Status
Not open for further replies.

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,127
4,257
USA
✟480,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yes, we do indeed know that early church writings referred to "the Lord's day" as Sunday, the day of which they met. And those writings date right back to the 1st Century when John wrote Revelation.



And let's be honest, there is no scripture that says the term "The Lord's Day" refers to the sabbath is there?

Do you seriously think that John was playing games with his audience, and thinking to himself, "I know I received this revelation of the sabbath, but instead of using the word I always use for the sabbath, I'm going to use the term "the Lord's day" and let them try to figure out which day that was via an exegetical puzzle using other scriptures"?

Maybe you missed a few scriptures from John in Revelations.

Revelations 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Revelations 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

If you notice in these verses God's saint keep God's commandments and they are a remnant (which means a small fragment of the original). God's commandments have always been a covenant of Ten according to God, not nine. Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13

There is no scripture in the entire bible that says the 4th commandment is deleted from God's Ten and we are to worship God on a new holy day.

Just from a common sense perspective the whole bible talks about the Sabbath being the only holy day of the Lord thy God and the day we will continue worshipping the Lord on the New Earth on the Sabbath Isaiah 66:23 as promised by God Exodus 31:16. John did not slip in a new day of worship without saying a word about this change. The verse simply says I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. It does not say the first day nor has the first day ever been holy to God or had any significance other than a day God commanded us to do our work Exodus 20:9. It is erroneous to assume this means something different than the holy day of the Lord that God deemed the seventh day from these very clear scripture. Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13

The change in God's holy day was predicted Daniel 7:25 and the Sabbath day is the only commandment that fits this description as it is both a time (every seventh day Sabbath) and a law the 4th commandment Exodus 20:8-11

The Catholic church takes credit for changing the corporate day of worship and it happened in the third century. Rewriting history, changing meanings of words outside the bible, does not make it true, just like in the third century when they had various statues from Greek mythology and renamed them all apostles does not rewrite history.

Jesus is coming back soon enough and this will all get straightened out. Jesus told us to keep the commandments which of course would include keeping the holy day of the Lord thy God. We are warned by Jesus we will be hated by all because of Him Matthew 10:22 and just like in the early centuries Christians who also kept God's Sabbath commandment were persecuted the same will happen again soon that the devil will go to war with the remnant saints who keep the commandments of God which includes the 4th commandment that is the holy day of our Creator and Redeemer.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
And apparently according to you love abolishes every holy, just, and good commandment God ever gave.
When you understand the meaning of 'love', and the nearly impossible application of it, yes, it does. Ask Jesus who showed us sacrificial love by allowing himself to be nailed to a cross.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,127
4,257
USA
✟480,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
When you understand the meaning of 'love', and the nearly impossible application of it, yes, it does. Ask Jesus who showed us sacrificial love by allowing himself to be nailed to a cross.
Yes, I love Jesus so much I am going to vain His name and worship other gods or worship on an alternate day than the day God commanded us to keep holy. That doesn't sound like love to me.

That's why we have these verses to keep us in check when we try to reinvent what love really means.

James 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

Revelations 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.


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

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1 John 5:2-3 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

Hezekiah81

Christ died for me so I died for him
Aug 18, 2021
377
176
Texas
✟7,693.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
To whom was God referring? To whom was the laws of the Sinai covenant given? Are you able to name even one of all those laws of the covenant that could offer salvation? I cannot and it is so very plain that the covenant was not about eternal life, Ex 19:5-6. Man's salvation has never changed. Israelites were saved the same way Abraham the gentile was saved. All of the laws given to Israel were to make the Israelites "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Ex 19:6

It is so evident God never gave the laws dealing with rituals to any other nation. The fourth commandment given only to Israel was indeed a ritual commandment as were the other Holy days God Asked Israel to keep. They were, along with the laws dealing with morality, were the words of the covenant given to only one people on Earth. God never imposed any of those rituals on you or me. Both of us were born under the new covenant which no place demands that we observe the ritual commands given to only one nation. I suppose that for the Jews the rituals might hold a place in their hearts but for gentiles they have no meaning.

You are free to do what you please, and you tell us ritual laws have been done away. Well, you don't believe the ritual weekly Sabbath ended with the ending of the Sinai covenant at Calvary. Somehow, according to SDAs and others, the Sabbath escaped and now it imposed upon all people on Earth. The SDA church is so adamant that the prophet wrote the following: 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} (Ellen White)

That woman has judged me to Hell for violating a commandment that was never meant for gentiles and ended along with all of the commands of the Sinai covenant at Calvary. Do you realize that your church believes such a thing? Do you believe her? Do you believe that all of the remainder of Christianity is controlled by Satan because we do not keep a day that was never imposed upon us except by a few that do not understand what Jesus did for all mankind at Calvary? Oy!
You call the sabbath a ritual I call it a day of rest as God did, God most high never commands you to make sacrifices or offerings on it, or keep the gazillion man made regulations the pharisees were trying to burden everyone with just as mixed up religion does today they say it's impossible to keep, all God commands is to do no work, rest, and keep it holy, it's not against you it was made for you Jesus said, so when you tell me man's tradition abolishes a commandment I say show me where. You have no proof the body of Christ kept the first day holy, give me scripture not man's opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
According to the scriptures, in Acts of the Apostles 15 gentile believers are not subject to the ceremonial shadow laws of Moses that point to a new heart by faith in under the new covenant in this case "circumcision" of the flesh is not a requirement for salvation for new gentile believers *Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2; 19-21. The physical sign of circumcision was a shadow law pointing to a new heart by faith through the Spirit in God's new covenant promise of His law written on the heart and life in all those who believe and follow Gods' Word (see Deuteronomy 4:4; Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:24-27; Hebrews 8:10-12; Romans 2:28-29. The question in Acts of the Apostles 15 was over "is circumcision of the law of Moses a requirement for the salvation of new covenant believers (see Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2). It was never over the question are Gods' 10 commandments still the standard of Christian living in the new covenant that view is a contradiction to what the new covenant is as shown in Hebrews 8:10-12 and also a contradiction to what Paul says some time latter to the Corinthian believers when he says "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God" - 1 Corinthians 7:19. What is it from the scriptures that has been shared with you here Jesse that you do not believe is true?

