Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

[oldsage]

Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't white robes represent righteousness? Righteousness is being cleansed of all sin, correct? Therefore those that have white robes represent people that either haven't sinned or have asked for forgiveness when they've transgressed God's law.

Am I way off?

Yes, it represents those that have been forgiven, because the way the passage reads in the KJV it says you have to keep commamdments you get to heaven, but that is works based salvation, but if your robes are washed and now you have white robes because of what Jesus did, by being declared righteous, not of anything you have done on your own, this is a salvation based on the grace of God.

Chris

 

[oldsage]

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.

Context determines which definition to use within a certain semantic domain, not a new definition....like in your statement "The truth is it cannot be." I can't say the context says that the term 'truth' means 'lie'. The definition of a word and how it is used in other literature helps determine the meaning. If ALL the uses of the word means a 7th day sabbath keeping, then you can be sure that is what it means in the context of Heb 4. But Heb 3,4 is talking about a three fold meaning of the sabbath, it mentions creation in passing, and talks about the eschatological aspect of it too, but makes mention of there still being a 7th day sabbath keeping for the people of God. which is the weekly aspect of it. They are all mentioned here. If the writer of the book wanted to just use it as speaking only about the sabbath rest to come then he would have used sabbaton instead, which would easily fit the meaning you are giving to sabbatismos in Heb 4.

Chris

 

[oldsage]

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

The commandment doesn't say you have to work those six days it says you have six days in which to work. Also, the sabbath was made the day after Adam was when God blessed it, and made it holy. The sabbath is kept by example several times in the NT, and even the Epistle to the Hebrews tells them there is a seventh day sabbath keeping left for them.

You should really read the thread, I know it is long, but several of these arguments have already been hashed out.


Chris

 

[spirit1st]

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.

 

[Debi1967]

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 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.

The tradition shows a progression here, just as it did with papal succession. 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.

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

HUH? No, more thean adequate proof has been given in this thread, sorry to say and nowhere did you prove that Ignatius of Antioch still at htat point celebrated on Saturday with conclusive proof .... this is supposition on your behalf.... Therefore ladies and gents you can say all you like this and that but I have provided the proof and you have just provided suppositions, without empirical and objective evidence to back up those suppositions.

Considering it was Ignatius of Antioch that we look to for the complete defintion of Apostolic Succession then again you know not of what you speak, the Church thinks of him as one of the most prolyphic writers of his time and in Church History....

He was made a Bishop by the Apostles themselves and on top of that was friends with Polycorp who was Apostle John's student at the time....



Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117. More than one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers have given credence, though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the child whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, iii, 22). Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves("Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

Sorry you may think that using an encyclopedia is something that one should not do, I on the other hand think that one should avail themselves of ALL the KNOWLEDGE at their disposal ..... Christ told us to become educated and to verify not just by the means of the Bible but to make sure that what we see in the Bible is accurate .... He told me to Test my Faith and therefore I do test it against many things .... there is nothing wrong with that and one of the qualifiers is History and the facts of History... So therefore it is not that I am poor because I have to go to an encyclopedia to verify things it is that it enriches my Faith and my Knowledge which the Lord has told to ccontinually be seeking of Him ..... IMHO, I am sorry to say I find it hard to understand those that do not see this aspect and that are afraid to test their faith .... If your Faith is the TRuth then there should be no fear whatsoever in testing it should there and actually it should strengthen it not harm it .....

 

[Debi1967]

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.

And what is more do not take this Scripture out of context when it is specifically talking of Christ's Sacrifice and that Sacrifices are no longer needed for the remission of Sins because the ultimate Sacrifice has been done and that is CHRIST ON THE CROSS!
Heb 10:7 Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God.

Heb 10:8 In saying before, Sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts for sin thou wouldest not, neither are they pleasing to thee, which are offered according to the law.

Heb 10:9 Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: He taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. (CHRIST)

Heb 10:10 In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.

Heb 10:11 And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering and often offering the same sacrifices which can never take away sins.

Heb 10:12 But this man, (CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR) one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God,

Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting until his enemies be made his footstool.

Heb 10:14 For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Heb 10:15 And the Holy Ghost also doth testify this to us. For after that he said:

Heb 10:16 And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts and on their minds will I write them:

Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more.

Heb 10:18 Now, where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin.

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ:

 

[spirit1st]

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified

are they sanctified forever or is there more to do?
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Joh 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
I have already been to NEW JERUSALEM ,I spoke with MY LORD JESUS CHRIST and asked too return here!Here am I !

