Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

[tall73]

So how do we labor to enter into the rest from works? Isn't that an oxymoron?

No more than Phil. 2:12 and 13. Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to do according to His good purpose.

There is a work to be done. It is to come close to Christ in faith, to walk by His Spirit and to put away sin, being crucified in the flesh.

But it is not the same work as legalism which is to focus on the law rather than Christ.

Moreover, for the Hebrew believers it WAS a labor to have faith. They were being imprisoned, and persecuted, their possessions were taken. The whole point of the book is that they are to endure as Christ did, to the shedding of their blood, not falling back.


So no, there is no contradiction here. Moreover, why would we need to compare notes when I concede that it was used to mean Sabbath rest in other contexts? The point is that it IS a Sabbath rest. But it the Sabbath rest in the kingdom, the final rest, not the weekly one. Words are just words. Their definition is shaped by the context. So again, show how it fits to context to say it is the observance of the weekly sabbath that remains.

The truth is it cannot be. The very ones who entered the promised land, even those who fell who did not enter it, kept the weekly Sabbath more than once. So this was not in fact the rest spoken of that remained.

So unless you can make sense of the Sabbath rest here with the rest of chapter 3 and 4 then it is simply not something that fits. It is an imposed understanding based on the definition of one word, rather than reading what is there.

 

[tall73]

We are Saved by Grace but salvation is another matter altogether as this is the coperative interlacing of Faith and Works as it is said Faith without Works is Dead .....

You are going to have to go over how being saved, and salvation are separate.

But apart from that, I have no quarrel with James. Faith without works IS dead. Why? Because it is not truly faith. James said, "would such a faith save him?"

Moreover, I have said that grace also extends to Christ living by His Spirit in us. That is obedience. So again, no problem here. But if you think that your works add to salvation, that is a problem. They don't. To go by James again, once you break the law in one point you are guilty of all. No amount of your work will save you.
]

 

[TrustAndObey]

So unless you can make sense of the Sabbath rest here with the rest of chapter 3 and 4 then it is simply not something that fits. It is an imposed understanding based on the definition of one word, rather than reading what is there.

I have read what is there, several times. It's talking about God resting on the seventh day and how we should rest as God rested. "Day" is mentioned quite a few times Tall.

Laboring to enter into that rest...I've already been over this with Sophia. We are to prepare for the Sabbath day in advance. A lot of work has to be done to make sure you don't have to work on God's holy day.

Their definition is shaped by the context. So again, show how it fits to context to say it is the observance of the weekly sabbath that remains.

You know, sometimes I think you can totally OVERanalyze verses. The very next verse is the one telling us to cease from our work as God did from His. We're already told earlier in Hebrews 4 that God rested on the seventh day.

 

[Montalban]

you and the Romans differ

I agree. It actually boils down to either them or us. One has introduced novel teachings, the other has not.

Can you show in the bible either with example or precept the idea of Apostolic Succession?

I already mentioned (albeit without referencing where in Acts) the fact that the Aposltes chose 'another' to make up their number. The church writers; even those writing prior to the Bible mention obedience to one's bishop.
St. Ignatius, taught by St. Peter himself, and writing before the Bible was compiled wrote...

Epistle to the Ephesians

CHAPTER 5

5:1 For if I in a short time had such converse with your bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

This reflects the Epistle;

Titus 1:7 Since a bishop is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless–not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.



The Book of Acts shows the church being organised with a Council of Bishops in Jerusalem deciding to extend the message of God to the Gentiles. Bishops were created, and then Deacons (Acts 2:3-4)

The Church was one.

Acts 2

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.

45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

47 praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
(I've emphasised part of the text because the Apostle's teaching would not have been 'the Bible')

and is the Pope equal to the Bishops of the Eastern Church?

All bishops are equal, according to our church. The 'catholic' church, is in one sense the 'complete' church; a church headed by a bishop ( Catholic meant 'complete' when it was first used).

How do we check to see if a Bishop is in the faith or is teaching the truth? Where is the standard that we can see to insure people are not leading others astray, either on purpose or ignorantly?
Chris

The standard is the church; which I've noted Jesus said would not fail. The church, in this sense beign the community of all orthodox believers. Thus even when a council ruled against icons, the people held the faith, and the novel teaching rejected.

