What day is the Sabbath?

Dear friend,
thanks for a very TRUTHFUL missive. Not much there of self showing through! Thanks again. Try 1 Cor. 13:4's last part for my thought.
P/N/B/

Coastie, please read the following article to better understand the attack on Christians who observe Sunday for rest and worship by the Seventh Day Adventists on this forum:
http://www.lumenverum.com/apologetics/sunday.htm

Colossians 2:16-17
"Then never let anyone criticise you for what you eat or drink, or about observance of annual festivals, New Moons or Sabbaths.. These are only a shadow of what was coming: the reality is the body of Christ."

Thanks be to God

Hi,
I am not a Seventh-day Adventist, nor would I ever become one. But your choice of words of 'attack Christians' is a poor one as far as I am concerned.

Let me make clear what the Bible teaches. Sunday keeping is not the Truth! Period! It is this teaching that the Word of God condems. That IS a FALSE doctrine. Try Mark 7:7's Word 'vain'. Taking the name of 'c'hristian (Christ) in vain when one is convicted of it, Christ says?

Now for a 'C'hristian as you describe?? We can do as we please. God had permitted Cain to do so & still live on with his new leader. See Gen. 4:7. And satan has been around for a long while! (and yes, it is just about over)

Again, what will the Christian do as they are convicted of error, is the questian to be answered by one that 'decides' to truely love & follow his Master? Two verses of 'eternal' life decisions come into view. The Lord Himself tells us of these that ARE HIS TRUE SHEEP, in John 10:16. The DECISION is their's to make! He says:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and there [shall be one FOLD] and [ONE SHEPARD]." (added emphasis)
The thought is that no one is guilty for error that one does while in ignorance if all the while they are 'in' Christ. (doing the best to STUDY & follow ALL TRUTH, Christians as you say)

Surely most Christians know that FOLD, means denomination. Christ tells us that the FOLDS ARE IN ERROR! (except for the VIRGIN ONE in Eph. 4:5) And they will need be left. Regardless if they be mine or yours? This is 'my' choice to make, this is how I am judged as the Holy Spirit leads & convicts & I follow? See Rom. 8:14. "If ye LOVE ME keep My Commandments" Try Eccl. 12:13-14 for another eternal Truth!

The next verse is from the last book of the Word. Rev. 18:4.
Here we see that the 'decision' that these REAL Christians make will decide if they will have ETERNAL LIFE or be BLOTTED OUT OF EXISTENCE. See Obadiah 16's last part, "and they SHALL BE AS THOUGH THEY HAD NOT BEEN"

The verse in Rev. 18:4 reads:
".. Come out her (false folds-denominations) MY PEOPLE, that ye BE NOT PARTAKERS OF HER SINS, and that YE RECEIVE NOT OF HER PLAGUES."

I might through you with this next closing thought? But it is LATER than you might think, so I will give this next thought. 1 Peter 4:17 tells VIRGIN CHRISTIANS that JUDGEMENT BEGINS AT THE HOUSE OF GOD FIRST!
And in the above verse we see that ANY OF 'MY PEOPLE' WILL BE LOST WHILE KNOWINGLY IN MEMBERSHIP WITH OPEN SIN, They [ARE PARTAKERS of false doctrines or OPEN PRINTED SIN] regardless of, or if, they are SABBATH KEEPERS or not. Case inpoint: In Matt. 25 we see ALL SABBATH keepers with VIRGIN DOCTRINES!

If you do not understand the last remarks? Just keep them stored in the memory bank for later. It will ALL come out in time! And remember that there are some here that will understand these remarks.

Hope that this helps. In the Master's quickly finished work for the house of God first, P/N/B/

geocajun,

I have seen you use Col. 2 more than once, to which you are obviously under the impression that it supports your view. Actually not only does it not support your view but it speaks quite clearly in the favor of Sabbathkeeping.

You must pay attention to the context of Col. 2 to determine what ordinances are being spoken of. One thing I'm sure you must be missing is that it speaks of the ordinances as past tense, when it says they were "nailed" to the cross. But, it speaks of the eat and drink and the Sabbaths and new moons, as being "are a shadow of things to come".

