From Sabbath TO Sunday!

Newswatch Magazine ^

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

The Sabbath in the Early Church and Abroad

[Diego1618]

If we are going to criticize another church's practices, it should be factual. There is historical evidence that the practice in the Apostolic Era and the centuries immediately following was to meet on Sunday morning and then after work on Sunday evening.

You made this assertion now a couple of times. You've been asked to provide some scripture to back it up. You continue to say this: There is historical evidence....

Why is there no Biblical evidence?

[safisoft]

the last thrust of a failed argument.

I completely agree. Petronski's argument failed. He is the one that insinuated anti-Semitism, not I. Regardless, only a silly anti-Semite would ever come up with a maxim that precluded any criticism of their dearly held hatreds. So, Lee N. Field, where did you get that maxim? < grin >

[safisoft]

You've been asked to provide some scripture to back it up. You continue to say this: There is historical evidence....Why is there no Biblical evidence?

There is neither biblical or historical evidence. None. Nada. Zip. Cites of Second Century and later are the best that they can come up with. Where is the cite from Josephus? By the First Jewish Revolt, followers of Jesus numbered in the millions world-wide. As many as 1/3 of the Jewish population world-wide... so where is the cite of the peculiarities of "Christian" practice? There are none. The first followers appeared "Jewish" in practice to Rome.

The fact is, Fiscus Judaicus (tax on Jews) was enacted after the First Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE) and it was that fact that led many Gentile followers to abandon things seen by Rome as "Jewish."

Of course the best evidence of Sabbath keeping is found in the book of Acts itself (mentioned 10 times in the Greek text of Acts). As well, the Feasts that Paul supposedly spoke against (Colossians 2:17-19). Paul himself is seen keeping the Passover, Unleavened Bread, Shavuot (Pentecost) - against his supposed instructions!

[Lee N. Field]

So, Lee N. Field, where did you get that maxim? < grin >

From contending with FR's dispensationalists, who are wont to throw that accusation at everyone not of their party after a certain point in the disputation.

[safisoft]

From contending with FR's dispensationalists, who are wont to throw that accusation at everyone not of their party after a certain point in the disputation.

Well shoot, I am the furthest thing from a dispensationalist.

So, is Achma-wack-job of Iran anti-Semitic? Does my wondering if his verbal attacks come from such a dogma require silence on my part because of the mighty Lee N. Field's maxim of failed arguments?

I contend that your maxim is merely self-supporting, and is itself a form of ad hominem.

[Diego1618]

"And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre" (Matthew 28:1, YLT)

Of all the major translations....I feel the most comfortable with Young's. I feel they do a admirable job of translating.....literally. But....their bias will come through from time to time also. They are supporters of the Sunday resurrection position and even they will translate in an attempt to prove that up.

I'll give you an example using your scripture.

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus: oye de sabbatwn th epifwskoush eiV mian sabbatwn hlqen maria h magdalhnh kai h allh maria qewrhsai ton tafon

The Greek word "OYE" is usually translated "after" by most translations but Young's says, "And on the eve" of the Sabbaths (plural). The word "OYE", depending on context may also be used in describing time. In this case Young's has indeed verified that there were twp separate Sabbaths crucifixion week.....and what Matthew is saying is: "On the later of the Sabbaths, at the dawn to the first of the Sabbaths (Saturday), came Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary to see the tomb."

Both Sabbaths are called SABBATWN by Matthew and SABBATWN differs from SABBATON in that they are "special Sabbaths" [Leviticus 23:6-16], either one of the seven annual Sabbaths or one of the seven Sabbaths between Passover and Penetcost. Sabbatwn (plural) and SABBATW (singular) are the Sabbaths that the gospel writers all use when referring to the resurrection.

They are unable to come right out and say "On the later of the two Sabbaths because that narrowly defines the event. They instead come up with the rather ambiguous "On the eve of the Sabbaths".

When you look at [Mark 16:2] and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun.....they just cannot hide it. They have to say "of the first of the Sabbaths."

The same is true of Luke and John according to "Young's Literal Translation".

[Godzilla]

Christ’s Resurrection Was Not on Sunday

Ah yes, a splinter group of Armstrongism. Still spouts the stuff about Jesus beginning his ministry in AD 27 - except that the Gospel of Luke states otherwise.

First Luke 3:1–3 tells us that John the Baptist, Jesus’ forerunner, began his ministry “in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” Both Roman historians Tacitus (Annales 4 §4) and Suetonius (Tiberius 73) date the beginning of Tiberius’s reign at A.D. 14 (the precise date is August 19, the day of Emperor Augustus’s death). Hence the 15th year of Tiberius’s reign, counting from August 19, A.D. 14, brings us to A.D. 29 (14 + 15 = 29). Not surprising that armstrongism would cherry pick the gospels to support their 'doctrines'

Luke’s account also indicates that John, who was older, had been preaching for a while before Jesus was baptized. Note that AD 29 is only one year away from AD 30. This only allows 1 year for Jesus’ ministry, which is far too short of a period to account for the gospel account. Woops, just another instance of selective citation of the scripture.