 

[BrotherDave]

I have tried to read most of the posts and wanted to add my understanding of the Sabbath. I believe we learn from God's examples in creation and redemption that Sunday is the Sabbath, when we are to make sure of our own salvation and to go into all the world with the Gospel. We rest from our worldy work to focus on spiritual things.

The Old Testament Sabbaths ended at the cross when Jesus was in the tomb. A new era of Sabbath days began when Christ rose that Sunday morning. In Colossians 2 we read that the Old Testament Sabbath was a sign, a shadow of things to come. From Matthew 28:1 “In the end of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the Sabbaths.” The Saturday during which Christ was in the tomb was the end of the Old Testament era of Sabbaths. The next day, which was Sunday, is the first Sabbath day of a new era of Sabbaths. From then on, each and every Sunday is the Sabbath. (See also Mark 16: 2, 16:9). Also in Luke 24:1 we read from the Greek manuscripts: “Now upon the first of the Sabbaths [not “week”], very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher.” This is exactly the same language we found in Matthew 28 and Mark 16. God again insists that the Sunday morning after the cross begins a new era of Sabbaths.



God did the work that is to be featured on Sunday. It is on that day that Christ rose from the grave. He completed the work required for our salvation on the New Testament Sabbath day. The work a true believer is to focus upon each Sunday. The focus should be on the work of raising people from the dead. That is, we are to be concerned with the preaching of the Gospel so that people might become saved.



In Acts 20:7, we read of the church at Troas gathering together on the first of the week to break bread. It was at that time that Paul preached to them. The phrase “first of the week” is the same in the Greek as that used in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20:1. Significantly, God instructs us that on this Sabbath Paul preached until midnight. This strongly implies that even as the seventh day Sabbath was to be observed as a 24hour period, so is the Sunday Sabbath to be a 24 hour period. Jesus had risen while it was still dark (John 20). We can see that the Sunday Sabbath is to begin while it is still dark, thus reinforcing the 24hour nature of the Sunday Sabbath.

The Holy Spirit was poured out (Acts 2) at Pentecost, which was the eighth Sunday after the cross. On the first Sunday, Jesus was resurrected. On the eighth Sunday, God began His work of spiritually resurrecting (saving) the peoples of the world. Thus, God in a third dramatic way points to the purpose of Sunday as a day to focus on sharing the Gospel so that others might become saved.

In our day, Sunday has become a day when very few seriously ask the question: What is God's good pleasure for this day? It is a day that has become my day, with the emphasis on me and mine. It is part of my weekend. Unfortunately, few people regard Sunday as God's holy day, which has been beautifully set apart so that we can earnestly, zealously, sincerely, and faithfully serve our Savior.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Ok, so it seems the 7th day position is not that the Apostles were not celebrating the Lord's day (Sunday, which would be hard to deny given the historical evidence), but that they were doing both and that the Church later phased out/replaced the Saturday Sabbath with Sunday only.

Since it is admitted the Apostles did indeed celebrate the Lord’s day, what if anything does your Church do now on that day? And furthermore, since the early Church appeared to have daily worship, a daily celebration of the death and resurrection of our Lord, what does your Church do daily?

 

[tall73]

Context determines which definition to use within a certain semantic domain, not a new definition....like in your statement "The truth is it cannot be." I can't say the context says that the term 'truth' means 'lie'. The definition of a word and how it is used in other literature helps determine the meaning. If ALL the uses of the word means a 7th day sabbath keeping, then you can be sure that is what it means in the context of Heb 4. But Heb 3,4 is talking about a three fold meaning of the sabbath, it mentions creation in passing, and talks about the eschatological aspect of it too, but makes mention of there still being a 7th day sabbath keeping for the people of God. which is the weekly aspect of it. They are all mentioned here. If the writer of the book wanted to just use it as speaking only about the sabbath rest to come then he would have used sabbaton instead, which would easily fit the meaning you are giving to sabbatismos in Heb 4.

Chris

It is no new definition. He is speaking of Sabbath rest. But the Sabbath rest was entered into by God at the first and He is waiting for others to enter into it.

If you take the weekly Sabbath as the fulfillment then surely the ones that were following Joshua would have fulfilled that long ago. Even the ones who died in the desert kept the weekly Sabbath. Morevoer he says that today is the new day, when they must enter into it.

To say there remains a Sabbath would not in fact get the main point. That God is resting. He is really taking two texts that speak of rest and putting them together to say that God is waiting for us to enter his rest. It is not the weekly rest that they are in danger of falling away from, but the salvation that is by faith.

Please explain how the weekly observation of this fits the context.

 

[Debi1967]

It is not the weekly rest that they are in danger of falling away from, but the salvation that is by faith.

