faith Alone]

If John was NOT equating "The Lord's Day" with "Sunday", it would be the only time in about 500 times in my review of Early Christian Fathers, starting after AD 50. When they said "Lord's Day" they meant Sunday. When they said "Sabbath," they meant the Seventh Day.

You can always tell when they are meaning "The Sabbath:" because they are ALWAYS denouncing Sabbath Keeping as a Satanic, anti-Christian, anti-Grace, anti-Resurrection heresy.

The early church fathers surely may have been calling Sunday the Lord's Day...BUT...in Revelation that is not what it means.

 

[LarryP2]

The early church fathers surely may have been calling Sunday the Lord's Day...BUT...in Revelation that is not what it means.

No "mays" about it. When they said "Lord's Day" they ALWAYS meant Sunday. There is no ambiguity there.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Rev 1:10 has nothing to do with the subject matter of Revelation.

Is there a problem with the description on how God was speaking to John? Please don't stop at verse ten for that does damage to revelation:

Look at this:
Deut 4:12, 15, 33, 36
12 And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire
33 Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?
36 Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.

Deut 5:4, 22, 23
4 The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
22 These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;


Now look at this:

Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

John hears a voice and is connected with fire.

There is more to enumerate, descriptively speaking, in Deuteronomy.

 

[LarryP2]

Is there a problem with the description on how God was speaking to John? Please don't stop at verse ten for that does damage to revelation:

Look at this:
Deut 4:12, 15, 33, 36
12 And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire
33 Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?
36 Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.

Deut 5:4, 22, 23
4 The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
22 These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
23 And it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, (for the mountain did burn with fire,) that ye came near unto me, even all the heads of your tribes, and your elders;


Now look at this:

Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

John hears a voice and is connected with fire.

There is more to enumerate, descriptively speaking, in Deuteronomy.

So it sounds like you are trying to convince us to completely ignore the unanimous historical use of the phrase "The Lord's Day" and apply a different approach to this one single instance?

In other words, we should just lie and pretend it means something totally different than what EVERYONE in that time period meant when they said exactly the same thing.

 

[By Faith Alone]

No "mays" about it. When they said "Lord's Day" they ALWAYS meant Sunday. There is no ambiguity there.

My friend...I do not doubt they said Sunday was the Lord's Day (Day pertaining to the Lord) but that cannot be applied in Revelation for Revelation is the Day of Vengeance and lasts 3 and 1/2 years.

Applying Sunday to the Day of vengeance is like saying two red cars are the same even though one is a Volkswagen and the other a Cadillac.

 

[By Faith Alone]

So it sounds like you are trying to convince us to completely ignore the unanimous historical use of the phrase "The Lord's Day" and apply a different approach to this one single instance?

In other words, we should just lie and pretend it means something totally different than what EVERYONE in that time period meant when they said exactly the same thing.

You say "everyone". Did you take a poll?

 

[LarryP2]

You say "everyone". Did you take a poll?

Much better than a "poll." I have actually read what they wrote about the subject. Precision was their strong point. Those Early Christians minced no words and did not suffer fools gladly. I think I can honestly assert that I have read everything that is available from the Early Church Fathers.

When they said "The Lord's Day," they meant Sunday. When they said "Sabbath," they meant Saturday.

They were energetically-involved in making extremely sharp distinctions between Judaism and Christianity. They condemned every effort by the Judaizing/Ebionite heretics to blend the two religions. They left no ambiguity. They were fighting for their lives and the life of the Christian church.

To a man, they denounced Sabbath Keeping as completely contrary to the Gospel and dishonest to the Resurrection. In order to draw sharp battle lines and to denounce clear error, they made crystal clear distinctions between Sunday/The Lord's Day and Sabbath/Saturday. They were very precise with their language.

To a man, they preached that Sabbath Keeping was an outright renunciation of the Resurrection and the Grace of Jesus Christ.

