The Sabbath Day

[tall73]

There are major problems with the above translation. From http://www.cogwriter.com/ignatius.htm

"But is that correct?

Interestingly, like Lake and Hall/Napier, Dr. Lightfoot failed to translate Κατα, which is in the text [14] as "according to". Yet, Lightfoot did translate Κατα as "according to" in three other places in this letter (verses 3.1,10.1, 13.2 [15]). He also failed to do so in his translation of the Didache, where he began verse 14.1 with "And on" [16]--an apparently intentional and improper translation as discussed above (Lightfoot translated as "according to" five other times in the Didache [17]).

It is sad that these translators, all born in the 19th century, all decided to selectively change the meaning of a word.
While in Greece, I was able to verify that the word in koine Greek translated as “Lord’s Day” in both the Didache and the Letter to the Magnesians, κυριακήν, could not be translated as "Lord's Day" as the Greek word for day is not present in the texts nor required by the contexts for either.

Correct, though with one slight disagreement.

a. It is correct that the word for day is not there in the Greek, though it was in the later latin added in.

b. We know that in later centuries the word "today" in Greek ημερα was not needed in the phrase, and the word Lord's was itself used to represent the whole. The question is whether that was the case here.


Since the only extant Greek text does have the word ζωην the phrase does simply read "Lord's own life"

Furthermore, to better understand Ignatius' letter, we should look at more of the context and not just just separate verse 9.1. as some Sunday advocates have.

Yes, the context is speaking of the prophets of old, and it is not at all likely that they kept Sunday. I don't think it is speaking of them throughout, but at least immediately before this.

Here is my analysis of this text. It is part of a longer post on the Sabbath in early church history:

http://www.christianforums.com/t3026324&page=2

----------------
Igantius' letter to the Magnesians:

In chapter 9 of his letter Ignatius takes up the question of Sabbath observance. You can find the document here:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...m#P1394_249090


Ignatius wrote his letter during his time as bishop. He was stated to be Bishop during the reign of Trajan. In addition he states that he is to be martyred, having handed himself over to Trajan. The letter to the Magnesians likewise makes reference to him being bound. Since Trajan reigned from 98AD to 116 these are the dates that the epistle must fall into. The letters are usually dated to around 107 which was when the expedition of Trajan was believed to have been, at which time that he handed himself over. Some, with an alternate view of Trajan's expedition against the Parthians date the death of Ignatius at 116. Either way this was a document written just at the end, or just after the end of the apostolic period, since John died, as the last of the apostles, around 100 AD. The rest of the apostles would have been gone for a while.
--------------------
(The following info on the longer and shorter readings is taken from the introductory material to the Ignatius letters in Cleveland Coxe's Ante-Nicene Fathers, American edition)

There are shorter and longer versions of Ignatius. Opinions vary as to which is legitimate. There are two Greek recensions containing both the long and short versions. For some time scholars preferred the shorter. But the discovery of an old Syriac version also contained the longer reading, re-igniting the debate.
---------------------------------



Chapter IX.-Let Us Live with Christ.


Short
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things49 have come to the possession of a new50 hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance51 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,52 and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master-how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.53



Long
56 Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat."57 For say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread."58 But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.59 And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day,"60 on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, "whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things,"61 who are "lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."62 These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing up wealth63 insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!



This statement gives us some important information.

a. That Sunday was already recognized as the Lord's day at this time according to verse 59, in honor of the resurrection.

b. Whoever authored the longer portion does not think that Christians should keep Sabbath after the Jewish traditions that Jesus denounced, but does think that they should keep it. (lukewarm drinks, Sabbath day's journey etc. are repudiated.) Instead they were to celebrate it in a spiritual way in contemplation of the Scriptures etc.

Now back to the shorter reading. the Greek of vs. 50 does not support the reading given.


