Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

[tall73]

Judging by the responses of Tall73 several people would just go on asking the same question regardless.

I actually already addressed this, noting that in fact I was not asking the same question but calling into question your refutation based on details. However, I have presented two questions that no one saw fit to answer. They are in regard to the Epistle of Barnabas and can be found in post number 786, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20276152&postcount=786

I have reproduced the questions, but you may want to visit the link for background.


Question 1: Is it truly the contention of the church that God gave the dietary laws to show that people should not associate with those who have oral sex and conception as he thinks that weasels do? Or who change genders as he thinks that hyenas do? Is it really the church's contention that David wrote Psalm 1 to clarify the kind of people that the dietary laws were referring to?

Question 2: Now is it really the church's teaching that Abraham understood circumcision to be a symbol of the initials of Jesus, and therefore circumcized just the right number of people to spell out the initials of Jesus in Roman Numerals?
I find Barnabas here to be really unusual in his arguments on a number of points. And since these are accepted as church teaching, I am hoping you can clarify.

I will say though that as I look over Justin Martyr's first defense in more detail I am rather enjoying it. It is far more rational, and he was certainly bold to write as he did.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

First of all you have a false notion here. It is not blasphemous to honor Sunday because of Jesus' resurrection, though we see no clear evidence of this in the Scriptures.

It IS blasphemous to do away with a command of God by replacing it with Sunday. And that happened later...by a progression as even Oblio admits to, if only on a practical level.

But the bigger question is why would so many be keeping Sabbath in the first place if it was clear that this was not part of the message? If it was clear that they were totally breaking with Judaism and becoming something new, a Christian, why didn't so many of them get it? Especially since we are now a number of years past the Jerusalem council? And why would those such as Ignatius commend it when he had little good to say about other Jewish customs.

Do not recall anyone presenting here any evidence that by the closing of the century the early Church was honoring the Saturday Sabbath the same way it was Sunday as a common practice. While it may be true some Christians Jews did so even then, do not think it was the custom or that one can show that it was the common practice. You could show that the early Church was meeting for worship daily, including Saturday, just as a few of our Church still do today.

The contention by the Saturday crowd here has been to claim this change was progressive and culminated some 300 hundred years later. Historical evidence suggests otherwise and no one our your side of this seems to want to address why within a single generation (hardly a "progression") the practice had been established with absolutely no condemnation by an Apostle or any immediate successive replacement leaders. That is beyond believable to me.
While you can deny if you wish, you are indeed suggesting that the Church committed blasphemy by claiming that it abolished God's Law. Your main argument requires the use of the canon the Church gave you to support the claim that the Sabbath is to be upheld by modern Christians. So your claim requires the absurd notion that the Church would canonize scripture supporting the contention that it committed blasphemy, which you have not address why any sane group of people would do such a stupid thing. Nice attempt to dodge the point however.

 

[tall73]

I don't think the root language itself can answer this question actually - I think the definition of the Lord's Day needs to be ascertained by using the biblical method of study.

Isa 28:10&13 - For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:...But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

I think he is actually making a good point, which I referenced earlier in my post about the distinction between the English Lord and LORD. The latter was an English substitute for the covenant name of YWH. The former simply meant lord in the generic sense.

In the New testament The word, Kurios, is the word for Lord, or master, etc. Jesus was often referred to by this word., as was God the Father, and in fact as were any master or lord. In the passage ‘no man can serve two masters" the term masters is this same word kurios.

So it is not as clear as perhaps it is in Isaiah when it speaks of the Lord's holy day, etc. because the Lord here in Revelation could refer to either Jesus or the Father.

The real question is whether there is any evidence that the term the Lord's day was a term already established by this time to indicate Sunday, which it is clear it was in later times. As I already noted the linguistic evidence suggests that Ignatius did not in fact use the term, as the word day nowhere appears in the text, and instead in the Greek it reads that they lived according to the Lord's life. This also was found to better fit the rest of the argument in the book.

The didache too which is sometimes cited as an instance of it in Greek does not use the term Lord's day.

So again, it is indeed up to those citing the text to show that it means Sunday. But the underlying language does figure in.

 

[tall73]

Do not recall anyone presenting here any evidence that by the closing of the century the early Church was honoring the Saturday Sabbath the same way it was Sunday as a common practice. While it may be true some Christians Jews did so even then, do not think it was the custom or that one can show that it was the common practice. You could show that the early Church was meeting for worship daily, including Saturday, just as a few of our Church still do today.