...................

Can we get back to the OP now. Do you have any scriptures that support the man-made teaching and tradition from the early Church that Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10? Let's be honest here. There is none is there? This thread has been going for sometime already and not a single scripture has been posted and this is the reasons most people here are seeking to take the thread off topic to talk about anything other than the OP which is to provide scripture proving that Sunday is the Lords day of Revelation 1:10. According to the scriptures alone, "the Lords day" is the Sabbath day *Matthew 12:8.

Take Care
But technically, the gentiles were not subject to Mosaic laws, which was one reason the Hebrew nation kept to itself. The fact is, some Jewish Christians thought that Gentiles had to become Jews first by being circumcised. The Council of Jerusalem, the first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, decided against that, saying they only had to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols. So Gentiles were never subject to Mosaic law. The only laws were those Jesus taught, which is what he answered to the rich young man who wanted a formula (as you do, I might add), when he asked Jesus "What must I do to be saved?". Jesus told him he already knew what to do. Love God, and love your neighbor.

The question of the OP gets back to the question of whether or not Jesus gave mankind an authoritative body to deal with the questions that he knew would arise after His death. We know He did. He made Peter the first among the apostles, who were his equals, and told them "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." And "Who hears you hears me." Christ fulfilled the law, Christ is God, and so we worship God by worshiping Christ. From the day of the Resurrection, we worshiped Him on the First day, the Lord's Day, which is the same day in the Didache, and in Revelation, and anywhere else you find that phrase.

And I will leave it at that. If you don't want to, don't.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟252,547.00
Faith
Christian
As shown earlier there are many scholarly papers and debates on the claims of the Didache 14.1 use of "the Lords day" being a mistranslation already shown from Strand, Bacchiocci, Dugnmore, Geraty, Thibaut, Stefanovic and others showing that Didache 14.1 is not a correct translation of the Greek and that "the Lord's day" is not in the Greek.

Now that is simply not true.

Only the SDA Bacchiocci makes a (flawed) case for mistranslation.

The SDA Stefanovic's only makes a 3 sentence assertion, citing Bacchiocci. He offers no evidence of his own.

Strand only notes Bacchiocchi view, along with other views, he does not endorse it.

Dugnmore and Geraty say the opposite - "the Lords day" is the correct translation!

Until I see evidence that 19th Century catholic priest Thibaut is a qualified to comment on the Greek, I will reserve judgement on him. I am also trying to find a copy of his work to verify what it actually says. It seems to be found nowhere online which is unusual for a classical scholarly peice. At the moment we only have Bacchiocci's word.


Eisegesis on the other hand is reading into the scriptures what the scripture does not say and does not teach.

That is not the definition of eisegesis. Eisegesis is the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.

Definition of EISEGESIS

Which is exactly what you did in the OP.

Your idea is that "the Lord's day" in Rev 1:10 is the sabbath, something that is absent from the text. So you have performed exegetical acrobatics with other verses from scripture and then forced them into in Rev 1:10 to make it say sabbath.