And here is a link to the Greek.

http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/i...nesians.htm#IX


Now a few notes:


a. there is no word for day, ημερα , it is supplied as a substantive.

b. The Greek manuscript discovered with Siniaticus actually has the word ζωην which is not present in this Greek version provided by the web site. They omitted this, assumedly following the Latin translations.

c. There is evidence from the next phrase "in which", which is in the feminine, that there is a feminine word being referenced.. The aforementioned ημερα, or ζωην could be that word. But since the one is clearly present in the Greek (ζωη&#957 but the other is not present in any Greek text, but was assumed, then the issue is rather clear.

d. The word translated as "no longer keeping the Sabbath" is just the participle form, leading some to suggest it could be translated literally Sabbatizing..

e. Moreover, as commentators have pointed out, the context is referring to the prophets of old. No one suggests that they kept Sunday. So the reading could be rendered:.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer sabbatizing, but living in the observance of the Lord's own life (or own way of living), by which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death-whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith ...
(Bacchiocchi takes this position in his work, From Sabbath to Sunday).

In this case the text is saying that the prophets lived according to the Lord's own way of life (keeping the Sabbath without the Jewish traditions).

If the longer reading is to be viewed as valid, then it harmonizes with this rendering well. If it is not valid then it was added later to clarify the text according to the later author's thinking. And it endorses the Sabbath, but not after the Jewish manner of legalism. He is telling them to keep the Sabbath, but not in the old way. And if not then he is simply saying to live after the Lord's way of life, and that of the prophets (not keeping the pharisaical traditions of the Sabbath).

 

[tall73]

This assessment is also consistent with later testimony from Jerome who mentioned that the Sabbath-keeping Christians he ran into did not adhere to the Jewish traditions--in other words, although they kept the Sabbath, the Nazarenes did not keep the Sabbath Judaically:

And the testimony of Mathetes to Diognetus who spoke against Pharisaical type requirements to not heal on Sabbath, etc.

 

[Sophia7]

...

 

[tall73]

Interestingly the Didache suffers from a similar situation, making it difficult to pin down any contemporary references to the Lord's day to compare with the usage in Revelation.

Again from my earlier post on the subject (earlier post can be found here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24304281&postcount=12 )


-----------

The Didache

While some date this text as early as 60-130 AD it is often now seen to be a document from the early second century. There are no clear references to events that can be dated. Instead the information that it is dated by is the doctrine etc. The doctrine of the Didache seems to be less developed than some later texts in regards to church structure, etc. compared to Ignatius, which either favors an earlier date, or a different location. However, it also makes reference to some material that is regarded as later. Here is a discussion of the later date:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/....html#viii.i.i
Since some see in it quotes from the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas they assign it to the second century.



14:1 But on the Lord's day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let not any one who hath a quarrel with his companion join with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be polluted, for it is that which is spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time offer unto me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles.


It says to assemble on the Lord’s Day. This is possibly the earliest reference to the Lord’s Day outside of Scripture. If you take the second century date then Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians would come before it. It does not, as some later texts do, mention anything about a replacement of Sabbath with Sunday.

But here, as with Ignatius, there is also a translation issue. Here is the Greek text:

http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/didache.htm

The beginning of chapter 14 is the text in question. Notice that the reading is κατα κυριακην δε κυριου ( Kata Kuriakhn de kuriou.)

This is the part rendered "but on the Lord's day", but again ημερα does not occur. Nor in fact is it just left out, assumed to be substantival. Instead it literally says "but/and according to the Lord’s (missing or assumed word) of the Lord" This is, to say the least an obscure phrase. Here is a discussion of the texts in the B-Greek list that speaks about the issue:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...er/027171.html


He is quoting the Lord in his statement about leaving your sacrifice at the altar and going to be reconciled with your brother before worship. So perhaps the word is something related to the teaching or command of the Lord.

In any case it is not clear what is meant, nor does it associate the Lord’s Day with any calendar day. Some think it could be a reference to Pascha.

 

[tall73]

Adventists do not teach it was Constantine who changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. He only made Sunday a civil observence.

It was the papacy who made the transference from Saturday to Sunday. The Roman Catholic Church claims it as the proof of her authority. And the bible confirms it.

On a practical level many Adventists do teach it, though I noted exceptions. Since Bacchiocchi's research most have realized that it was not just one even or even one thing that changed it. And there is no definite evidence to suggest that the papacy changed it, as we have for instance in the change of the passover reckoning.

Instead we have a number of varying views on the day, starting quite early.

I know apostasy creeped into the early christian church particularly in Rome and Alexandria. But the christian in Judea and Antioch continued to keep the 7th day sabbath into the fifth century until they were persecuted and driven to seclusion by the papal power.