The contention by the Saturday crowd here has been to claim this change was progressive and culminated some 300 hundred years later. Historical evidence suggests otherwise and no one our your side of this seems to want to address why within a single generation (hardly a "progression") the practice had been established with absolutely no condemnation by an Apostle or any immediate successive replacement leaders. That is beyond believable to me.
While you can deny if you wish, you are indeed suggesting that the Church committed blasphemy by claiming that it abolished God's Law. Your main argument requires the use of the canon the Church gave you to support the claim that the Sabbath is to be upheld by modern Christians. So your claim requires the absurd notion that the Church would canonize scripture supporting the contention that it committed blasphemy, which you have not address why any sane group of people would do such a stupid thing. Nice attempt to dodge the point however.

Then you have not been reading any of my replies to our othodox brother. Please read those posts I made in regard to Iganatius because he was in fact endorsing Sabbath at that time. Moreover, if you read the whole thread you would encounter other statements as well that I posted twice in regard to historical accounts of Sabbath keeping. You would also find a statement by the pope in his papal letter that some have kept them as brother days from the beginning.

 

[tall73]

I dug up the original source of that historical comment. Here is the reference, which you can check for yourself on the Catholic New Advent site:



http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26015.htm

History book V, Socrates Scholasticus.

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. The Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebais, hold their religious assemblies on the sabbath, but do not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among Christians in general: for after having eaten and satisfied themselves with food of all kinds, in the evening making their offerings they partake of the mysteries.

This is far later than the authors cited here, and yet the historian can still say that most in fact are keeping the Sabbath, but that only some at Rome etc. have ceased to do so. Why? Because they had the most pressure from the Jews etc.

 

[tall73]

Another history, of Sozomen, again from the 5th century, that shows some similarities:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26027.htm

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.

 

[tall73]

In the 4th century, from the Apostolic Constitution

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-41.htm#P5614_2026032

XXXVI. Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember the ten commandments of God,-to love the one and only Lord God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or daemons. Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands.

And a bit later on:

Be not careless of yourselves, neither deprive your Saviour of His own members, neither divide His body nor disperse His members, neither prefer the occasions of this life to the word of God; but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food?

So does history truly show your side? You have accounts of many people keeping Sabbath, in honor of the commandment, and in fact even those who say not to keep it are acknowledging that the ones they are speaking to are keeping it.

 

[sdcheung]

Saturday
But the Lords day is Sunday..
when we all go to Church.
I to my Divine Liturgy and others to the thier Praise and worship and Grape Juice and saltine crackers.

 

[BrightCandle]

Saturday
But the Lords day is Sunday..
when we all go to Church.
I to my Divine Liturgy and others to the thier Praise and worship and Grape Juice and saltine crackers.

The only day Jesus said that He was Lord of was the Sabbath. So if you really want to go to church on the Lord's day you had better start going on Saturday!

 

[sdcheung]

I do go to Church on Saturdays..and sundays, mondays, tuesdays, wednesdays, thursdays and Fridays.

everyday there is something, eevryday there is a divine liturgy, everyday there should be a eucharist and communion. As that is why we go to Church.

 

[oldsage]

Actually God gave Adam a commandment, that we know of, everything was for him, except to eat of the fruit of a particular tree.

God didn't say "Don't eat of the tree on the day of rest". That was the sole command and covenant God gave Adam. Everything was available to Adam, but the fruit. Adam broke it. There's no indication in the book because he ate on a Sabbath, but because he ate of the fruit, full stop.

God made a vow to Noah, and there's no Sabbath day with him.

God made a pact with Abraham, and there's no Sabbath day with him... that I'm aware of. OT scripture's not my strong point.

God had plenty of opportunities to warn man of breaking this 'holy day', and it's not until Moses that He makes it a day of rest. God in fact gives the Jews quite a number of laws on how to behave, etc, what to wear and so on.

So, given the fact that God gave Moses these commandments and not before, then these commandments aren't necessarily FOR ALL TIME.

what you said above about the pact that God made with those other men still doesn't address what I said about the book of Genesis, it isn't a book about the Law of God, it is in the writings of the Law, but it is just a book of Origins, it tells us how it all began. So, in it you will only get enough context to make sense of the story being told. Remember that Genesis was written down by Moses, so the books dealing with the Law of God were already known, Genesis didn't just get written by Adam and passed down...it was told to Moses by God. So, Genesis didn't need to speak of the Law since it is already talked about in the other books Moses wrote.

For example:
Genesis 39:9 He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?"

Can you find in the book of Genesis were it is a sin to commit adultery? There isn't one, not until Moses, but here Joseph says it is wicked and a sin to commit adultery. I can find several more examples of this in the book of Genesis and before the giving of the Law in Exodus 20.