If John had meant the sabbath, he would have said 'the sabbath', the word he always uses for the sabbath. He would not be playing games with his audience and expect them to solve an exegetical puzzle in order to find out which day he received his revelation. No, he was using the term commonly used at the time among Christians to refer to Sunday, the day on which they met - a known historical fact.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
LoveGodsWord said: As posted in the OP already we know what the early teachings and traditions of some of the early Church were in regard's to their understanding of Revelation 1:10 "the Lords day" being Sunday or the first day of the week is already this was never in dispute. The purpose of this OP evaluate these claims to see if they are support by the scriptures or not supported in scripture.
Your response here...
Yes, we do indeed know that early church writings referred to "the Lord's day" as Sunday, the day of which they met. And those writings date right back to the 1st Century when John wrote Revelation.
Please go and re-read the OP. This thread is not about speculation of when the didache was written which scholars date anywhere from 100 AD to 400 AD. Neither is it about what the early Church teaches on Revelation 1:10. As posted above and from the OP we know what the early teachings and traditions of some of the early Church were in regard's to their understanding of Revelation 1:10 "the Lords day" being Sunday or the first day of the week is already this was never in dispute. The purpose of this OP is to evaluate these claims to see if they are supported by the scriptures or not supported in scripture. So do you have any scripture that proves that "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is Sunday or the first day of the week? - Nope. If there is no scripture that supports this man-made teaching and tradition from some in the early Church then all you have is a man-made teaching and tradition that is not biblical.
LoveGodsWord said: Lets be honest here. There is no scripture anywhere in the bible that supports the teaching and tradition that "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is "the Lords day" and if there is no scripture to support this teaching why not be honest here and simply just say so?
Your response here...
And let's be honest, there is no scripture that says the term "The Lord's Day" refers to the sabbath is there?
Sorry God's Word disagrees with you here. As shown earlier from the scriptures, the Greek word meaning of τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ translated as "the Lords day" means (1) pertaining to the Lord or the Lords ownership of the day from Revelation 1:10. The scriptures prove the (2) authority of Jesus to claim he is Lord of the Sabbath day because he is the creator of it *Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5; John 1:1-4; 14; Colossians 1:16; Genesis 2:1-3. So in the scriptures above Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath day (not Sunday). The scriptures also show the claim of (3) Jesus and God's ownership of the Sabbath day * Isaiah 58:13; Exodus 31:12-18; Leviticus 19:30; Ezekiel 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:15; Leviticus 23:3; Exodus 31:15; Exodus 20:10. The scriptures provided in all three points above, collectively as a whole demonstrate that the Sabbath as shown through scripture is "the Lord's day" as described in Revelation 1:10 as "the Lords day" that Jesus claims authority over is the Sabbath day as he is the creator of it. God and Jesus also claiming ownership of the Sabbath as their Holy day of rest made at creation. The Lord' day therefore is the Sabbath day as this is the only day in scripture that Jesus claims authority and ownership over because he is the creator of it. Where as there is no scripture that links "the Lords day" to Sunday or the first day of the week.
Do you seriously think that John was playing games with his audience, and thinking to himself, "I know I received this revelation of the sabbath, but instead of using the word I always use for the sabbath, I'm going to use the term "the Lord's day" and let them try to figure out which day that was via an exegetical puzzle using other scriptures"?
The answer is found in the scriptures already provided to you. As posted earlier John in Revelation 1:10 application to "the Lords day" was referring not to just the Sabbath but Jesus as the creator God of the Sabbath and creator of heaven and earth. You were provided Johns application here and elsewhere in the bible from John 1:1-4; 14; John 8:58; John 17:5; John 5:16-18; and other scriptures agreeing with John in Colossians 1:16; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:1-2; which is the meaning of "the Lords day" that is the Lord's ownership of the Sabbath day and His authority as being the Lord (creator) of the Sabbath. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day - Matthew 12:8.
LoveGodsWord said: Instead of providing scripture to prove that the teaching and tradition of the early Church is supported by scripture all you have provided in this thread are questionable ambiguous references from the early Church from sources outside of the bible that is not scripture which are not definitive evidence showing that the scripture reference of "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is a reference to Sunday or the first day of the week.
Now the only way that definitive evidence can be provided to prove that "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is Sunday or the first day of the week is by proving that "the Lords day" is Sunday or the first day of the week from the scriptures. As we are discussing the scriptural meaning of "the Lords day" from the scriptures. All you have continued to provided in external references from the early Church which is what some people thought the meaning the Lords day was. This is the opinions of men outside of scripture that do not supply any scripture for their interpretation that "the Lords day" is Sunday or the first day of the week.
Your response here...
No, what I have done is to use the established principles of hermeneutics, which allows historical evidence to be considered. As the term 'the Lord's day" was commonly used by Christians in the first century it is obvious that John was using the same term to tell them which day he received his revelation.
You have missed the point here. You have not provided any definitive historical references to prove that Sunday is the interpretation of "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10. Perhaps take some time and re-read the post you are quoting from.
The historic evidence does not contradict scripture. It contradicts your theory that 'the Lord's day' in Rev 1:10 is the sabbath, an idea that NO respected commentary on Revelation agrees with (I have provided 26 so far).
No you haven't so we will agree to disagree. You have provided disputed claims from man-made documents with no dates and author that mysteriously turned up in 1870 that does not have "the Lords day" even written in the original Greek which is a disputed translation to "Lords day" that has no reference points to time that has been in dispute by various scholars for many years now. This is not historical evidence. You were not provided a theory for my position. You were provided scripture which provides the only true definition of "the Lords day" which according to the scriptures, is the Sabbath day (scriptures provided above and in the OP already). The only definitive proof on what "the Lords day" is therefore in scripture that defines scripture is the Sabbath day. In response, do you have any scripture that supports your teachings that "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is Sunday or the first day of the week? - Nope
I AM staying on topic. In your OP you gave us a flawed exposition of Rev 1:10. It is that which I am responding to. And I am fully entitled to do so.
Sorry I respectfully disagree with you. Actually no your not staying on topic. As posted in the OP already we know what the early teachings and traditions of some of the early Church were in regard's to their understanding of Revelation 1:10 "the Lords day" being Sunday or the first day of the week is already this was never in dispute. The purpose of this OP evaluate these claims to see if they are support by the scriptures or not supported in scripture. Do you have any scripture to prove that Sunday is the meaning of "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10?
I have already refuted that arguement by showing you numerous commentaries, BDAG, and ALL translators, all agreeing that Did 1:14 should be translated "the Lord's day"
Sorry but I respectfully disagree. Commentaries, are not the scripture from the bible which is what this OP is about. From BDAG you only posted references to some of the writings of the early church that are not scripture. The translators of the Didache are not going to come out and say woops I made a mistranslation now are they so that is a moot point. So what have you provided accept the teachings and traditions of men from outside of the bible that is not supported in the scriptures. As posted earlier we know what the early teachings and traditions of some of the early Church were in regard's to their understanding of Revelation 1:10 "the Lords day" being Sunday or the first day of the week is already this was never in dispute. The purpose of this OP evaluate these claims to see if they are support by the scriptures or not supported in scripture. Do you have any scripture to prove that Sunday is the meaning of "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10?
Discussing the Didache is not off-topic. As it one piece of evidence (there are many more) that refutes your exposition of Rev 1:10 in the OP.
I have indulged the discussion with you in regards to the Didache for friendly discussion but it is indeed off topic. The OP is in regards to proving if these claims that "the Lords day" is Sunday from the scriptures not from man made writings outside of the scriptures
In fact we will soon be discussing the other 1st century manuscripts which also demonstrate that "the Lord's day" is Sunday.
I am asking you to please respect this OP and not to go off topic to the discussion of the OP here. If you want you are welcome to start up another thread to discuss the early church writings. This OP is about proving from the scriptures if these claims are true or not true. Please respect this OP and stay on topic here. Do you have any scripture to support your claims that Sunday is "the Lords day"?
No, I am not wrong. I have already proved to you that the Wikipedia article does not contains any evidence of mistranslation. And you repeating the article for the 10th time will not alter that fact. That one sentence claiming mistranslation was just an anonymous user editing the page to make an unwarranted assertion with no cited reference to prove it (it wasn't you was it?). The only cited references in that section say the translation is correct!
I am sorry I respectfully disagree. So we will agree to disagree. As posted earlier. Wiki under the section of Ambiguous references in the section of Didache 14:1 is a summary of disputed claims to a mistranslation of Didache 14:1 being "the Lords day" as it is not in the original Greek. This has already been from various papers shown from Strand, Bacchiocci, Dugnmore, Geraty, Thibaut, Stefanovic and others showing that Didache 14.1 is a disputed translation of the Greek because "the Lord's day" is not in the Greek and there is no reference point to time. This is a discussion that has been taking place for many years now. The only definitive source of the true meaning of Revelation 1:10 that "the Lords day" means Sunday or the first day of the week can only be shown in scripture and you have provided none to support your teachings accept ambiguous references from sources outside of scripture that are not scripture.
You are completely wrong again. Did you not read the student's conclusions that you have just quoted? He does not say that 'the Lord's day' is the wrong translation. He accepts it is correct! And wisely so considering ALL Koine Greek scholars agree that is the correct translation.