Did you catch that?!! This passage is not speaking of the ceremonial laws that were a shadow of things that had already came, but instead is speaking of a future fulfillment of Sabbaths, new moons etc.... that "are to come".

Sound familiar? What does it say will occur in the New Heavens and Earth?

Isa. 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Another hint as to what ordinances are being referred to is, that they are mentioned in relationship to men judging men about there sabbaths and new moons.

We saw examples of this throughout Christ ministry, didn't we? Wasn't Christ continually being judged guilty of Sabbath breaking by the Pharisees?

Well what ordinances were they judging Him with? The man-made additions they had made to the Sabbath!!!! Not the law of God!

With these things in mind let's look at what the subject matter of Col. 2 is.

4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind

21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;

22 Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

The subject matter of that chapter is the false teachings of men and for us to beware of them. He came as a Jew and openly disobeyed there man-made laws, "And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly".

So, since Christ has come and openly challenged these items and could not be found guilty of them, no matter how hard they tried to trap Him, therefore don't let any man judge us concerning the man-made laws of the Sabbath, etc...., either.

Here are other verses where Paul is referring to the Jews who were against Christ, or their teachings, as being "contrary" to them.

Col. 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

1Thes. 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

Rom. 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Acts 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

It was the actions and laws of man that Paul was telling us was contrary to us not the ceremonial laws of Moses. They were shadows and were fulfilled, but they were not at all contrary. They are still applicable but not in a physical earthly nature, but instead in the heavenly sanctuary with Christ acting as the spiritual High priest on our behalf.

BTW: The Greek word for "ordinances" no.1 definition in the Lexicon is "doctrines".

Remember, Paul says that when Christ disarmed("spoiled" see Strongs) the principalities and powers when He took away their ordinances that were AGAINST them ......

2Cor. 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Also remember Paul was once a high power and a Pharisee who also spoke and falsely accused the brethren based on man's laws and not God's.....

Acts 26:9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

When one does just a little research we see that this verse supports Sabbathkeeping very strongly. Matter of fact it tells us not to let anyone judge us by the man-made traditions which they judged Christ. That is because it is God's word that we go by not man's.

guys, dont be judahizers... saturday sabbath was mosaic law. Follow Jesus! The observe the day of rest on the Lords day, the day the Lord rose!
You are not justified by the law, but fatih in the Lord Jesus Christ.

remember, Rom 14:5 is quite clear, Sabbath on saturday is a disputable matter - NOT Objective.
These SDA's are very strong in their belefs, but remember, they are a schism, thats less than 2 years old started by some farmer and succedded by a lady who claims to have been taken up to heaven where God told her to keep the sabbath.

do yourself a favor and look up judahizers. they are the ones who said "Beleiving in Jesus is neat, but you must still keep the mosaic law"

This is the early heresy which Saint Paul was fighting.

Thanks be to God!

that should have read "they are a schism thats less than 200 years old"

Pastor NB,
[sigh].....

Maybe a testimony is in order....

I was an atheist for 30 yrs, raised by atheists. Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll were our family motto. My mom is a hard drug using, alcoholic, who is prone to steal, especially if it is drugs or alcohol. My older brother is a crack addict with three illegitimate children from three different women, he deals drugs(crank, coke, pot) for a living and has done such since he ran away from home at age 14, he's now 38. My father is a junkie, he will shoot heroin or any form of opiate based drug, he is also illegitimately employed(not sure exactly how, just know it ain't legal). If he can't get it to shoot, he will be more than happy to take it in pill form, or snort it.

I was first allowed to smoke pot at age 7, as was my brother. By 13 yrs I had become a daily user. My parents were the first people to introduce, heroin, coke, crank, crack, LSD, mushrooms, every type of alcohol, intravaneous injections, pot, opiate prescription drugs, various downers and uppers, all between the ages of 7 and 18. If your were a friend of my folks, lets' say when i was fourteen, and you came over to party at their house for new years eve, what do you think you'd see? My whole family drinking, smoking and snorting. As was the tradition in my home since almost as far back as I remember.