In fact Jesus says so. The Jews got to wrapped up in the law; and this legalism is what most Christians should reject (except Seventh Day Adventists who make a big noise about one law, and ignore a lot of other OT sanctions regarding clothes, praying in the Temple, etc)

The thing is, people think that God gave people laws that are bad, but God is a good and loving God, He have laws that the people needed, and are good, and to teach them, but we have a negative outlook on God's laws and for the life of me I have no idea why. Most people who don't study the OT don't tend to understand why thing happen the way they do and they make many false assumptions, like those most christians think the Jews were saved by keeping the law, as if that was possible, if it were true, then no one before the cross will be in heaven because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. People think that the Law is the Covenant, but a Covenant is the agreement, not the Law. The New Covenant read in Jeremiah still contains the Law, not a different one, it only says that now it will be written on our hearts and we will no longer need to teach our neighbor to fear the Lord. There are a few other points in the New Covenant that have yet to happen, but we are in the start of it and will be fully in it at the cosummation.

Chris

 

[lmnop9876]

Luke 23:56 tells of Mary observing the Sabbath "according to the commandment" (no mention of observing the first day of the week, Sunday)

Christ hadn't risen from the dead yet, so His Resurrection on the first day of the week could not be celebrated.

Acts 13:14-44 shows at least 3 Sabbaths being observed by both Jews and Gentiles (no mention of Sunday)

it's 2 Sabbaths observed, not 3, and none of these were by the Christian Church, they were by Jews and Gentile proselytes prior to the founding of a Christian Church.
1.verse 14: "But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down." paul then preaches, and in verse 42: "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." i.e. they ask for the Gospel to be preached the next sabbath, and the next sabbath it is preached.

Acts 16:3 shows many gathering on the Sabbath day for prayer next to a river (no mention of Sunday)

again, this is before Paul founded a Christian Church.

Acts 17:2 clearly states that 3 sabbaths were observed here alone. (no mention of Sunday)

again, this was before the Christian Church was established, Paul was preaching the Gospel to the Jews and religious Gentiles, as we see that he did in other places on all days of the week.

Here's the biggie: Paul founded the church in Corinth, we all know that (Acts 18). In verse 4 we learn that he preached to them "every sabbath", no mention of the first day of the week, Sunday. We find that Paul was with that church for about a year and a half (verse 11). So how many Sabbath was that? 78!

where did he preach? in the synagogue. to the jews and religious gentiles. not in the Church.

 

[oldsage]

Indeed! What are the ordinances in the New Testament overturning slavery?

Surely those Sabbitarians must also look to this as a God-inspired/sanctioned institution.

And St. Paul overturns circumcision, not Jesus, so this too must be a 'development of doctrine'! And the same with the dietary laws! I think SDA's are highly selective themselves as to which 'God-made' laws they keep

Well, I believe in the dietary laws, I don't believe that Paul overturned circumcision, he spoke against it to those who think they have to be circumcised to be saved, the point of circumcision was to distinguish God's chosen from all the other people in the world. We still have that circumcision in our hearts.

And on the issue of slavery, I don't see it abolished in the bible, I just don't do it. There is no law saying you must own a slave, but the laws are there on how to conduct oneself if you do own one.

Chris

 

[oldsage]

Some in this thread spend their time and energy trying to explain away Goapel truth instead of answering direct truth.

It's no suprise to me that they do not answer my questions with scripture, because there is no scripture to support the 7th day sabbath as Saturday.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

You question has been answered, you just don't accept it nor have you responded to it.

Chris

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So while I can accept that he was an historical Christian, I don't plan on shaping my view of Jesus' teachings on this letter. Because some of it is just embarrassing.

In regards to your snide remarks as a feeble retort to someone using the letter from Barnabas to support the contention that in the early 2nd century the practice of Sunday worship on the Lord's Day was over/ and in direct contrast to honoring the Jewish Saturday Sabbath;

• in spite of what you apparently have been told, everything from a historical document, even from a Father (which this is not) does not constitute "Church" teaching. So your comparison and use of these quotes from this letter (even if accurate) represent an extremely flawed and pitiful attempt to distract attention and discredit the source. Whatever else it may or may not say, the letter does show the Church worshiping on the Lord's Day, Sunday.
• while you apparently find presenting such arguments amusing, it only goes to show how really weak you feel your position must be that you must attack the source rather than the point being made.

 

[oldsage]

My contention would be at that moment the Jewish Christians and probably some of the Gentile were keeping both, especially in Jerusalem. This is not strange nor should it be a great mystery to anyone. This is what Jews had been doing for thousands of years, Jesus is a Jew, most the leaders at that point were Jews. These first Christians thought nothing of meeting in the Jewish synagogues to read sacred scriptures, in fact as long as they were allowed that was at first the only place to easily get access to scrolls. Many of the first Christians (being Jews) did not see being Jewish as a bad thing or as an either or thing. They were both.


The point remains that historical docs indicate that by the end of the first century honoring the Lord's day over the Jewish Sabbath Saturday was common practice. That could not have happened over night. The last disciple is believed to have lived well into the later part of the century. Their immediate associates are documented defending the things the Apostles taught. That group lived well into the 2nd century. The words and decisions of the Apostles were obviously valued by all these people and some of us today. The replacement leaders of Church, when the Apostles began passing on, were obviously concerning themselves with preserving their letters, their teachings...etc. Yet nowhere do we have a single writing protesting what some here claim is blasphemy. Do you not find that in the least bit odd?