If it weren't so concerning the church, how do you know the Bible's authentic? It did not compile itself.

Here is a more lengthy work..
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.htm

 

[Cliff2]

Normann,
How much scripture has been posted that directly supports seventh-day Sabbath keeping? Now compare that to the verses that support Sunday obervance. And you want to claim that we don't know the Bible? Oh goodness. I'm also a KJV person and using it and nothing more I found it quite apparent that the Sabbath never changed - so what is your excuse?
I guess I gave you more credit than you deserved. I'm sure you are an intelligent guy, please give me a better argument that this.

- Pale

I have found a very good site that helps me to understand the Sabbath.

It is here

I suggest that as many as possible go in and visit this Sabbath site.

 

[Rut]

Thank you I shall go and read that

 

[Normann]

You must not have read the thread, there were several examples of sabbath keeping in the scriptures and that name "Saturday" has nothing to do with the sabbath except that it happens to be the day of the week that God's sabbath falls on in our calendar.

But you really should read the thread before making comments on subjects already answered.

Chris

No I guess I didn't read the thread, but I have done in-depth study of the Bible and You are right Saturday does not have anything to do with the Sabbath, neither does the calendar. The command is, work six days and rest the 7th! No one at all can keep the sabbath without first working six days.

Adam could not keep a Sabbath until he worked six days which if you want to use our calendar would be Sunday.

The Commandment to keep the Sabbath was not re-newed in the N. T. as all the others were. The doctrine of keeping the seventh day has no scriptual backing at all.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[Montalban]

Thank you I shall go and read that

You can also have a look at this site, which has links to others
http://www.carm.org/sda/teachings.htm

 

[Firebird73]

Sunday?

 

[Normann]

I give you Titus 3:10 but just in case someone with an open mind seeking the truth happens to read this thread I will continue to post for their sake.

As for today, this is Sunday and I'm going to church.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[Montalban]

Since you quoted my last segment of my Hebrews 4 study in making this comment I will ask the following:

A. Have you presented any extra biblical material that I should be considering in my analysis of Hebrews 4? If so I must have missed it.

No, you didn't miss 'it'. And again you wish to constrain the argument to Hebrews 4.

B. Did I make the argument in this section that we should only consider the Bible? In fact, my argument has been to show that tradition too shows a progression of ideas about the Sabbath.

Obviously you must reject that 'progression' otherwise you'd be worshipping on a Sunday; so to say that you would 'consider' work outside the Bible, I believe, is misleading.

C. I have made the claim in another post that the Bible should test later writings. And this is quite true. What is established as from God should test that which is not established, and which comes after.

As the Bible was compiled after St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, does this mean he should be used to test the Bible?
Individual works in the Bible were written after the Didache. What about their relationship?

D. Since it was your own church that made the scriptural canon why do you argue against it as though it were a bad thing?

I don't argue against my church

Do you disagree with the church in elevating the Scriptures as foundational documents, written by inspiration of God?

Are you suggesting that they would do so in the face of doing the opposite; ie. you must believe that they 'evelated' Scripture (which according to you promotes Saturday), whilst the church itself goes against this.

 

[Cliff2]

Thank you I shall go and read that

Let's know what you think.

 

[Montalban]

It is not moot at all. You pick and choose in your own tradition. Just as you picked Ignatius' comment about Sunday, but ignored that he still kept the Sabbath.

And St. Paul argued that it was not necessary to circumcise, but he still did this to one of his followers; out of a non-spiritual necessity (that of preaching in the Temple/to Jews)

And you pick the comments of Tertulian when he is considered orthodox, but dismiss him...though he is still an important figure for understanding his time, after he turns to a different view of the Trinity.

I am Orthodox and I recognise all Church Fathers held in common before the schism, that teach 'orthodox' doctrine regardless if they are western or eastern. Tertullian is a "Latin Father" and thus a Catholic can also lay claim to him. Your objection is unfounded.

The tradition shows a progression here,

No. It shows Sunday worship. A 'progression' would be if it changed from Sunday, to Monday, then to Thursday.

just as it did with papal succession.

Again your argument falls flat, as an Orthodox who doesn't believe in Catholic ideas of development of dogma, I still recognise Sunday worship.

The records don't even agree who the early popes were, in what order they came, etc. And even Catholic sources show that they were a list of bishops or elders, not called popes until a later time.