"no one is 100% positive how the “Didachist” intended his phrase,“the Lord’s day” to be understood. "

"First, the existence of the phrase, “the Lord’s day” shows a level of familiarity within both the writers and the readers of second century Christianity."

"For the purposes of the Didache, this leaves me to conclude that “the Lord’s day” may have been part of the evolutionary process of its editors."

No not at all, I simply posted the complete conclusion section that was not saying what you were claiming earlier. What you posted above only proves my point to you. If no one knows what was really meant by "the Lord's of Lord" (English translation) of Didache 14.1 than an application of "the Lords day" when it is not written in the Greek and has no reference point to time is a disputed meaning. Which is why translation has been in dispute now for many years by different people.

..................

If you could respect the OP now and please stop going off topic it would be much appreciated. The OP topic is a discussion on what scriptures support the early Church's view that Sunday is "the Lords day".

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Now that is simply not true. Only the SDA Bacchiocci makes a (flawed) case for mistranslation. The SDA Stefanovic's only makes a 3 sentence assertion, citing Bacchiocci. He offers no evidence of his own. Strand only notes Bacchiocchi view, along with other views, he does not endorse it. Dugnmore and Geraty say the opposite - "the Lords day" is the correct translation! Until I see evidence that 19th Century catholic priest Thibaut is a qualified to comment on the Greek, I will reserve judgement on him. I am also trying to find a copy of his work to verify what it actually says. It seems to be found nowhere online which is unusual for a classical scholarly peice. At the moment we only have Bacchiocci's word.
That is not the definition of eisegesis. Eisegesis is the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.
I am sorry this is repetition already addressed in some detail elsewhere where I have shown why I believe your claim here were shown not to be true. So we will agree to disagree.
Definition of EISEGESIS Which is exactly what you did in the OP. Your idea is that "the Lord's day" in Rev 1:10 is the sabbath, something that is absent from the text. So you have performed exegetical acrobatics with other verses from scripture and then forced them into in Rev 1:10 to make it say sabbath.
Sorry I respectfully disagree with your claims here in regards to the scriptures provided in the OP that prove that "the Lords day" is the Sabbath day. As posted from the last post from the scriptures, the Greek word meaning of τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ translated as "the Lords day" means pertaining to the Lord or (1) the Lords ownership of the day from Revelation 1:10. The scriptures prove the (2) authority of Jesus to claim he is Lord of the Sabbath day because he is the creator of it *Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5; John 1:1-4; 14; Colossians 1:16; Genesis 2:1-3. So in the scriptures above Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath day (not Sunday). The scriptures also show the claim of (3) Jesus and God's ownership of the Sabbath day * Isaiah 58:13; Exodus 31:12-18; Leviticus 19:30; Ezekiel 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:15; Leviticus 23:3; Exodus 31:15; Exodus 20:10.

The scriptures provided in all three points above, collectively as a whole demonstrate that the Sabbath as shown through scripture is "the Lord's day" as described in Revelation 1:10 as "the Lords day" that Jesus claims authority over is the Sabbath day as he is the creator of it. God and Jesus also claiming ownership of the Sabbath as their Holy day of rest made at creation. The Lord' day therefore is the Sabbath day as this is the only day in scripture that Jesus claims authority and ownership over because he is the creator of it. Where as there is no scripture that links "the Lords day" to Sunday or the first day of the week.

I already posted you the definition of eisegesis already in my post you are quoting from so not sure why you posted it here. As posted earlier the only definitive source of the true meaning of Revelation 1:10 that "the Lords day" means Sunday or the first day of the week can only be shown in scripture and you have provided none to support your teachings accept for ambiguous references from sources outside of scripture that are not scripture.

Perhaps go look up the meaning of biblical exegesis. Biblical exegesis is letting the scriptures speak for themselves and not reading into the scriptures what they do not say and do not teach. Eisegesis on the other hand is reading into the scriptures what the scripture does not say and does not teach. Like "the Lords day of Revelation 1:10 being Sunday or the first day of the week. This is why this OP is asking the hard questions. Where is the scripture that says Sunday is "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10. Let's be honest here. If you have no scripture to support your teachings that Sunday is "the Lords day" than all you have is eisegesis which is reading Sunday into the meaning of "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10.