Now if you mean that the papacy had a part in making Sunday worship more widespread, then I could agree with that.

Bible and history tell us who's responsible for the change. What Bacchiocchi thinks is irrelevant. I can not accept the revisionists' view which absolves the papal responsibility on the change.

You have shown no evidence that the pope was responsible for the change. In fact, the closest we have to an official proclamation was the council of Laodicea, which was a regional, not ecumenical council, and which was mainly made up of Eastern bishops.

Council of Laodicea
Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord's Day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians (canon 29 [A.D. 360]).


It was not endorsed by the papacy and therefore is considered by them a regional synod, but it shows that the sentiment was already quite in place.

Now you do have later popes making plain their stance on the subject, even as recently as Pope John Paul II.

And of course quotes like this one from a pope show that there was repression of it far earlier :


Post Nicene Fathers, Series II book VIII, page 13, late 6th century, early 7th.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf213.htm


Gregory, servant of the servants of God, to his most beloved sons the Roman citizens.
It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be had in reverence; and, because he compels the people to judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed.

But that does not mean that the Papacy was solely responsible.

We don't have evidence to support the papacy being the major force behind the change.

We do, as you said, have evidence for Rome and Alexandria being early places where Sabbath observance was dropped, Sabbath fasting encouraged, etc.

Barnabas, as I already noted, and Justin Martyr, even by the mid first century show that Christians were meeting on Sunday. Of course, they have somewhat different explanations. And both are a bit confused.

But the CC's policy has been to make dogma based on historical tradition.Therefore to say that the earlier "corruption" as you put it did not play a major role is not true.

Nor do I at all see why you think that Bacchiocchi is being revisionist by noting early examples of Sunday keeping.
---------------

The First Apology of Justin Martyr

The letter was addressed to Antoninus Pius, so this dates the writing from between 138-161.

Justin lays out a thorough defense of the Christians to the emperor who has been unduly persecuting the church as criminals. It is truly a heroic work. In it he makes some of the first reference to the definite rituals surrounding the Lord's Day in the early church. Here is the quote from chapter 67


And on the day called
Sunday, 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 succors the orphans and widows and those who,
342
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 Savior 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.


Here is noted that the Christians meet on Sunday. He says that this is so because it was the first day on which at creation God made the world. This is not a terribly biblical argument, since the original Sabbath was the 7th because of the completed creation. He also notes the more traditional reason of it being the day of the resurrection. He makes no note about the 8th day argument which Ignatius and Barnabas used. So it seems that there is still no universal rationale.

Some have noted particularly the last part of the statement, regarding what Jesus taught His disciples as proof that the Sunday concept was in fact from Jesus Himself. However, when looking in context it is clear that this statement is in fact the conclusion of a whole section, starting at the end of chapter 14 in which a summary of the teachings of Christ is given. Most of these have direct quotes from Jesus to substantiate them. So the statement is simply wrapping up that part of the document. And it is noteworthy that there is no statement of Jesus cited, or any biblical reason at all cited, for observance of Sunday, other than the rather illogical one of the first day of the creation.
[FONT=&quot].


[/FONT]

 

[tall73]

As to Jesus manner of Sabbath keeping, I will quote from an earlier answer (I keep a lot of pre-typed responses in a Sabbath thread that I refer to often for talking to people in GT, http://www.christianforums.com/t3026324-sabbath.html )




Many of the references to the Sabbath in the gospels are accounts of Jesus coming into conflict with the religious leaders of His day over His activities on the Sabbath, and those of His disciples. In particular there are several pericopes that record Jesus healing on the Sabbath. These texts show:

Jesus was reforming the Sabbath from burdensome requirements of human tradition. making it the blessing to man that it was intended to be, rather than a curse.

b. Jesus was showing His desire to fulfill the redemptive meaning of the Sabbath by freeing the captives on that day.



Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath."
Mat 12:3 He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him:
Mat 12:4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?
Mat 12:5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?
Mat 12:6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.
Mat 12:7 And if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mat 12:8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."

There are a couple of things going on here. Some contend that Jesus is asserting His Lordship over the Sabbath, indicating that He need not keep it. But this does not fully take into account Jesus' answer. He quotes two examples of people on the Lord's business who do what would normally not be done on the Sabbath who were guiltless, doing the work of God.