Tall73 forgive my shock here but that could not have been said better ..... Only the application I think in the Seventh Day Adventist theology is wrong ..... because if everything we do is unto Christ and unto our Faith in Him and we are waiting to return unto Him then why are we holding to the OLD and not the NEW which was established upon His deth and then RESURRECTION.... It is not just the shedding of His blood that is important but the Resurrection as well, because it is in the Resurrection that we have attained HOPE. The shedding of the Blood is what washes away the sins in order for us to be able to have the completion of the Hope .... So therefore Christ did not rest until he was resurrected ..... This was Sunday .... The New beginning for All Christians ..... The completion of the New Covenant for all Christians to obtain the Hope.

 

[lmnop9876]

So, from this, the Sabbath is creational, it was made holy on the seventh day of creation, we are to keep it holy and God picked the day.

ok, so do we agree with this?

Chris

agree with this. but, God didn't say, keep the seventh day of creation, He said, keep the seventh day, which is the day after any period of six days. e.g. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday = 6 days. seventh day = Sunday.

Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath. He allowed men to break Jewish traditions and laws about the Sabbath in a bid to return it to it's true spirit and meaning. when He rose from the dead on the first day of the week, He completely did away with the Old Testament ceremonial laws, including the strict OT Sabbath laws, doing away with all the things which pointed to Him. He also ushered in a new rest, a rest from the feasts, sacrifices, and works that the OT Christians had to keep and perform, a rest from our attempts to save ourselves by our own works, a rest of salvation by grace. the Lord's Day is when, in accordance with the practice of the Apostles and the Early Church, we commemorate both God's Rest from Creation, as well as the new Rest that Christ has given to us in His death and resurrection. on this day, in accordance with the practice of the Apostles and Early Church, those who have been saved by God's grace through faith in Christ come together and commemorate His death and resurrection in the Eucharist, listen to His Word, pray and sing together, give offerings to the Church and to those in need, and share fellowship meals with other Christians.

 

[tall73]

HUH? No, more thean adequate proof has been given in this thread, sorry to say and nowhere did you prove that Ignatius of Antioch still at htat point celebrated on Saturday with conclusive proof .... this is supposition on your behalf.... Therefore ladies and gents you can say all you like this and that but I have provided the proof and you have just provided suppositions, without empirical and objective evidence to back up those suppositions.

First of all I have no problems with encyclopedias, that was Palehorse's comment. And I don't think he in fact has a problem with them either, but was simply wanting you not to cut and paste but to think through your own response. But you will have to take that up with him.

As to the evidence for Iganatius, it has been posted more than once, most recently by Palehorse on page 58.

In Ignatis' letter to the Magnesians we find three important things; allow me post the letter again (saves us from having to find it):

“Let us therefore 1) 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." For say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." 2) 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. 3) 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 [of the week].”

1) This indicates that they were keeping the Sabbath as the Jews were but he now is advocating observance to Sunday. This tells me that Sabbath-keeping was still being done by non-Jewish Christians up to around 100 A.D. (roughly).


2) This line indicates that Ignatius is advocating breaking God’s Commandment because Ignatius says “not in relaxation of the body”; but the Commandment says to “rest” and “do no work”.

​

3) This line indicates that he is saying that Sabbath is still around but that Christians should observe the Lord’s Day (meaning Sunday to him) – ignoring the scriptures that indicate that Christ’s death/resurrection are to be observed by baptism (Romans 6:3-5) and we should take Communion to remember Christ in general (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24-25)


​

Would you agree?

Moreover I earlier quoted the pope giving evidence in his papal letter that the understanding of Sunday unfolded over time.

 

[tall73]

Tall73 forgive my shock here but that could not have been said better ..... Only the application I think in the Seventh Day Adventist theology is wrong ..... because if everything we do is unto Christ and unto our Faith in Him and we are waiting to return unto Him then why are we holding to the OLD and not the NEW which was established upon His deth and then RESURRECTION.... It is not just the shedding of His blood that is important but the Resurrection as well, because it is in the Resurrection that we have attained HOPE. The shedding of the Blood is what washes away the sins in order for us to be able to have the completion of the Hope .... So therefore Christ did not rest until he was resurrected ..... This was Sunday .... The New beginning for All Christians ..... The completion of the New Covenant for all Christians to obtain the Hope.

No shock is necessary. The theme of the book of Hebrews is simply not to uphold weekly Sabbath keeping. It is to warn them of falling away.

However, it is clear you did not read my comments on the new covenant, or the rest of Hebrews, since the new covenant does not in any way do away with the law, but it writes it on the heart and mind. The problem with the covenant was never God's law, but the people's promises.