Irrelevant to this thread. In short, you're not debating 'the truth' of an argument, but 'the truth of an argument as presented by a particular debator'... you're rejecting the facts based on the person stating them.

These teachings were not handed down, they were pulled out by later generations. Generations who were selective, and worked according to their goals.

The same argument can be levelled at all Scripture. It is from tradition that we know which texts are authentic.



Sunday is 'the Lord's Day'

St. Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians

9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny -- a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher --

...

10:1 Therefore let us not be insensible to His goodness. For if He should imitate us according to our deeds, we are lost. For this cause, seeing that we are become His disciples, let us learn to live as beseemeth Christianity. For whoso is called by another name besides this, is not of God.

10:2 Therefore put away the vile leaven which hath waxed stale and sour, and betake yourselves to the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him,
that none among you grow putrid, seeing that by your savour ye shall be proved.
10:3 It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, wherein every tongue believed and was gathered together unto God.



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-lightfoot.html



The Epistle of Barnabas, written sometime after the year 80 says...

Barnabas 15:8
Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html



Justin Martyr's First Apology written sometime between 150-160

CHAPTER LXVII -- WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRISTIANS.



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, 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.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html



Justin Martyr's DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO

Chapter X

"Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html



Tertullian's An Answer to the Jews.

Chapter IV.-Of the Observance of the Sabbath.

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.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-19.htm#P2021_691723



These and others are given at

http://www.catholic.com/library/Sabbath_or_Sunday.asp

 

[tall73]

I have read what is there, several times. It's talking about God resting on the seventh day and how we should rest as God rested. "Day" is mentioned quite a few times Tall.

Indeed, and it is a new day. The Sabbath is not new. Moreover it is defined as "today."

Laboring to enter into that rest...I've already been over this with Sophia. We are to prepare for the Sabbath day in advance. A lot of work has to be done to make sure you don't have to work on God's holy day.

These were Jewish believers in danger of going back to Judaism. I don't think their biggest problem was that they didn't get their goat in the oven in time. The whole letter is an impassioned appeal to not fall back form their Christian profession. As much as it would be good for this to be an affirmation of the weekly Sabbath from a sabbatarian's perspective it is not. That is not the theme of the book, or of this chapter.

You know, sometimes I think you can totally OVERanalyze verses. The very next verse is the one telling us to cease from our work as God did from His. We're already told earlier in Hebrews 4 that God rested on the seventh day.

If anything over analyzing words is more a danger than over analyzing verses. Words are flexible, their use is varied and depends on everything around them. For that matter, as a denomination, we don't even traditionally hold to dictated verbal inspiration, though some within the denomination might. When I said that the context does not fit, yes it talks about resting. But why were those who were keeping the weekly Sabbath in the time of Moses exluded then? Why does it speak of resting on a new day called "today?" And most importantly why would he launch into a discussion of keeping the Sabbath in the middle of this appeal not to fall away due to a lack of faith as those in the desert did? Their sin was not breaking the Sabbath. It was a failure to trust in God's promise--which is a major theme in the book.

Try going through each chapter and outlining the major themes and see if you don't have a hard time fitting in the weekly Sabbath here as their key problem.

 

[tall73]

No, you didn't miss 'it'. And again you wish to constrain the argument to Hebrews 4.

I didn't constrain the argument to anything. I posted on numerous texts in this discussion. But since you quoted from my conclusion on Hebrews 4 I asked you why you stated what you did.

Obviously you must reject that 'progression' otherwise you'd be worshipping on a Sunday; so to say that you would 'consider' work outside the Bible, I believe, is misleading.

Consider as it should be, as an historical source, not an authoritative one. Yes, we have different presuppositions. But that does not mean I ignore the works. It means that I think it is odd that we see this slow replacement of one day with the other, not an immediate one, as would be seen if the apostles established it.

As the Bible was compiled after St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, does this mean he should be used to test the Bible?
Individual works in the Bible were written after the Didache. What about their relationship?

Compiled is not the issue. They were noted as inspired as individual works long before they were compiled, from their writing most of them. It was this noted inspiration and their sound authorship that was the basis for the choice. And it was also this that apparently ruled out the didache.