In fact the priests stepped up their activity on Sabbath, with even more sacrfices. The Sabbath was a day of salvation activity, even more than other days.

More than that, he showed that they were more interested in legalistic interpretations than the mercy of God, making the day a burden. They did not understand that God desires mercy more than sacrifice.

Finally Jesus asserts that He is greater than the temple, or the Sabbath, or David, and He is certainly not breaking His own law.

The account in Mark adds the following:

Mar 2:27 And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

Jesus clearly points out the intention of the Sabbath, to be a day of rest for man to spend with his Creator and Redeemer, not a day to be a burden. Jesus restores the Sabbath, freeing it from the legalistic laws imposed on it. He does not show any sign that it is to be done away with, but in fact reminds the people that the Sabbath was given as a blessing. It still is a blessing, and there is still a need of rest.



Mat 12:9 He went on from there and entered their synagogue.
Mat 12:10 And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse him.
Mat 12:11 He said to them, "Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out?
Mat 12:12 Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Mat 12:13 Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other.
Mat 12:14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

Here Jesus shows again the lack of mercy of the pharisees. They had turned the day into a curse. Jesus instead says the Sabbath is for doing good. In fact, He highlighted His healing ministry on the Sabbath. It is not wrong to do well, to heal, on the Sabbath. He shows this by using an example of a sheep. Even those who heard had to admit they had distorted the Sabbath.


Mar 1:21 And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching.
Mar 1:22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.
Mar 1:23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out,
Mar 1:24 "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God."
Mar 1:25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!"
Mar 1:26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him.
Mar 1:27 And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him."
Mar 1:28 And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.
Mar 1:29 And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
Mar 1:30 Now Simon's mother-in-law lay ill with a fever, and immediately they told him about her.
Mar 1:31 And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her, and she began to serve them.
Mar 1:32 That evening at sundown they brought to him all who were sick or oppressed by demons.
Mar 1:33 And the whole city was gathered together at the door.
Mar 1:34 And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.
Mar 1:35 And rising very early in the morning, while it was still dark, he departed and went out to a desolate place, and there he prayed.

Here we see much redemptive work of Jesus on the Sabbath. He healed Peter's mother-in-law with no qualms on the Sabbath. But as we already saw, healing was not a violation of the Sabbath. If anything it was indicative of the redemptive, freeing, work that the Sabbath was all about.


Luk 13:10 Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath.
Luk 13:11 And there was a woman who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself.
Luk 13:12 When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, "Woman, you are freed from your disability."
Luk 13:13 And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God.
Luk 13:14 But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, "There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day."
Luk 13:15 Then the Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it?
Luk 13:16 And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?"
Luk 13:17 As he said these things, all his adversaries were put to shame, and all the people rejoiced at all the glorious things that were done by him.

Jesus again shames those who impose rules that make God out to be a tyrant. Those who would keep the woman bound would not even do the same with their animals. The Sabbath command references even the needs of animals and servants, and this spirit is recalled by Jesus' application here.



Joh 5:7 The sick man answered him, "Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me."
Joh 5:8 Jesus said to him, "Get up, take up your bed, and walk."
Joh 5:9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked. Now that day was the Sabbath.
Joh 5:10 So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed."
Joh 5:11 But he answered them, "The man who healed me, that man said to me, 'Take up your bed, and walk.'"
Joh 5:12 They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, 'Take up your bed and walk'?"
Joh 5:13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.
Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you."
Joh 5:15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.
Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Here Jesus is accused of breaking the Sabbath, but He points out God's work of salvation every day. He is merely doing the same. Just as they reject His claim to be the Son of God, they reject that He is doing the work of God, but are they right? Clearly we would say no.




Joh 7:21 Jesus answered them, "I did one deed, and you all marvel at it.
Joh 7:22 Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath.
Joh 7:23 If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well?
Joh 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."

Jesus now appeals to the law of Moses to show that healing is not a violation of the Sabbath.

Jesus went out of His way to heal repeatedly on the Sabbath, in order to bring the legalistic trends of men into light, and restore the Sabbath to its original meaning.