On the other hand the scriptures provided in the OP speak for themselves showing Gods' authority and His claim in His own words to ownership of the Sabbath day which is the scriptural and Greek meaning "the Lord's day" in Revelation 1:10. Let's talk more when you have scripture that proves your teachings that "the Lord's day" of Revelation 1:10 which is the topic of this OP.
If John had meant the sabbath, he would have said 'the sabbath', the word he always uses for the sabbath. He would not be playing games with his audience and expect them to solve an exegetical puzzle in order to find out which day he received his revelation. No, he was using the term commonly used at the time among Christians to refer to Sunday, the day on which they met - a known historical fact.
I am sorry but I respectfully disagree. As shown earlier from the scriptures already, John in Revelation 1:10 application to "the Lords day" was referring not to just the Sabbath but Jesus as the creator God of the Sabbath and creator of heaven and earth. You were provided Johns application here and elsewhere in the bible from John 1:1-4; 14; John 8:58; John 17:5; John 5:16-18; and other scriptures agreeing with John in Colossians 1:16; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:1-2; which is the meaning of "the Lords day" that is the Lord's ownership of the Sabbath day and His authority as being the Lord (creator) of the Sabbath. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day - Matthew 12:8.

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
But technically, the gentiles were not subject to Mosaic laws, which was one reason the Hebrew nation kept to itself. The fact is, some Jewish Christians thought that Gentiles had to become Jews first by being circumcised. The Council of Jerusalem, the first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, decided against that, saying they only had to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols. So Gentiles were never subject to Mosaic law. The only laws were those Jesus taught, which is what he answered to the rich young man who wanted a formula (as you do, I might add), when he asked Jesus "What must I do to be saved?". Jesus told him he already knew what to do. Love God, and love your neighbor.

The question of the OP gets back to the question of whether or not Jesus gave mankind an authoritative body to deal with the questions that he knew would arise after His death. We know He did. He made Peter the first among the apostles, who were his equals, and told them "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." And "Who hears you hears me." Christ fulfilled the law, Christ is God, and so we worship God by worshiping Christ. From the day of the Resurrection, we worshiped Him on the First day, the Lord's Day, which is the same day in the Didache, and in Revelation, and anywhere else you find that phrase.

And I will leave it at that. If you don't want to, don't.

Gentiles are not saved and have no knowledge of Gods' word and will perish without God's Word or the law according to Paul in Romans 2:12-13. Gentile believers however are born of the Spirit and not of the flesh of the seed of Abraham and are grafted in to God's Israel under Gods new covenant promise *1 John 3:6-9; Romans 9:6-8; Hebrews 8:10-12; Romans 11:13-27. God's true Israel therefore are all those who through faith *Romans 3:31 believe and follow Gods' Word. If we do not believe and follow what God's Word says therefore we are not a part of God's true Israel according to Gods new covenant promise in Romans 9:6-8 and Hebrews 8:10-12. According to the scriptures breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments and not believing and following what God's Word says is sin *James 2:10-11; 1 John 3:4; Romans 14:23 and sin is the difference between the children of God and the children of the devil according to 1 John 3:9-10; 1 John 2:3-4; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:12 and Revelation 22:14. This of course includes God's 4th commandment that is one of God's 10 commandments *Exodus 20:8-11 that give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7. What is it in the scriptures here in this post that has been shared with you Jesse that you do not believe and why?

Take Care
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟252,547.00
Faith
Christian
Sorry I respectfully disagree with your claims here in regards to the scriptures provided in the OP that prove that "the Lords day" is the Sabbath day. As posted from the last post from the scriptures, the Greek word meaning of τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ translated as "the Lords day" means pertaining to the Lord or (1) the Lords ownership of the day from Revelation 1:10. The scriptures prove the (2) authority of Jesus to claim he is Lord of the Sabbath day because he is the creator of it *Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5; John 1:1-4; 14; Colossians 1:16; Genesis 2:1-3. So in the scriptures above Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath day (not Sunday). The scriptures also show the claim of (3) Jesus and God's ownership of the Sabbath day * Isaiah 58:13; Exodus 31:12-18; Leviticus 19:30; Ezekiel 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:15; Leviticus 23:3; Exodus 31:15; Exodus 20:10.

I'm afraid repeating your flawed interpretation all over again (for about the hundredth time) will not make it any more correct.

As posted earlier the only definitive source of the true meaning of Revelation 1:10 that "the Lords day" means Sunday or the first day of the week can only be shown in scripture and you have provided none to support your teachings accept for ambiguous references from sources outside of scripture that are not scripture.

No! Ignoring the historical context is not a sound method of bible interpretation.

If you won't buy a good book on hermeneutics such as those I recommended earlier, can you at least look at this webpage that outlines the basics of proper exegesis:

What is good biblical exegesis? | GotQuestions.org
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I'm afraid repeating your flawed interpretation all over again (for about the hundredth time) will not make it any more correct.
No! Ignoring the historical context is not a sound method of bible interpretation. If you won't buy a good book on hermeneutics such as those I recommended earlier, can you at least look at this webpage that outlines the basics of proper exegesis: What is good biblical exegesis? | GotQuestions.org

Thank you, but I have already provided you with the meanings of biblical exegesis and eisegesis in previous posts. All you have done is provide links that agree with what I have told you already that biblical exegesis is reading out of scripture what the scriptures actually say while eisegesis is reading the meaning into the scriptures when the scriptures do not say any such thing. Now let's apply those meaning to our OP discussion. You tell me how you get Sunday out of Revelation 1:10 from scripture that proves your not using eisegesis (reading Sunday into the scripture)? As posted earlier in the OP, I do not need to read into the scriptures to show that (1) the Greek word meaning of τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ translated as "the Lords day" means pertaining to the Lord or the Lords ownership of the day from Revelation 1:10. I do not need to read into the scriptures to show that (2) Jesus claims he is Lord of the Sabbath day because he is the creator of it *Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5; John 1:1-4; 14; Colossians 1:16; Genesis 2:1-3 and I do not need to read into the scriptures to show that (3) Jesus and God claim ownership of the Sabbath day * Isaiah 58:13; Exodus 31:12-18; Leviticus 19:30; Ezekiel 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:15; Leviticus 23:3; Exodus 31:15; Exodus 20:10. All of which agree to the interpretation provided from the scriptures alone in Revelation 1:10 that defines what day the Lord claims ownership which God's Word says is the Sabbath day. Now you show me from the scriptures alone, that your not reading into the scriptures (eisegesis) that Sunday is "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10. We should be careful to let the scriptures talk for themselves and not read into them (eisegesis) what they do not say and do not teach because only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29 and anything outside of scripture is not God's Word.