It was a matter of life and death, both for themselves personally and for the fledgling Christian Church. A modern-day heretic illustrates precisely the battle lines drawn by the First Century Christians, and the reason they so sharply defined "The Lord's Day." You can choose Sabbath Keeping as your Salvation, or you can choose the Resurrection, the Gospel and Grace as your Salvation. But not both. The heretics themselves are extremely precise in their definitions. They don't mince words either. Here's Ellen G. White on her revival of the vile, Satanic and anti-Christian Ebionite Heresy:

"It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." {6T 356.4}


"But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth." {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

"No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God." {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}

"All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light."{HS 234.3}

"As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience." {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}

Nothing changed during the interim between First Century Christianity and when the above-quotes were made. The Battle lines were and are still PRECISELY where they were in the First Century. Nobody moved the "goal posts." Both sides are in total agreement: You can choose the Gospel. Or you can choose the Sabbath. They do not mix. Not one bit. The Battle lines have always been clear. And so was the First Century Christian's definition of the Lord's Day. The modern-day heretic and her frontal attack on Christianity is in total agreement: Language is precise. Sabbath Keeping, not the Gospel, is the source of Salvation.

That is NOT Christianity. The open advocacy of this ancient heresy on a Christian website is shocking and disturbing.

Choose wisely.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen (sawest-past tense), and the things which are (present), and the things which shall be hereafter (future);
Therin lay the summary of the contents of the whole book of Revelation. There is a GROSS misunderstanding of that particular verse that has led many off course in interpretation.
The verse does not denote three things as to divisions. There is only one subject and that is the prophecy of the unveiling of Jesus Christ.
The Lord told John to write what he had seen. That makes it abundantly clear that this first chapter is the introduction to the whole Book. Introductions to books are supposed to be written last to make sure the introduction matches the content of the book.
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God (the prophetic message), and of the testimony of Jesus Christ (which He bore), and of all things that he saw.
Those simple words would bear absolutely no meaning if chapter 1 had not been written AFTER he saw those things because in THAT case he had seen NOTHING.

Verse 19 is part of his introduction so the words “which thou sawest” are used in the very same sense as used in verse 2. John had seen all the visions of the book at the time the instructions to write was given to him. This explains why “therefore” must be added.
Rev 1:19 Write (therefore) the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Look to the very end of the book:
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches (assemblies)
These things refer to the book in its entireity....including chapter 1 The past, present and future of this book still resides in the future.
After having seen all these things the command is .... "Write therefore the things which thou sawest, and what they are (signify), even the things which shall come to pass (happen... Acts 26:22) hereafter."

 

[By Faith Alone]

1 Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


Read extra Biblical all anyone cares to. I know MY final authority.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

I judge NO MAN for keeping any day he wants for worship. To say Sabbath keeping is a heresy shows little regard for the verse above. If they want to keep the Sabbath THAT is between THEM and GOD. I do NOT agree with the catholic teaching but I will NOT be guilty of judging the individual. We MUST be careful of standing in the place of God in ALL matters.

 

[By Faith Alone]

So it sounds like you are trying to convince us to completely ignore the unanimous historical use of the phrase "The Lord's Day" and apply a different approach to this one single instance?

In other words, we should just lie and pretend it means something totally different than what EVERYONE in that time period meant when they said exactly the same thing.

Not EVERYONE wrote down what they thought and you cannot tell me 100% of the believers thought the same way. THAT is nigh to impossible. Those "early church fathers" may NOT have really understood. Many people that DID write overstated the facts to support their convictions and ended up being un- Biblical in their assertions.

 

[LarryP2]

1 Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


Read extra Biblical all anyone cares to. I know MY final authority.

So what's your take on the above Ellen White quotes on "Salvation by Sabbath Keeping?" And while you're at it, why don't you explain difference, if any, between those quotes and the First and Second Century heresies of Judaizing and Ebionites?

Not EVERYONE wrote down what they thought and you cannot tell me 100% of the believers thought the same way. THAT is nigh to impossible. Those "early church fathers" may NOT have really understood. Many people that DID write overstated the facts to support their convictions and ended up being un- Biblical in their assertions.

Actually I am quite satisfied to say with 100 percent certainty that the Early Christians were absolutely united in battling the early versions of the Seventh Day Adventist heresy. If you read the above quotes of Ellen White, you can see immediately why they would have fought such heresy tooth and nail as being utterly contrary to Christianity.

And any good heretic can "scripture sculpt" any texts they want to support even the most vile heresies. Seventh Day Adventists are pros at it. So are Jehovah's Witnesses. So are Branch Davidians. Herbert Armstrong of the World Wide Church of God was an expert at it.

Heresy is always concealed with plenty of Bible texts.