 

[tall73]

Even Irenaeus defends Jesus and the disciples on charges of Sabbath breaking:

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 4, chapter 8

For the Lord vindicated Abraham's posterity by loosing them from
bondage and calling them to salvation, as He did in the case of the woman
whom He healed, saying openly to those who had not faith like Abraham,
"Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath-days loose his ox
or his ass, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman,
being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound these eighteen
years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath-days?" It is clear therefore,
that He loosed and vivified those who believe in Him as Abraham did,
doing nothing contrary to the law when He healed upon the Sabbath-day.
For the law did not prohibit men from being healed upon the Sabbaths; [on
the contrary,] it even circumcised them upon that day, and gave command
that the offices should be performed by the priests for the people; yea, it
did not disallow the healing even of dumb animals. Both at Siloam and on
frequent subsequent occasions, did He perform cures upon the Sabbath;
and for this reason many used to resort to Him on the Sabbath-days. For
the law commanded them to abstain from every servile work, that is, from
all grasping after wealth which is procured by trading and by other worldly
business; but it exhorted them to attend to the exercises of the soul, which
consist in reflection, and to addresses of a beneficial kind for their
neighbors' benefit. And therefore the Lord reproved those who unjustly
blamed Him for having healed upon the Sabbath-days. For He did not
make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high
priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick,
and Himself suffering death, that exiled man might go forth from
condemnation, and might return without fear to his own inheritance.
3. And again, the law did not forbid those who were hungry on the
Sabbath-days to take food lying ready at hand: it did, however, forbid
them to reap and to gather into the barn. And therefore did the Lord say to
those who were blaming His disciples because they plucked and ate the
ears of corn, rubbing them in their hands, "Have ye not read this, what
David did, when himself was an hungered; how he went into the house of
937
God, and ate the shew-bread, and gave to those who were with him; which
it is not lawful to eat, but for the priests alone?" justifying His disciples
by the words of the law, and pointing out that it was lawful for the priests
to act freely. For David had been appointed a priest by God, although Saul
persecuted him. For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank. And all
the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor
houses, but serve God and the altar continually. Of whom Moses also
says in Deuteronomy, when blessing Levi, "Who said unto his father and
to his mother, I have not known thee; neither did he acknowledge his
brethren, and he disinherited his own sons: he kept Thy commandments,
and observed Thy covenant." But who are they that have left father and
mother, and have said adieu to all their neighbors, on account of the word
of God and His covenant, unless the disciples of the Lord? Of whom again
Moses says, "They shall have no inheritance, for the Lord Himself is their
inheritance." And again, "The priests the Levites shall have no part in the
whole tribe of Levi, nor substance with Israel; their substance is the
offerings (fructifications) of the Lord: these shall they eat." Wherefore also
Paul says, "I do not seek after a gift, but I seek after fruit." To His
disciples He said, who had a priesthood of the Lord, to whom it was
lawful when hungry to eat the ears of corn, "For the workman is worthy
of his meat." And the priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath, and were
blameless. Wherefore, then, were they blameless? Because when in the
temple they were not engaged in secular affairs, but in the service of the
Lord, fulfilling the law, but not going beyond it, as that man did, who of
his own accord carried dry wood into the camp of God, and was justly
stoned to death. "For every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be
hewn down, and cast into the fire;" and "whosoever shall defile the temple
of God, him shall God defile."

 

[tall73]

Bible and history tell us who's responsible for the change. What Bacchiocchi thinks is irrelevant. I can not accept the revisionists' view which absolves the papal responsibility on the change.

...He shall think to change times and law... Daniel 7:25.

That is a bit of circular reasoning though, isn't it?

The contention that it was the pope who changed the Sabbath is part of the evidence for identifying the little horn.

So therefore you can't then go back and use the prophecy itself to show that he historically changed the Sabbath. That was part of the identification process in the first place.

What we need is historical evidence that in fact he was the major player.

 

[OntheDL]

That is a bit of circular reasoning though, isn't it?

The contention that it was the pope who changed the Sabbath is part of the evidence for identifying the little horn.

So therefore you can't then go back and use the prophecy itself to show that he historically changed the Sabbath. That was part of the identification process in the first place.

What we need is historical evidence that in fact he was the major player.

In an earlier post I gave the Catholic document that shows the pope issued decree for the change. And the RCC claims the change was her act.

Yeah, the change was a part of the identification of the little horn. But history of the change is not essential to the understanding of Daniel and Revelation. History is written by victors. The record of men or the lack of it does not overwrite the record of inspiration.