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Hezekiah81
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
3,986
1,751
58
Alabama
Visit site
✟376,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you kill animals for sacrifice? Did God personally write 600 laws on stone or Ten? Did Paul tell us what matters is God’s commandments 1 Cor 7:19
There is an error in thinking and teaching it is just the Ten that are written on the heart friend.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,127
4,257
USA
✟480,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There is an error in thinking and teaching it is just the Ten that are written on the heart friend.
Hi HIM!

Yes, I agree and am aware, I don't think I ever stated otherwise, but it also includes God's Ten. Some laws are shadow laws pointing to Christ as our sacrifice, like animal sacrifices, circumcision and annuals feasts days which many mistakenly think God's Ten Commandments ended and or all laws ended, which is simply not true and a dangerous way of thinking.
 
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
3,986
1,751
58
Alabama
Visit site
✟376,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
All Greek translators know that the word 'day' is often omitted in the Greek
Context and grammar must warrant it. Such is not the case in 14.1 in the Didache.

According to the Lord's what? You say it is reference to a day because others say it is reference to a day. Sadly not one of your said scholars is offering proof contextually. As a matter of fact the only contextual argument being offered proves other wise. That the clause "Κατὰ (according) κυριακὴν (Lord's)" contextually belongs to chapter 13 and should be read as follows.

13. 7. ἀργυρίου δὲ καὶ ἱματισμοῦ καὶ παντὸς κτήματος λαβὼν τὴν ἀπαρχήν, ὡς ἂν σοι δόξῃ, δὸς (give) κατὰ (according) τὴν (the) ἐντολήν (commandment) Κατὰ (according) κυριακὴν (Lord's).

14.1 δὲ (moreover) κυρίου (of Lord) συναχθέντες (gather together) κλάσατε (to break) ἄρτον (bread) καὶ (and) εὐχαριστήσατε (give thanks), προεξομολογησάμενοι (confessing) τὰ (the) παραπτώματα (offenses) ὑμῶν (of you),
in Didache 8:1 "Rather, fast on the fourth day" the word 'day' is missing in the Greek, it just says "the fourth" - the common word for Wednesday
If one takes the time to look at what you propose here one would see that it fits contextually and flows grammatically whereas to insert day in chapter 14 does not. It is also notable that the Preparation Day is mentioned in chapter 8 as a day to fast. If the Preparation Day is still being kept then so is the Sabbath. So what we have here is a proof text that not only was fasting being mandated but the Sabbath and the Preparation Day where still being observed. And that it is also being mandated to pray three times a day.

Now that is just on the surface. We have not even begun to look at the Greek it self for ourselves.

8:1 BUT do not let your fasts be with the hypocrites; 8 0 for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but do you fast on the fourth day and the Preparation.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,703
2,813
Midwest
✟305,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now that is simply not true.

Only the SDA Bacchiocci makes a (flawed) case for mistranslation.

The SDA Stefanovic's only makes a 3 sentence assertion, citing Bacchiocci. He offers no evidence of his own.

Strand only notes Bacchiocchi view, along with other views, he does not endorse it.

Dugnmore and Geraty say the opposite - "the Lords day" is the correct translation!

Until I see evidence that 19th Century catholic priest Thibaut is a qualified to comment on the Greek, I will reserve judgement on him. I am also trying to find a copy of his work to verify what it actually says. It seems to be found nowhere online which is unusual for a classical scholarly peice. At the moment we only have Bacchiocci's word.

That is not the definition of eisegesis. Eisegesis is the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.

Definition of EISEGESIS

Which is exactly what you did in the OP.

Your idea is that "the Lord's day" in Rev 1:10 is the sabbath, something that is absent from the text. So you have performed exegetical acrobatics with other verses from scripture and then forced them into in Rev 1:10 to make it say sabbath.

If John had meant the sabbath, he would have said 'the sabbath', the word he always uses for the sabbath. He would not be playing games with his audience and expect them to solve an exegetical puzzle in order to find out which day he received his revelation. No, he was using the term commonly used at the time among Christians to refer to Sunday, the day on which they met - a known historical fact.
I really enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. Keep fighting the good fight of faith and God bless you brother! :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hezekiah81

Christ died for me so I died for him
Aug 18, 2021
377
176
Texas
✟7,693.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This isn't about the two, the ten, or the total amount of righteous precepts God most high gives us to live by, it's about keeping the sabbath God sanctified not man, and telling man he can't abolish it. Who would want to abolish it, oh I know the lawless one.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I really enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. Keep fighting the good fight of faith and God bless you brother! :)
And why would that be? Do you have any scripture that shows that the man-made teaching and tradition of the early Church's understanding of Revelation 1:10 "the Lords day" means Sunday?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hezekiah81
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Context and grammar must warrant it. Such is not the case in 14.1 in the Didache.

According to the Lord's what? You say it is reference to a day because others say it is reference to a day. Sadly not one of your said scholars is offering proof contextually. As a matter of fact the only contextual argument being offered proves other wise. That the clause "Κατὰ (according) κυριακὴν (Lord's)" contextually belongs to chapter 13 and should be read as follows.

13. 7. ἀργυρίου δὲ καὶ ἱματισμοῦ καὶ παντὸς κτήματος λαβὼν τὴν ἀπαρχήν, ὡς ἂν σοι δόξῃ, δὸς (give) κατὰ (according) τὴν (the) ἐντολήν (commandment) Κατὰ (according) κυριακὴν (Lord's).