This idea that Jesus rested on Sunday, or that it was a new world etc. is simply unbilblical.

 

[Debi1967]

First of all I have no problems with encyclopedias, that was Palehorse's comment. And I don't think he in fact has a problem with them either, but was simply wanting you not to cut and paste but to think through your own response. But you will have to take that up with him.

As to the evidence for Iganatius, it has been posted more than once, most recently by Palehorse on page 58.






Moreover I earlier quoted the pope giving evidence in his papal letter that the understanding of Sunday unfolded over time.

Ok so therefore you have some that are still doing things in an incorrect manner and he found a letter to them that chastizes them, and corrects them ..... and this is supposed to be proof of something? What? That just because they were still in observance of it, it therefore was alright? Actually no it is saying that it is not alright is it not and why? So therefore, the contention that just because some were still following the old ways, the ways of the JEWS does nto mean that it was correct, simply means that it needed to be corrected .... and remember this is not long after Christ died .... to think that all would be in accordance all of the sudden and that it would not take time when there were no telephones, no televisions, no forms of such quick cimmunication in other words is kind of ridiculous don't you think? Of Course it is going to take time to educate the Masses .....

 

[tall73]

Ok, so it seems the 7th day position is not that the Apostles were not celebrating the Lord's day (Sunday, which would be hard to deny given the historical evidence), but that they were doing both and that the Church later phased out/replaced the Saturday Sabbath with Sunday only.

Since it is admitted the Apostles did indeed celebrate the Lord’s day, what if anything does your Church do now on that day? And furthermore, since the early Church appeared to have daily worship, a daily celebration of the death and resurrection of our Lord, what does your Church do daily?

Actually I am afraid you have missed our view. You might want to read the whole thread. Here is our view.

A. The apostles made no mention of replacing Sabbath with Sunday. Nor did they make any reference to Sunday being holy, or to observing it. Most in fact would not even see the reference in Revelation 1 as being about Sunday, though some might, or some might see it as a reference to either the eschatological day of the Lord or to Easter. Most would see it as a reference to Sabbath since Jesus said he was Lord of the Sabbath, and the God spoke about the Lord's holy day in Isaiah 58.

B. We do acknowledge that the church fathers called sunday holy, and that their view of this expanded over time to eventually replace Sabbath with Sunday. However, like veneration of mary or relics, etc. we hold this to be a deviation from the apostles teaching. This process was spurred by souring relations with the Jews. Since the Christians were viewed as a sect of Judaizm it became expedient to make separation with the Jews. We say this because there is evidence of fairly wide spread Sabbath keeping in early times. If Jesus had clearly said that the day was to be replaced with Sunday this would not be the case.

 

[Cliff2]

Ok so therefore you have some that are still doing things in an incorrect manner and he found a letter to them that chastizes them, and corrects them ..... and this is supposed to be proof of something? What? That just because they were still in observance of it, it therefore was alright? Actually no it is saying that it is not alright is it not and why? So therefore, the contention that just because some were still following the old ways, the ways of the JEWS does nto mean that it was correct, simply means that it needed to be corrected .... and remember this is not long after Christ died .... to think that all would be in accordance all of the sudden and that it would not take time when there were no telephones, no televisions, no forms of such quick cimmunication in other words is kind of ridiculous don't you think? Of Course it is going to take time to educate the Masses .....

Just a minute, if the change of the Sabbath was going to be such a big deal with the early Church then why don't we see the Apostles coming out and being up front about it?

Why all the back door stuff when it would be so great a change?

I think the reason is that there was no change as far as they were concerned.

You can go into all the documents that you like but why not go into the Bible and in plain simple language just tell us where it says that a change has been made.

I have not seen it as yet and no one has showed us where it is.

 

[tall73]

Ok so therefore you have some that are still doing things in an incorrect manner and he found a letter to them that chastizes them, and corrects them ..... and this is supposed to be proof of something? What? That just because they were still in observance of it, it therefore was alright? Actually no it is saying that it is not alright is it not and why? So therefore, the contention that just because some were still following the old ways, the ways of the JEWS does nto mean that it was correct, simply means that it needed to be corrected .... and remember this is not long after Christ died .... to think that all would be in accordance all of the sudden and that it would not take time when there were no telephones, no televisions, no forms of such quick cimmunication in other words is kind of ridiculous don't you think? Of Course it is going to take time to educate the Masses .....

You need to read it again. He says LET everyone of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner and THEN keep Sunday.

Ie. he was not saying some kept it. He was TELLING them to keep it, but not in a legalistic way.

And it is interesting that you say not everyone would have gotten the message. If Jesus had initially taught this then why would all the groups not HAVE the message? They would.