The Apostle John lists 3 passovers - (2:13, 23); (6:4); and (11:55; 12:1). It is possible that there was a fourth that might be inferred from Mt 12:1 - but that could be another feast as well. This adds up to a length of about 3 ½ years for Jesus’ ministry - placing His crucifixion in AD33. Once again, their numbers don’t match the scriptural account.

Finally, in 33 AD, the full moon occurred on Friday, Nisan 14th. That makes the Passover a double sabbath since it coincides with the weekly sabbath. John in 20:31 writes ¶ The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

The chronology from the gospels is very straight forward from there on. Jesus died at the time the Passover lambs were being killed and was buried before the start of the High Sabbath (before 6 PM Friday). The guard was placed at the tomb some time Saturday. And the women came to the tomb at dawn (the day after the sabbaths - a reference to the double sabbath celebrated Friday night - Sat night and at dawn the angel removed the stone. Much more can be said of this sequence, but the simple facts point to 33 AD as the year of Jesus’ death. -

1. Only 33 AD meets the clear time line for the ministry documented in the gospels


2. It has the passover coinciding with the weekly sabbath, matching the gospel narrative.

Not so hard if one reads the entire gospel account.

[Diego1618]

By the First Jewish Revolt, followers of Jesus numbered in the millions world-wide. As many as 1/3 of the Jewish population world-wide... so where is the cite of the peculiarities of "Christian" practice? There are none. The first followers appeared "Jewish" in practice to Rome.

Bingo!......... NIV [Acts 28:21-22] 21 They replied, "We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of the brothers who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect."

[safisoft]

NIV [Acts 28:21-22] 21 They replied, "We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of the brothers who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect."

Oh man Diego... are you saying that the first followers of Messiah considered themselves a sect within (gasp!) Judaism? Oh the shock! /sarcasm

Wow. From the simple plain text of Scripture, to the machinations of Rome and her pagan cultures... how far and how fast it happened. Clement, in 80 CE conveys an authentic Judaism that was inclusive to Gentiles... and then by 110 CE, we have the filth from Justin Martyr. One generation.

Papias was correct when he wrote in 100 CE that the "churches" had departed from the Apostles' teaching. This is the same Papias that Eusebius quotes when he wants to, but discounts Papias (a Gentile) when he interprets too literally or seems to "Jewish."

[papertyger]

In other words, he is lying to himself and suffering the further pains of his own self-deception.

The stone the builders rejected....

How 'bout that second reading today ;o)

[Diego1618]

Oh man Diego... are you saying that the first followers of Messiah considered themselves a sect within (gasp!) Judaism? Oh the shock!

Yup.........and this is 30 years after the resurrection. This would be time enough for all the silly little prancing, dancing and entrancing that now appears in the Church of Rome to manifest itself.....if it had any Biblical foundation.... which it does not! None! Nada! Zip! ....to coin a phrase.........LOL.

[Petronski]

Snore.

They are prodigious if not accurate.

[Petronski]

Petronski's argument failed. He is the one that insinuated anti-Semitism, not I.

You are false on both counts; with double points for cowardice.

[Marysecretary]

Sure it is...

[Dog Gone]

I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar in terms of reading the original texts in Hebrew or Greek.

I really don’t go to church very often, anymore.

But I was raised in a devout household and I attended private churh schools through college before going to post-graduate school.

I’m very familiar with the Saturday/Sabbath/Sunday issue. There is really no controversy about what happened historically to make the traditional day of worship on Sunday from Saturday.

People make up excuses to justify the change, but it was a change. Not from God, but from man. God didn’t put any language in the 10 Commandments on how we could amend them.

How important this is, I don’t know. Some think it is very important.

I know who wins the factual argument. Saturday is the designated day of worship according to scripture.

[Petronski]

Thank you for admitting the obvious.

[papertyger]

I was being dead serious about the second reading today.

I was instantly reminded of the spite of all these freepers who reject the stone that became the cornerstone, even while they profess a “catagorical” holiness like the apostate Korah did before Moses. How can they be so blind to the pride they exhibit as they try to “out holy” their fellows?

A man stands healed before them in the name of Jesus of Nazereth, and they quibble about whether it is legal to heal on the Sabbath...

[Petronski]

Why is there no Biblical evidence?

Why is there no Biblical proof of sola Scriptura?

[Petronski]

I was being dead serious about the second reading today.

Yes, I know. It's really well-nigh perfect, isn't it?