14.1 δὲ (moreover) κυρίου (of Lord) συναχθέντες (gather together) κλάσατε (to break) ἄρτον (bread) καὶ (and) εὐχαριστήσατε (give thanks), προεξομολογησάμενοι (confessing) τὰ (the) παραπτώματα (offenses) ὑμῶν (of you),
If one takes the time to look at what you propose here one would see that it fits contextually and flows grammatically whereas to insert day in chapter 14 does not. It is also notable that the Preparation Day is mentioned in chapter 8 as a day to fast. If the Preparation Day is still being kept then so is the Sabbath. So what we have here is a proof text that not only was fasting being mandated but the Sabbath and the Preparation Day where still being observed. And that it is also being mandated to pray three times a day.

Now that is just on the surface. We have not even begun to look at the Greek it self for ourselves.

8:1 BUT do not let your fasts be with the hypocrites; 8 0 for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but do you fast on the fourth day and the Preparation.

Very well written and good point in regards the "the Lords day" in Didache 14.1 not being in the original Greek or being supported to context, Greek flow and grammar :oldthumbsup:.

Furthermore and most importantly though there is no scripture that supports an interpretation that Revelation 1:10 "the Lords day" means Sunday or the first day of the week which is what the OP is seeking to discuss.

God bless
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: HIM
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Very well written and good point in regards the "the Lords day" in Didache 14.1 not being in the original Greek or being supported to context, Greek flow and grammar :oldthumbsup:.

Furthermore and most importantly though there is no scripture that supports an interpretation that Revelation 1:10 "the Lords day" means Sunday or the first day of the week which is what the OP is seeking to discuss.

God bless


Then what day of the week is the "Lord's Day", in your opinion?

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,



Col 2:16 Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body is of the Christ;


Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.




Early Church Fathers who lived before the Council of Nicaea comment on the Sabbath:


Ignatius of Antioch

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death—whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master(Letter to the Magnesians(shorter) Chapter IX.—Let us live with Christ [A.D. 110]).

During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathæa had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Longer Versions. Chapter IX.—Reference to the history of Christ.)

Justin Martyr

The Lawgiver is present, yet you do not see Him; to the poor the Gospel is preached, the blind see, yet you do not understand. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure.(Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Chapter XII.—The Jews violate the eternal law, and interpret ill that of Moses.)

For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us, —I speak of fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts?(Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Chapter XVIII.—Christians would observe the law, if they did not know why it was instituted. [A.D. 155]).

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday,1 all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day 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, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.(First Apology Chapter LXVII.—Weekly worship of the Christians. [A.D. 155]).

“Wherefore, Trypho, I will proclaim to you, and to those who wish to become proselytes, the divine message which I heard from that man. Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths? Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham. For when Abraham himself was in uncircumcision, he was justified and blessed by reason of the faith which he reposed in God, as the Scripture tells. Moreover, the Scriptures and the facts themselves compel us to admit that He received circumcision for a sign, and not for righteousness.(The Second Apology of Justin for the Christians Addressed to the Roman Senate. Chapter XXIII.—The opinion of the Jews regarding the law does an injury to God.)

“As, then, circumcision began with Abraham, and the Sabbath and sacrifices and offerings and feasts with Moses, and it has been proved they were enjoined on account of the hardness of your people’s heart, so it was necessary, in accordance with the Father’s will, that they should have an end in Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David; in Christ the Son of God, who was proclaimed as about to come to all the world, to be the everlasting law and the everlasting covenant, even as the forementioned prophecies show.(The Second Apology of Justin for the Christians Addressed to the Roman Senate. Chapter XLIII.—He concludes that the law had an end in Christ, who was born of the Virgin.)

Tertullian

“[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God”(An Answer to the Jews Chapter II.—The Law Anterior to Moses. [A.D. 203]).

It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary.For the Jews say, that from the beginning God sanctified the seventh day, by resting on it from all His works which He made; and that thence it was, likewise, that Moses said to the People: “Remember the day of the sabbaths, to sanctify it: every servile work ye shall not do therein, except what pertaineth unto life.” Whence we (Christians) understand that we still more ought to observe a sabbath from all “servile work” always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time. And through this arises the question for us, what sabbath God willed us to keep? For the Scriptures point to a sabbath eternal and a sabbath temporal. For Isaiah the prophet says, “Your sabbaths my soul hateth;” and in another place he says, “My sabbaths ye have profaned.”9 Whence we discern that the temporal sabbath is human, and the eternal sabbath is accounted divine; concerning which He predicts through Isaiah: “And there shall be,” He says, “month after month, and day after day, and sabbath after sabbath; and all flesh shall come to adore in Jerusalem, saith the Lord;” which we understand to have been fulfilled in the times of Christ, when “all flesh”—that is, every nation—“came to adore in Jerusalem” God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, as was predicted through the prophet: “Behold, proselytes through me shall go unto Thee.” Thus, therefore, before this temporal sabbath, there was withal an eternal sabbath foreshown and foretold; just as before the carnal circumcision there was withal a spiritual circumcision foreshown. In short, let them teach us, as we have already premised, that Adam observed the sabbath; or that Abel, when offering to God a holy victim, pleased Him by a religious reverence for the sabbath; or that Enoch, when translated, had been a keeper of the sabbath; or that Noah the ark-builder observed, on account of the deluge, an immense sabbath; or that Abraham, in observance of the sabbath, offered Isaac his son; or that Melchizedek in his priesthood received the law of the sabbath