I don't argue against my church

But they elevated some works in the form of the canon, and yet most of those here who look at them seem to prefer to put the tradition above the scriptures, using them to determine what the scriptures mean.

Are you suggesting that they would do so in the face of doing the opposite; ie. you must believe that they 'evelated' Scripture (which according to you promotes Saturday), whilst the church itself goes against this.

I am stating that they elevated the books agreed by all to be inspired and foundational. And they simply read their new theology back in, so it was not a problem.

 

[tall73]

And St. Paul argued that it was not necessary to circumcise, but he still did this to one of his followers; out of a non-spiritual necessity (that of preaching in the Temple/to Jews)

Indeed. But did he put in print that it was what one should do? Rather he argued against circumcision. Moreover when he did make this exception he noted it as an exception. This was not the case here. Again, you wish to modify your own tradition.

I am Orthodox and I recognise all Church Fathers held in common before the schism, that teach 'orthodox' doctrine regardless if they are western or eastern. Tertullian is a "Latin Father" and thus a Catholic can also lay claim to him. Your objection is unfounded.

I was not at all referring to any kind of east/west division here. I am speaking of people accepting writings from those they later called a heretic. Now I have no idea whether the church of the east ever did consider him a heretic. I was speaking to a catholic and they did indeed take him to be a heretic in the end. Perhaps the problem is that you are responding to a post that was not intended for you. So it is not addressing your presuppositions. The Sabbath discussion is different for protestants, catholics and orthodox as their views of the Sabbath is different.

No. It shows Sunday worship. A 'progression' would be if it changed from Sunday, to Monday, then to Thursday.

There is a great difference between worship on Sunday and Sabbath, and worship on Sunday in PLACE of Sabbath. It is a progression.

Again your argument falls flat, as an Orthodox who doesn't believe in Catholic ideas of development of dogma, I still recognise Sunday worship.

And again you are replying to a response for someone else, who has different presuppositions. You don't accept it, she does. However, I will address your point in a bit from your own perspective. Why would you expect me to address her from your perspective when you were not even in mind when it was being written?

Irrelevant to this thread. In short, you're not debating 'the truth' of an argument, but 'the truth of an argument as presented by a particular debator'... you're rejecting the facts based on the person stating them.

No, I am tailoring my discussion to her needs as she accepts things that you do not.

The same argument can be levelled at all Scripture. It is from tradition that we know which texts are authentic.

It was not solely from the understanding of the time that they were selected, but from the recognition of their inspiration from the beginning. It was this recognition, not just their understanding, that shaped the canon. And since Peter called Paul's works Scripture from the start there was little doubt about that one. Nor was there really with those who were affirmed to be of apostolic authorship.

And there is a difference between selecting TEACHINGs and selecting writings.

But while we are on the topic I find the Eastern version of things easier to accept. It has less foreign material than the other. So on this we agree. But in speaking to those who accept the western tradition I must address their issues.

I will take up the question of the church fathers evidence again in a bit. It is easier to post these in segments as I go.

 

[tall73]

First of all if your only point is to say that there was Sunday worship going on, and that it came in rather early, I have no problem with that at all. The evidence clearly points to that. In fact, though most adventists would have a problem with it, it may in fact be that the reference in Revelation was to Sunday , or at least easter. However, my contention is that Sabbath was still observed along side it where Sunday worship was practiced, and that there was no command given to worship on Sunday. Nor does John make any reference to a replacement of the Sabbath.

So with that out of the way:

St. Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians

9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny -- a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher --

10:1 Therefore let us not be insensible to His goodness. For if He should imitate us according to our deeds, we are lost. For this cause, seeing that we are become His disciples, let us learn to live as beseemeth Christianity. For whoso is called by another name besides this, is not of God.

10:2 Therefore put away the vile leaven which hath waxed stale and sour, and betake yourselves to the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him,
that none among you grow putrid, seeing that by your savour ye shall be proved.
10:3 It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, wherein every tongue believed and was gathered together unto God.

Given that he already commended both weekly sabbath observance, but not after the jewish manner, and Sunday as a superior day, I have no problem with this. If anything it is up to you to explain why both of these seemingly contradictory statements co-exist. Of course, some point to interpolations, as noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

But since he stressed that they were not kept after the Jewish order then they are not really contradictory anyway. He kept the Sabbath in a non-legalistic way, and then went on to keep Sunday, which he saw as superior.