 

[Debi1967]

No shock is necessary. The theme of the book of Hebrews is simply not to uphold weekly Sabbath keeping. It is to warn them of falling away.

However, it is clear you did not read my comments on the new covenant, or the rest of Hebrews, since the new covenant does not in any way do away with the law, but it writes it on the heart and mind. The problem with the covenant was never God's law, but the people's promises.

This idea that Jesus rested on Sunday, or that it was a new world etc. is simply unbilblical.

No it is Historical and can be proven thank you ..... Also, just because something is not directly stated in Scripture but implied in Scripture does not mean that it is not so....

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not anywhere in the Bible directly stated it is an implied Doctrine and yet we all as Christians use it as a PILLAR and Core belief of our Faith ....

2Th 2:14(2:13) Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Th 2:15(2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

Do you have any idea what the words gospel and epistle mean in the Greek?


gospel thayers defintion
G2098

εὐαγγέλιον

euaggelion

Thayer Definition:

1) a reward for good tidings

2) good tidings

2a) the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God

2b) the glad tidings of salvation through Christ

2c) the proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ

2d) the gospel

2e) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings

Part of Speech: noun neuter

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the same as G2097

Citing in TDNT: 2:721, 267

notice here it says that it came to be called it was not originally called this this is a later definition that we applied to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John..... The Gospel of Christ ..... as written by the Apostles themselves.

But it's original defintion and the one used in Biblical times was when the Bible was written was that of glad tidings or message of Christ .... it had nothing to do with it being written down .... it could be but that was not prerequisite and need not be.... so therefore they could have been given the Gospel by Verbal accounting, by Word....

the reasons we know that it was by traditionally transferred by word is because as this letter was written to the Hebrews the book of say the Gospel of John had not even been written yet ..... it would not be written and completed for some thirty more years after this letter was written.... The letter tot he Hebrews was written when

(1) The place of composition was Italy (xiii, 24), and more precisely Rome (inscription at end of the Codex Alexandrinus), where Paul was during his first imprisonment (61-63 AD).

Whereas John would not be written until John was in exile on the isle of Patmos

we have direct evidence concerning the date of composition. The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel, which was probably written about the year 200 or a little later, says concerning the date of the appearance of the Gospel: "He [sc. the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed the Apocalypse on the Island of Patmos". The banishment of John to Patmos occurred in the last year of Domitian's reign (i.e. about 95). A few months before his death (18 September, 96), the emperor had discontinued the persecution of the Christians and recalled the exiles (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xx, nn. 5-7). This evidence would therefore refer the composition of the Gospel to A.D. 96 or one of the years immediately following.

So therefore, it would have to be orally transmitted at this point.... And this is but one example .... also if we look at the Greek definition of epistle ..... it is this ....

G1992

ἐπιστολή

epistolē

ep-is-tol-ay'

From G1989; a written message: - "epistle", letter.

So this proves that it could be either/or at this proint conclusively .... especially with all the historical proof to back it up .... Therefore when they say to hold fast to what is handed down by word

G3056

λόγος

logos

log'-os

From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

and then get the defintiion of Tradition itself

G3862

παράδοσις

paradosis

Thayer Definition:

1) giving up, giving over

1a) the act of giving up

1b) the surrender of cities

2) a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.

2a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching

2b) of the body of precepts, especially ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence

Part of Speech: noun feminine

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3860

Citing in TDNT: 2:172, 166

So therefore we see that Tradition that is for the Glory of God is allowed as long as it is not for the Glory of men and this is what Christ himself Chastized the Pharisees about ..... because the traditions that they were doing were now not in accordance with God but for their own Glory....

There is nothing wrong with Tradition as long as it is for the Glory of God alone....

So we see, that the conclusive argument that switching the Day from Saturday to Sunday really is an objective one is it not? I believe that I do it still for the Glory of my Lord who died for me on the Cross to be resurrected and to give me the Hope of Salvation.... In humble thanks for this I celebrate His day as the Sabbath .... Bringing forth Glory to Him and His name forever and ever Amen.....

 

[Debi1967]

You need to read it again. He says LET everyone of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner and THEN keep Sunday.

Ie. he was not saying some kept it. He was TELLING them to keep it, but not in a legalistic way.

And it is interesting that you say not everyone would have gotten the message. If Jesus had initially taught this then why would all the groups not HAVE the message? They would.

Did not Christ say that not all would hear Him? Did not Christ say that many would say that they believe but in reality when the Day of judgement comes he will say to them get away from you cursed ones for I never knew you .....

Not everyone that calls themselves Righteous is open to hearing the message of God simply because they say they are ....