Also, from as far back as I can remember I stole things. Big things(thousands of dollars), little things(comic books), everything(guns, stereo's, jewelry etc..). My father had taught me that stealing from people was wrong, but that businesses that were insured were okay(insurance scams played a big part it our upbringing). By the time I was fourteen I was a full blown burglar. I managed to avoid getting put in juvenile hall, but made the county jail several times throughout my adult life. As an adult, I put aside burglary for a job, yet I was always looking and taking big scams as I came across them.

Throughout my late teen and adult life I also dealt drugs as a side income. I would pretty much deal whatever I was partaking in at that time. I saw it as a simple financial solution of how to pay for my personal habit. Needless to say my parents friends and my friends were all similar, so this was my enviroment and life up until my conversion. My culture as it were....

Did I mention that I had never read the Bible, nor went to church?? Or that I also was deeply into music, and when I say music I mean death metal, hard punk, etc...(Slayer, DRI, Testament, COC, etc...). Somewhere close to 200 concerts beginning with my parents taking me to my earliest rock shows, (Eagles, Clapton, Seger, etc...). Now picture such a person raised in such an enviroment, with long hair, and tattoos of dragons across his back, and arms. 5 yrs. ago that was me, a drug dealing, thieving, long haired, satanic music lover.

Talk to any of my old friends or family and they will tell you that I am an innocent humble angel, compared the the monster that I was, and I have a brand of humor that is tame compared to what it was. But, you wouldn't know that because you don't know me.....

You have no real idea how far God has come with me. One might want all the pieces before they assume where someones walk with Christ is, or what changes they are not even aware that took place. Trust me brother, I know very well my sins, would you like a confession???? I'll be happy to share I have no former or present sin to hide. I have many struggles with many things, but I praise Him for the million miles He's brought me and don't condemn Him for ther hundred I got left. Might want to think about that concept for a minute.

But, you are/were a pastor so I'm sure you are a great counsellor and judge of such things without even knowing where my walk with Christ started or how far I've come, right? Everyones got a story, and many have come a very far distance, and only the Lord knows where each of us are in our faith with Him. Maybe you should know the "rest of the story", as Paul Harvey would say....

Geocajun,
again I have seen you paste Rom. 14:5 reference more than once. Has this not been addressed yet? Let's read it in context and see what it really says, okay? Context seems to be a huge thing which is consistently missing from your comments.....

Some of the Gentile converts were so fearful of eating meat offered to idols that they ate only vegetables. Paul spoke of them in verses 1 and 2. The Jewish Christians thought that was ridiculous and apparently made divisive attacks against their fellow Christians. It was so serious that Paul addressed the problem again in 1Cor. 8:8-12. There he elaborated at length on the "weak brother" (the Gentile believer) who esteemed the food unfit to be eaten.

What was Paul's counsel to the Jewish members who were judging the Gentile members? He told them not to eat the food offered to idols if they were in the presence of those who thought it to be wrong. Even though they had knowledge that the idol was nothing, he told the Jewish converts: "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ". (1Cor. 8:11, 12).

The food offered to idols was not unclean food (Acts 14:13), but was merely esteemed so by the Gentile converts. It was not a moral issue. Neither was the matter of the ceremonial days, which Paul mentioned in Rom. 14:5. He told them to stop judging over those issues and to get on with the work.

Paul is not speaking about the Sabbath at all in verse 5 but about fasting days. The other subject of the chapter is vegetarianism (see verses 2-3). He writes, "For one believes that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eats herbs." Then in verse 3 Paul admonishes that eating or not eating is up to the individual. The Bible in Basic English translates verse 3 this way: "Let not him who takes food have a low opinion of him who does not: and let not him who does not take food be a judge of him who does; for he has God’s approval."

The issue of keeping a Sabbath of rest does not even enter into this passage. What is being discussed in verse 5 is the practice of some who choose one day over another to fast. The next verse (6) shows that some people placed one day over another in their devotion to fasting. ("He that eats, eats to God, for He gives God thanks.") The problem was, some in the Assembly at Rome were being judged for doing so. Just as Paul entreats us not to judge one another regarding eating or not eating, v. 13.

The summation of the chapter is in verses 20-21: "For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eats with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak." 

The bottom line is; that it doesn't matter to God if the meat you eat was offered to an idol or not, and it doesn't matter to God which day we choose to fast. So since these two things don't matter to God, then don't judge others about them. Nothing in this entire chapter speaks of observing a Sabbath day.