The Epistle of Barnabas, written sometime after the year 80 says...

Barnabas 15:8
Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html

The document is dated anywhere from the destruction of the temple in 70 AD to 130 after the Bar Kochba rebellion. I think it is generally recognized that by the end of that period there was a transition to Sunday over Sabbath BECAUSE of the anti-Jewish sentiments throughout the empire.

Justin Martyr's First Apology written sometime between 150-160

CHAPTER LXVII -- WEEKLY WORSHIP OF THE CHRISTIANS.



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, 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.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html






Justin Martyr's DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO

Chapter X

"Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html



Tertullian's An Answer to the Jews.

Chapter IV.-Of the Observance of the Sabbath.

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.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-19.htm#P2021_691723

Again all these are shaped by disputes with the Jews during a time of breaking ties with the Jewish faith.

None of these facts of a new creation, the 8th day, etc. are mentioned by the apostles in their writings to endorse a substitution. In fact Paul endorses the law as kept fully by those in the Spirit in Romans 7 and 8, and even makes reference to coveting, indicating reference to the 10 commandments. He makes no indication that the Sabbath here was changed.

If anything the only support in these writings is for the total abolition of the Sabbath, but that is based simply on a misunderstanding of the weekly and feast Sabbaths.

And as we noted Ignatius says they should keep the Sabbath, not after the jewish manner.

Also note this segment from a wikipedia article, quoted just for the sake of the clarity of the argument. It also references historical works:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath

It is known that Gentile Christians sometimes openly observed the Biblical Sabbath in conjunction with first-day Sunday worship, because the Council of Laodicea [4] around 365 attempted to put a stop to the practice. Some conjecture, then, that prior to the Laodicean council Saturday was observed as a Sabbath and Sunday as a day of worship, primarily in Palestine; but after the Laodicean Council, Saturday observance was forbidden. This is often considered an attempt of the early Christian church to distance itself from Judaism which had become unpopular in the Roman Empire after the Jewish-Roman wars. The 59 decrees of the Council of Laodicea are part of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers collection: #16 [5] states the Bible is to be read on the Sabbath, #29 [6] states Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath but must work that day and then if possible rest on the Lord's Day and any found to be judaizers are anathema from Christ.

In the 5th century, Socrates Scholasticus Church History book 5[7] states:

"Nor is there less variation in regard to religious assemblies. For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this." Also in the 5th, Sozomen Church History book 7[8] states:

"Assemblies are not held in all churches on the same time or manner. The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."

While the councils tried to do away with Sabbath observance it is clear that many Christians were keeping it. This would not be if Jesus had clearly replaced the one with the other.

As noted earlier the Ethiopian orthodox church has kept it from the beginning as well.

So again, if the contention is that Sunday worship was a reality in the church following the time of the apostles, then I could agree with that. But so was Sabbath worship. The idea that one replaced the other indeed WAS a development that came from the later arguments with the Jews, in an attempt to distance themselves from their branding as a sect of Judaism.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Having read about half way into this thread and wondering about something, so jumped to the end and found someone from the Saturday crowd claiming that a Sunday worship was not something the Apostles did (without evidence to support this claim of course).


Forgetting that no evidence has been presented that the Apostles did not do this and since historical evidence has been documented (and presented here) that first century Christians did indeed "come together" on Sunday, the Lord's Day; where is the "proof" that the Apostles did not and where is the rebuke from the Apostles still living of these first century Christians that obviously where celebrating the day our Lord rose?

 

[oldsage]

I don't have Greek font loaded on my computer or I'd type out what the original Greek is. I went to www.blueletterbible.com and went into the original language, and clicked on all instances that those words were used. They were always translated to commandments (the keeping of them).

You need to look at the different versions of the greek text, not only are there different English Translations but there are different text of the Greek New Testament. Look at the text below and you can see the difference in Greek.



ESV Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.

BGT Revelation 22:14[font=&quot] Μακάριοι οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν.[/font]



KJV Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

STE Revelation 22:14[font=&quot] Μακάριοι οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ἔσται ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν[/font]


There are many different manuscripts and the one at the top is the most reliable so that is why it is in most of the English translations that way.

 

[JesseRaymondBassett]

I believe it's Saturday.