Historical evidence shows that it wasn't until the Epistle of Barnabas about 135 A.D. did Sunday keeping get elevated over the Sabbath, prior to that maybe in the late first century both days were kept, Sabbath as per the commandment and Sunday as a day of celebration, not as a holy day of rest.

This change was gradual there are several factors that was happening in Rome and Alexandria that cause the change to happen faster than in the east...it happen more as a matter of survival than anything.

Chris

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Now if it was Jesus command from the beginning as some have maintained here, would it take that long? Or if it had been clarified along with the other issues of the kind at the Jerusalem council recorded in Acts 15 would they need to make a statement about it at the later council because even then, many years later they still had Sabbath keepers? You are taking the writings of afew people, one who endorses both, and two who take it to be replaced as representative of all Christians, and as assuraance that it was universal. Do you not see that the very fact that they HAD to keep writing to peole about it shows that it was not universal?

Think you are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that were groups of Jewish Christians with varying levels of beliefs in regards to Mosaic Laws and the troubles these groups gave the early Church well into the 2nd century is well documented. Their existence and the writings against or in support of their practice does not however require anyone to imagine that they represented Church teaching or Apostolic authority. The fact that some early Christians were Jews and felt strong attachment to Jewish practices should not be a surprise or shocker to anyone. The presence and writings about/from these people does not represent proof however of Church teaching or Apostolic rulings on this matter.
That clearly 2nd generation Christians and even some first represent and expressed the importance of the 8th day, the Lord's Day for "coming together" cannot be denied. Neither can the telling absence of any condemnation for this expressed view from any Apostle still living be logically explained in your view of history, which is perhaps why no one here wishes to address this.

 

[CanisLupus]

Saturday
But the Lords day is Sunday..
when we all go to Church.
I to my Divine Liturgy and others to the thier Praise and worship and Grape Juice and saltine crackers.

Try to find one place in the Bible that says the Lords day is on the first day of the week (Sunday).

 

[Cliff2]

Try to find one place in the Bible that says the Lords day is on the first day of the week (Sunday).

The short answer to that question is that it is not there.

There are only eight first day of the week texts in the New Testament and not one of them say that the first day of the week is the Lords day.

It is so very simple, if one is to follow the Bible and the Bible only then the 7th day of the week is the Sabbath.

On the other hand if one wants to take tradition as being equal with the Bible then it is possible to say that the 1st day of the week is the Sabbath.

But then it is also possible to say that the 6th day of the week is the Sabbath or any other day can then become the Sabbath.

 

[tall73]

In regards to your snide remarks as a feeble retort to someone using the letter from Barnabas to support the contention that in the early 2nd century the practice of Sunday worship on the Lord's Day was over/ and in direct contrast to honoring the Jewish Saturday Sabbath;

• in spite of what you apparently have been told, everything from a historical document, even from a Father (which this is not) does not constitute "Church" teaching. So your comparison and use of these quotes from this letter (even if accurate) represent an extremely flawed and pitiful attempt to distract attention and discredit the source. Whatever else it may or may not say, the letter does show the Church worshiping on the Lord's Day, Sunday.
• while you apparently find presenting such arguments amusing, it only goes to show how really weak you feel your position must be that you must attack the source rather than the point being made.

A. First of all you need not wonder if I am quoting him accurately. You can find it easily on the internet. So apparently you would rather make remarks about me than check.


B. The credibility of these people to relay accurate teaching is THE ISSUE in this discussion. I said that I found Justin much more rational. So I am not just attacking ALL sources. This guy is frankly a very poor interpreter of Scripture, and makes statements of his own importance often. If you take that to bee a good representatin of church teaching then fine.


C. I said that I accepted that he was a christian of that time. But he is only one voice of that time.


D. If not every teaching in a letter is official, then we need not assume he got this from a good source, or that it was anything but his own interpretation. And I can assume then that you do not endorse the teachings in those two statements?


E. Attacking a DOCUMENT is part of a debate. Attacking me because I don't find much to applaud in this document is in fact a personal attack.

while you apparently find presenting such arguments amusing, it only goes to show how really weak you feel your position must be that you must attack the source rather than the point being made.

Is this not what you are doing? You are attacking me because I did not accept your source as inspired or somehow above reproach. But the document itself is evidence in this debate, and indeed his very doctrine is. Isn't that the contention all along? So far from simply being snide, I am being serious. So back up your statements with facts please.


F. I await your comments on the other historical documents I quoted which do indeed display what you asked. They show that most people were in fact keeping Sabbath even into the 5th century.