Originally posted by adam332
Geocajun,
again I have seen you paste Rom. 14:5


Paul is not speaking about the Sabbath at all in verse 5

Click to expand...

its quite clear to me, that Paul is talking both about people who consider the 'day' holier than others - not only in regard to eating food or not on that day, but also giving the day in and of itself more importance than others. This is considered a disputable matter.

New Jerusalem Bible:
Romans 14:3-6

3. Those who feel free to eat freely are not to condemn those who are unwilling to eat freely; nor must the person who does not eat freely pass judgement on the one who does - because God has welcomed him.
4. And who are you to sit in judgement over somebody else's servent? Whether he deserves to be upheld or to fall is for his own master to decide; and he shall be upheld for the Lord has power to uphold him.
5. One person thinks that some days are holier than others, and another thinks them all equal. Let each of them be fully convinced in his own mind.
6. The one who makes special observance of a particular day observes it in honour of the Lord. So the one who eats freely, eats in honour of the Lord, making his thanksgiving to God; and the one who does not, abstains from eating in honour of the Lord makes his thanksgiving to God.

Paul is addressing two issues, one is some considering certain foods to be unclean (mosaic law) and another where one considers some days holier than others (mosaic sabbath day law). Both are considered 'disputable' (not binding to Christians) matters as they are mosaic laws...

Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16 are verses which reference eachother in scripture.

Colossians 2:16:

Then never let anyone criticise you for what you eat or drink, or about observance of annual festivals, New Moons or Sabbaths.

you are not justified by keeping the law, you are justified by faith working in love.
Christians are not bound to keep the mosaic law sabbath as it is old covenant. This is what Saint Paul is talking about. Do not be a judahizer, thats heresy.

Christians observe the Lords Day which is Sunday.
Thanks be to God!

Originally posted by seangoh
You are right in saying that we should follow Jesus! I recall this text:

"He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 ‘‘The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor. " Luke 4:16-18

Jesus kept the Sabbath where he especially blessed it after the creation. And on this day, the spirit of the Lord was with Him.
Boy do i want to follow Jesus and keep the Sabbath too!!

Click to expand...

oh brother, Jesus was a Jew! Jesus was circumsized too! Why does Paul say we shouldn't be? Jesus observed all Jewish customs, but that is because Jesus had yet to fulfill them and establish his new convent.

What early Christians have to say:

St. Ignatius (circa 110) "If,therefore they who are under the older dispensation came into a new hope, NO LONGER KEEPING THE SABBATH, BUT LIVING IN OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S DAY, ON WHICH DAY ALSO OUR LIFE ROSE THROUGH HIM" (capitals added)

Who is he talking about? Obviously the people around Christ, who came into a new hope when He was resurrected.

St. Justin Martyr (early second century) "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which...Jesus Christ our Savior... rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn [Saturday]; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things."

for more information on why Christians worship on Sunday (and always have), rather than keeping the sabbath as Jews did, please read the following articles:

Sunday Worship (early Christian quotes included in this article)

Sabbath or Sunday? (many patristic quotes here)

Catholic Answers director of Apolgetics James Akin's writing on the Sabbath and Seventh Day Adventists

Try this one? ------EASTER??-----
(with added emphasis. And this is the setting of the 27-34 AD 7 yr. time of of Dan. 9:27's prophecy)

Acts 12:1-5 in part. ".. about the time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the CHURCH."

There were two mainline denominations by this time. Israel of old, and NEW Israel. (see Rom. 2:28-29) Both had the same Virgin (Amos 5:2) Truth up to this point doctrinewise.
Christ's death opened the way INTO the Most Holy of the HEAVENLY Sanctuary. The Laws that were added because of sin, pointing to the Slain Lamb (CHRIST) were done away with at this time. (Gal. 3:19) This is what was finished & nailed to the cross.