But the Jews are sure to say, that ever since this precept was given through Moses, the observance has been binding. Manifest accordingly it is, that the precept was not eternal nor spiritual, but temporary, which would one day cease. In short, so true is it that it is not in the exemption from work of the sabbath—that is, of the seventh day—that the celebration of this solemnity is to consist, that Joshua the son of Nun, at the time that he was reducing the city Jericho by war, stated that he had received from God a precept to order the People that priests should carry the ark of the testament of God seven days, making the circuit of the city; and thus, when the seventh day’s circuit had been performed, the walls of the city would spontaneously fall. Which was so done; and when the space of the seventh day was finished, just as was predicted, down fell the walls of the city. Whence it is manifestly shown, that in the number of the seven days there intervened a sabbath-day. For seven days, whencesoever they may have commenced, must necessarily include within them a sabbath-day; on which day not only must the priests have worked, but the city must have been made a prey by the edge of the sword by all the people of Israel. Nor is it doubtful that they “wrought servile work,” when, in obedience to God’s precept, they drave the preys of war. For in the times of the Maccabees, too, they did bravely in fighting on the sabbaths, and routed their foreign foes, and recalled the law of their fathers to the primitive style of life by fighting on the sabbaths. Nor should I think it was any other law which they thus vindicated, than the one in which they remembered the existence of the prescript touching “the day of the sabbaths.” Whence it is manifest that the force of such precepts was temporary, and respected the necessity of present circumstances; and that it was not with a view to its observance in perpetuity that God formerly gave them such a law.(An Answer to the Jews Chapter IV.—Of the Observance of the Sabbath.)

Therefore, since it is manifest that a sabbath temporal was shown, and a sabbath eternal foretold; a circumcision carnal foretold, and a circumcision spiritual pre-indicated; a law temporal and a law eternal formally declared; sacrifices carnal and sacrifices spiritual foreshown; it follows that, after all these precepts had been given carnally, in time preceding, to the people Israel, there was to supervene a time whereat the precepts of the ancient Law and of the old ceremonies would cease, and the promise3 of the new law, and the recognition of spiritual sacrifices, and the promise of the New Testament, supervene;4 while the light from on high would beam upon us who were sitting in darkness, and were being detained in the shadow of death.5 And so there is incumbent on us a necessity6 binding us, since we have premised that a new law was predicted by the prophets, and that not such as had been already given to their fathers at the time when He led them forth from the land of Egypt,7 to show and prove, on the one hand, that that old Law has ceased, and on the other, that the promised new law is now in operation.

And, indeed, first we must inquire whether there be expected a giver of the new law, and an heir of the new testament, and a priest of the new sacrifices, and a purger of the new circumcision, and an observer of the eternal sabbath, to suppress the old law, and institute the new testament, and offer the new sacrifices, and repress the ancient ceremonies, and suppress8 the old circumcision together with its own sabbath, and announce the new kingdom which is not corruptible. Inquire, I say, we must, whether this giver of the new law, observer of the spiritual sabbath, priest of the eternal sacrifices, eternal ruler of the eternal kingdom, be come or no: that, if he is already come, service may have to be rendered him; if he is not yet come, he may have to be awaited, until by his advent it be manifest that the old Law’s precepts are suppressed, and that the beginnings of the new law ought to arise. And, primarily, we must lay it down that the ancient Law and the prophets could not have ceased, unless He were come who was constantly announced, through the same Law and through the same prophets, as to come.(An Answer to the Jews Chapter VI.—Of the Abolition and the Abolisher of the Old Law. [A.D. 203]).

But you, many of you, also under pretence sometimes of worshipping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sun-day to rejoicing, from a far different reason than Sun-worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they too go far away from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant.(Apology Chapter XVI.)


.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,127
4,257
USA
✟480,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
But technically, the gentiles were not subject to Mosaic laws, which was one reason the Hebrew nation kept to itself. The fact is, some Jewish Christians thought that Gentiles had to become Jews first by being circumcised. The Council of Jerusalem, the first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, decided against that, saying they only had to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols. So Gentiles were never subject to Mosaic law. The only laws were those Jesus taught, which is what he answered to the rich young man who wanted a formula (as you do, I might add), when he asked Jesus "What must I do to be saved?". Jesus told him he already knew what to do. Love God, and love your neighbor.

The question of the OP gets back to the question of whether or not Jesus gave mankind an authoritative body to deal with the questions that he knew would arise after His death. We know He did. He made Peter the first among the apostles, who were his equals, and told them "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." And "Who hears you hears me." Christ fulfilled the law, Christ is God, and so we worship God by worshiping Christ. From the day of the Resurrection, we worshiped Him on the First day, the Lord's Day, which is the same day in the Didache, and in Revelation, and anywhere else you find that phrase.

And I will leave it at that. If you don't want to, don't.

Jesus was not giving the authority to His disciples/Peter to change all the teaching that Jesus taught and led by example. There is no scripture that states this. His disciples do not have authority above God and we are told not to change one Word of God Proverbs 30:5,6 so His disciples were not and did not change the teachings of Jesus.

What is important is to follow the Word of God and the stories in the bible have significant meanings and warnings. For example the story of Cain and Abel. Both made sacrifices to God, but one followed and obeyed God and the other one made a sacrifice based on his own will. Which sacrifice did God accept? I think the warning from Jesus regarding worshipping God in vain by doing our own will and not the will of God by obeying traditions over God's commandments you might find yourself in a very similar situation to Cain and Abel. Matthew 15:3-9 There is no scripture in the entire bible telling us that God's Ten Commandments was abolished and we are free to sin. John in Revelations tells us the opposite that God's saints keep the Commandments of God and the faith in Jesus. Rev 14:12. Therefore Rev 1:10 is not about a new day of worship. The context in scripture does not support it nor does the scripture state it. God only claimed one holy day from the beginning Genesis 2:1-3 to the end Isaiah 66:23 and God does not change.

Here is a short video regarding Peter and scripture that is being left out regarding the church being built on Peter. God's church is built on God's Word.


God bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.