Why would somone want to play the Devil's advocates on this?

 

[tall73]

In an earlier post I gave the Catholic document that shows the pope issued decree for the change. And the RCC claims the change was her act.

different thread or this one?

If you get a chance, please re-post.

Yeah, the change was a part of the identification of the little horn. But history of the change is not essential to the understanding of Daniel and Revelation.

If it is part of the identification criteria, I would think it would be.

History is written by victors. The record of men or the lack of it does not overwrite the record of inspiration.

I assume in this case when you speak of the record of inspiration, you are referencing the aforementioned text in Daniel. But the text does not say that the pope changed the Sabbath. The question then is whether that verse is in fact referring to that or something else. If we are to assert that it is we need direct evidence.

Whatever we may see regarding the church's change, it is clear it was fairly early that Sunday came on the scene.

Why would somone want to play the Devil's advocates on this?

Because every claim that we make that we don't back up kills credibility with our audience.

As an example, I have heard a number of Adventist Evangelists use the text in I Corinthians that states that we are God's temple, and God will destroy those who destroy his temple when speaking on the health message. But upon investigation that text is not speaking of the health message, but about division and in-fighting in the church. And when someone who knows the passage well hears that argument the evangelist loses credibility, not just on the particular point, but in general. It raises questions of how intellectually honest the evangelist might be on other claims.

I have even asked a particular evangelist or two who I came into contact with while doing meetings about the context, and one of them said that they were in fact aware of the context but that the text made a good proof text! Obviously not all evangelists do that. But when one does it hurts credibility for us all.

If we are going to say something as controversial as the papacy being the anti-christ we better make sure we can back it up with evidence. I think we have some evidence on other of the criteria. But I am looking for clear evidence that we can apply that statement in the prophecy to the changing of the Sabbath.

I am more than willing to look at evidence that the papacy was the direct agent in the change. I am just not aware of any. We do have the papacy in conflict with the quartodecimans, and even excommunicating them for a bit before intervention was made on their behalf. The papacy clearly led the charge in that dispute. But do we have similar evidence for the Sabbath question?

It seems more likely that we have a picture of slow change due to a number of factors that eventually led to the practice being the general practice of the church.

And since the biblical text does not say what time or law is changed I am not at all contradicting the Scriptures. I am trying to make sure we don't just assume our view is right and then use that conclusion to make historical inferences. That is the reverse of how it should be done.

 

[Jon0388g]

I assume in this case when you speak of the record of inspiration, you are referencing the aforementioned text in Daniel. But the text does not say that the pope changed the Sabbath. The question then is whether that verse is in fact referring to that or something else. If we are to assert that it is we need direct evidence.

Doesn't the Catholic version of the Bible have an edited version of the Ten Commandments?

The quotes by OntheDL are http://www.christianforums.com/t4611511 post number 2.

Especially:

"The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate (change) laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." --- Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop."

If we are going to say something as controversial as the papacy being the anti-christ we better make sure we can back it up with evidence. I think we have some evidence on other of the criteria. But I am looking for clear evidence that we can apply that statement in the prophecy to the changing of the Sabbath.

I am more than willing to look at evidence that the papacy was the direct agent in the change. I am just not aware of any. We do have the papacy in conflict with the quartodecimans, and even excommunicating them for a bit before intervention was made on their behalf. The papacy clearly led the charge in that dispute. But do we have similar evidence for the Sabbath question?

It seems more likely that we have a picture of slow change due to a number of factors that eventually led to the practice being the general practice of the church.

And since the biblical text does not say what time or law is changed I am not at all contradicting the Scriptures. I am trying to make sure we don't just assume our view is right and then use that conclusion to make historical inferences. That is the reverse of how it should be done.

I agree. Although I think it is pretty blatant what has been changed.

Jon

 

[Jimlarmore]

Doesn't the Catholic version of the Bible have an edited version of the Ten Commandments?

The quotes by OntheDL are http://www.christianforums.com/t4611511 post number 2.

Especially:

"The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate (change) laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." --- Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop."

Saying the pope has the power to do it and proving that he used that power to do what we claim is another thing. The converts catachism makes it clear that the catholic church changed the day from Saturday to sunday. By indirect ways we could say that anything that significant would have to have received the Pope's approval but we need some historical support for that.