The Everlasting Royal Covenant was INSIDE of the ROYAL ARK AND INSIDE of the MOST HOLY PLACE IN HEAVEN. (see Rev. 12:19) They are still in force UNIVERSIALLY! (see Rev. 22:8-9)

The 'law' of Moses, the ones that [HE] wrote, -in a book- and that were put 'IN THE SIDE OF THE ARK' NOT INSIDE! (where the Royal law is-try Deut. 31 for Moses writting) These were some of the laws that were used in the Sanctuary's service pointing to the death of Christ. Remember that the VAIL OF THE TEMPLE WENT RENT FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP BY AN UNSEEN HAND at the Master's death? Never was the Most Holy to be thought of being voided out! Read Heb. 10, and verse 29 & Heb. 13:20's, "EVERLASTING COVENANT"!

OK: Which ones were keeping the LAW OF MOSES NOW? Back to Acts 12.
One group of 'Christians' had the offshoot preacher CHRIST "IN" their midst. The other LARGER group by far, those who "FELL AWAY" (the ones who kept intack EVERYTHING.. but CHRIST) needed power to kill & persecute the 'FEW' of the NEW DENOMINATION that Christ established. (notice Rev. 3:9 for both histories or Isa. 5:3)

Now comes the killing of James by the sword. By whom? Remember that Christ had left His denomination that was once having His POWER AND PRESENCE & now Church & State were need inside of this Christless denomination. (see Matt. 23:38-'desolute' of whom?)

Feast days of Acts were being observed by whom in Acts 12? Notice.. "And because he (Herod) saw it 'pleased the Jews' he proceeded further to take Peter ALSO."

NOTE that it states that then.. "Then were THE DAYS OF UNLEVENED BREAD." Now notice that this is where EASTER is first AND 'NEVER' again mentioned!

It goes on to say.. "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; INTENDING AFTER EASTER to bring HIM FORTH TO THE PEOPLE."
So who was it that were still keeping the LAW OF MOSES? If you read on, you will see that it was not the new offshoot denomination that Christ started up that were keeping the law of Moses, but the Christless ones that were keeping the 'Feast Days' and EASTER!

Again: Were all of these one who were killing Christ's followers IGNORANT??
"Nevertheless among the CHIEF RULERS ALSO *MANY BELIEVED ON HIM;
(if and & but?) but because of the Pharisees they did not CONFESS HIM, LEAST THEY BE PUT OUT OF THE SYNAGOGUE: (denomination) For THEY LOVED THE *PRAISE OF MEN MORE THAN THE PRAISE OF GOD."

The Master said: "If [ye] Love [ME], KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS"
---P/N/B/

brewmama,
sorry but ignatius never said that.

According to Irenaeus, Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch at the time of Trajan (AD 98-117). In his writings, even at such an early date, the Bishop argues against the Judaizing practices in his territory. Geographically, Antioch was in near proximity to Palestine, thus, Christians had suffered under the influence of the Jewish synagogues. This suggests that, although the separation from Judaism was in progress, the ties had not yet been severed. In fact, the tenacious survival and veneration of Jewish institutions such as the Sabbath is explicitly mentioned by Ignatius. For example, in his EPISTLE TO THE MAGNESIANS, he writes: "For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God's favor. For the most divine prophets lived in accordance with Jesus Christ" (ch. 8:1,2). In the following chapter he refers again to the Old Testament prophets "who lived in ancient ways" and who "attained a new hope, no longer sabbatizing but living according to the Lord's life." Again, in chapter 10:3, he urges that "it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like the Jews."

Given these many warnings against Judaizing, we must naturally ask the question: Was Sunday already a replacement day for Sabbath in the province of Asia at the time of Ignatius (ca. AD 115)? Many scholars have examined in great depth the passage previously quoted: "no longer sabbatizing but living according to the Lord's life." Because many feel that the word "day" is more expressly implied by the passage than the word "life", they see in this a clear reference to early Christian Sunday-keeping. However, there are two main problems with this attempted reading of the passage:

1) In the oldest Greek manuscript (CODEX MEDICEUS LAURENTINUS), the noun "life" is used; thus, "Lord's life" is the most appropriate translation. Also there is no original text that contains the word "day" at all.

2) The context of the passage reveals that it is not the early Christians about whom Ignatius writes, but is the Old Testament prophets. Because Ignatius certainly knew that they kept the Sabbath, his reference to "sabbatizing" must refer not to what day was kept, but rather to how the day was kept. The contrast is not between days but between ways of life: between the Jewish "sabbatizing" way of life and the newness of life symbolized for the Christian by Christ's resurrection. So, the "sabbatizing" condemned by Ignatius, in the context of the prophets, can hardly mean the keeping of Sabbath as a day, but rather the "Judaizing" method of keeping the day.

This correct interpretation of the passage in question is finally brought forth in the longer passage:

"Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness.... But let every one of you keep the Sabbath in a spiritual manner, rejoicing in the meditation on the law, not in the relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, nor walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them." (Pseudo-Ignatius, EPISTLE TO THE MAGNESIANS 9, ANF I, pp.62-63.)

Several things strike one's notice about the last quotation: First, in it Ignatius begins the process of "spiritualizing" away the temporal meaning and value of the Sabbath. This process was the foundation for all later theology which attempted to strip the Sabbath of reality. Both Barnabas and Justin Martyr built upon this foundation to make the Sabbath, rather than a weekly day of worship, instead a symbolic and ethereal concept. The etherealizing of the Sabbath has been quite successful down through the centuries and "Sabbath is only a symbol" is a very popular view today. Second, the disgust which Ignatius clearly felt toward the Jewish method of Sabbath-keeping had validity as we see the type of "Judaizing" he mentions: not eating things prepared the day before, not walking within a prescribed space, etc. These were man-made traditions that were added by scribes over the years and finally distilled into the MISHNAH, which outlined procedures for Sabbath-keeping. |0+| Ignatius did well to warn Christians against such "sabbatizing" for it defeats God's purpose for the Sabbath. Unfortunately, the Jewish method of Sabbath-keeping did present the Sabbath in such a way as to enjoin criticism. The disrepute that was thus levied upon the Sabbath was not the fault of the day or of God's plan for the day, but rather was the fault of the Jewish implementation of the day. Nevertheless, the Sabbath came into such general disrepute that the term "sabbatizing" came to mean not only "keeping the Sabbath as the Jews do" but also "keeping the Sabbath" at all. Thus, the Jews were themselves largely responsible for the breakdown in Sabbath worship. Finally, the fact the Ignatius so constantly warns against Judaizing and sabbatizing implicitly asserts that the Christians of his time and in his region were still keeping the Jewish Sabbath. It hardly seems reasonable for him to issue so many warnings if a radical departure from Sabbath-keeping had already taken place. This concept is well founded in evidence offered in other page of this website, which state that Christians were keeping Sabbath all over the world, except Rome and Alexandria, until late in the fifth century.|1+|

To summarize, it is clear that Christians in the time and place of Ignatius were still keeping the seventh day Sabbath. We find that the writings of Ignatius were among the earliest attempts to form an ideological breach between Judaism and Christianity, which, in itself supports the concept that early Christians were very much like Jews. Finally, we find that in the East the trend to break from Judaistic rites was much more gradual than in the West--probably because of the constant influx of converts from the synagogues who brought with them a veneration for Jewish customs.

Sorry geo cajun,
Paul is talking about specific days, fasting days. You cannot generalize this statement to make it refer to something it doesn't, it is called reading and interpreting a passage in context. And once again we have your own theology conflicting with itself. Let's look as some of your statements, shall we?
"it is required of all Christians that they at least attend it on Sunday for the "Lords Day""
"you are not justified by keeping the law"
another where one considers some days holier than others (mosaic sabbath day law). Both are considered 'disputable'

Are we required to keep sunday as you claim or not. You keep saying mosaic law this and that. Sorry but unclean laws and the Sabbath laws both predate Moses or the existence of Israelites. The old covenant and the new covenant are the same, it is the same laws just written in a new place. Might want to try reading Hebrews.....

Your a Jew and your circumsized, aren't you?

And you keep quoting Col. 2, which does nothing but endorse keeping the Sabbath in a Godly manner, and not in a manner according to man-made laws. This has been proven, but again we see that the only way you can piece such a doctrine together is by taking single verse and ignoring all context.

Just like you ignored Hebrews 4:9, please read the footnotes in your KJV or look at a strongs concordance. The word for rest in v 9 is Sabbath! And that previous passage is not speaking of Jesus, but Joshua.