I think the council of Laodecia placed sunday worhsip as a part of official Catholic doctrine but how much of that decision was papal again is unknown. Was it a joint decision by all the leaders or a papal decision only? I know this sounds like splitting hairs and I agree but like Tall73 said we need to be dead on correct when we make a statement about this kind of thing. I truely believe the Catholic Church represents the power of antichrist. However, is the pope himself the antichrist?



God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[OntheDL]

"Pope Sylvester instructed the clergy to keep the feriae. And, indeed, from an old custom he called the first day the "Lord's," on which the light was made in the beginning and also the resurrection of Christ is celebrated." --- Liber de Computo (A book Concerning Computation), Chap. XXVII ("Concerning Festivals"), Rabanus Maurus, translated by the writer from the Latin text in Migne's Patrologia Latina, Vol. CVII, col. 682.

​

"Pope Sylvester first among the Romans ordered that the names of the days, which they previously called after the name of their gods, that is, of the Sun, of the Moon, of Mars, of Mercury, of Jupiter, of Venus, of Saturn, they should call feriae thereafter, that is the first feria, the second feria, the third feria, the fourth feria, the fifth feria, the sixth feria, because that in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God said concerning each day: on the first, "Let there be light:; on the second, "Let there be a firmament"; on the third, "Let the earth bring forth verdure"; etc. But he ordered to call the Sabbath by the ancient term of the law, the first feria the "Lord's day," because on it the Lord rose, Moreover, the same pope decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day, in order that on that day we should rest from worldly works for the praise of God. --- De Clericorum Institutione (Concerning the Instruction of the Clergymen), Book II, Chap. XLVI, as translated by the writer from the Latin text in Migne's Patrologia Latina, Vol. CVII, col. 361.

"Statuit autem idem papa ut otium Sabbati magis in diem Dominicam transferretur, ut ea die a terrenis operibus ad laudandum Deum vacaremus." Original Latin words for: "the same pope decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day.

Pope Sylvester I reigned 314-335.

Rabanus Maurus was the Archbishop of Mainz, 776-856, considered an authority in patristics and papal teachings.

Catholic publishing Daily Catholic confirmed this:

"It was St. Sylvester who instituted Sunday as the sabbath in recognition with the Resurrection of Our Lord." --- Daily Catholic, Sunday Dec 31, 2000, on the 1665th anniversary of the death of Pope Sylvester I.

 

[OntheDL]

different thread or this one?

If you get a chance, please re-post.

See the above post.

If it is part of the identification criteria, I would think it would be.

I assume in this case when you speak of the record of inspiration, you are referencing the aforementioned text in Daniel. But the text does not say that the pope changed the Sabbath. The question then is whether that verse is in fact referring to that or something else. If we are to assert that it is we need direct evidence.

Whatever we may see regarding the church's change, it is clear it was fairly early that Sunday came on the scene.

Because every claim that we make that we don't back up kills credibility with our audience.

As an example, I have heard a number of Adventist Evangelists use the text in I Corinthians that states that we are God's temple, and God will destroy those who destroy his temple when speaking on the health message. But upon investigation that text is not speaking of the health message, but about division and in-fighting in the church. And when someone who knows the passage well hears that argument the evangelist loses credibility, not just on the particular point, but in general. It raises questions of how intellectually honest the evangelist might be on other claims.

I have even asked a particular evangelist or two who I came into contact with while doing meetings about the context, and one of them said that they were in fact aware of the context but that the text made a good proof text! Obviously not all evangelists do that. But when one does it hurts credibility for us all.

If we are going to say something as controversial as the papacy being the anti-christ we better make sure we can back it up with evidence. I think we have some evidence on other of the criteria. But I am looking for clear evidence that we can apply that statement in the prophecy to the changing of the Sabbath.

I am more than willing to look at evidence that the papacy was the direct agent in the change. I am just not aware of any. We do have the papacy in conflict with the quartodecimans, and even excommunicating them for a bit before intervention was made on their behalf. The papacy clearly led the charge in that dispute. But do we have similar evidence for the Sabbath question?

It seems more likely that we have a picture of slow change due to a number of factors that eventually led to the practice being the general practice of the church.

And since the biblical text does not say what time or law is changed I am not at all contradicting the Scriptures. I am trying to make sure we don't just assume our view is right and then use that conclusion to make historical inferences. That is the reverse of how it should be done.

The identification of the 'Little Horn Power' is not solely based upon Dan 7:25 '...he shall think to change times and law...'

If it were, there'd be a burden of proof. But that's not the case: throughout history, there is only one organization/power that fits all the criterias. The odd of coincidence is astronomical.

In the previous post, I provided the quotes that Pope Sylvester I decreed the changed. But it was not necesary for the proof. Because numerous Catholic sources admit the change was her act. In the court of law, the admision of guilt is more significant than a finger print on the murder weapon.

 

[djconklin]

In the court of law, the admision of guilt is more significant than a finger print on the murder weapon.

Hmmm, good point!

I thought Dr. Bacchiocchi (who IS NOT a Jesuit spy!) showed that the Sabbath was changed in practice in Rome and Alexandria ab't 135 A.D.?

 

[tall73]

I think the council of Laodecia placed sunday worhsip as a part of official Catholic doctrine but how much of that decision was papal again is unknown. Was it a joint decision by all the leaders or a papal decision only? I know this sounds like splitting hairs and I agree but like Tall73 said we need to be dead on correct when we make a statement about this kind of thing. I truely believe the Catholic Church represents the power of antichrist. However, is the pope himself the antichrist?

The pope never attended or approved the council of Laodicea, which is why the CC considers it a regional synod. It could not be a council in the proper sense without the pope's approval.

As to your assessment, I am leaving it open. Yes, some could refer to the system, some to the head. I am just waiting for more specific evidence if there is any to make the claim on this particular point.

 

[tall73]

See the above post.



The identification of the 'Little Horn Power' is not solely based upon Dan 7:25 '...he shall think to change times and law...'

If it were, there'd be a burden of proof. But that's not the case: throughout history, there is only one organization/power that fits all the criterias. The odd of coincidence is astronomical.

In the previous post, I provided the quotes that Pope Sylvester I decreed the changed. But it was not necesary for the proof. Because numerous Catholic sources admit the change was her act. In the court of law, the admision of guilt is more significant than a finger print on the murder weapon.

A. I already noted a number of other criteria that are not in discussion here. But EVERY point that is made must be backed with facts or else we lose credibility.

B. What is generally admitted is that the church changed it, as was in fact noted by Jim. The pope RECOGNIZED and existing circumstance.

 

[tall73]

"Pope Sylvester instructed the clergy to keep the feriae. And, indeed, from an old custom he called the first day the "Lord's," on which the light was made in the beginning and also the resurrection of Christ is celebrated." --- Liber de Computo (A book Concerning Computation), Chap. XXVII ("Concerning Festivals"), Rabanus Maurus, translated by the writer from the Latin text in Migne's Patrologia Latina, Vol. CVII, col. 682.
​

I have highlighted the key portion. How old does a custom have to be to be old in the 4th century?

As already noted more than once the pope was recognizing what was already present in Rome and Alexandria. If he in fact changed the day so completely in his day, why was it still not being practiced in the next centuy when Scholasticus wrote?

But this raises another issue. When do Adventists see the rise of papal power taking place?

Was everyone that in retrospect was called pope a "pope" ? (Ie, even Peter, Clement, Linus, etc. were called pope in later times, though we would likely dispute the notion that the papacy was an original institution.)

​

 

[djconklin]

Sozomen (5th century) also noted that people in Rome and Alexandria stopped keeping the Sabbath for some unknown (my word) reason way in the past.

 

[OntheDL]

One additional source on Pope Sylvester I...

'Pope Sylvester sent two legates, and apparently himself suggested the term consubstantial to describe the relation of Christ's nature to the Father. Condemning Arius, the Council wrote the famous Nicene Creed, which proclaims the Jesus is 'true God, consubstantial with the Father.'

'Pope Sylvester I also is known for instituting Sunday as a holy day in memory of the Resurrection, and for creating the "Iron Cross" with a nail from the Holy Cross. He was the first pope to wear the tiara. A great store of legends has grown up around the man who was pope at the most important time in church history. Only a very strong and wise man could have preserved the essential independence of the Church in the face of the owerpowering figure of the Emperor constantine. ' --- Who was St. Sylvester? St. Sylvester perish.