Is it bad to go to Church on Sundays, why do some now say its Saturday only ?

[Thinkingstuff]

GE
Acts 23:6, 24:21. Quickly, before I go! Now is the time! "Today, if you hear My Voice"! I have NO TIME to waste! "The burden of the Word of the LORD!" "Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question"; "Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day!"
I will not write a word for another reason. The resurrection - which is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead - is my reason for being, and the reason for my writing, and my reason for my writing on the Sabbath Day of the LORD your God. Whatever I am, or say, or believe, or teach, or hold high or dear, I shall, for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If not my, 'Christianity', my, 'Faith', is this, resurrection-faith, With the help of God and in the Name of God, I will root it out. No, I will pray God to root it out for me, He only who holds power over BOTH death and LIFE.

And you call me mystical! The only thing I got out of that is that the Resurrection is important to you. But has no bearing on the thread. I am not a systematic theologian (go figure). I like things broken down simply and from there you can build on it. Is the Sabbath (Shabbat) the day we should have ecclesia (congregation of those called out) and celebrate communion together or the day after; on Sunday? Once this is answered then it seems to me that you can build your argument. I'm sorry that I'm simple and need assistance in understanding what you are saying. I've gotten more information reading Anselm and that was difficult.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jerryl
Did God bring you out of Egypt? If not, these don't pertain to you, except what is natural law written on your heart, like do not kill or steal and the such. Jesus is our sabbath, we have no days. We can worship any day.

GE:
Yes, we do not have any days; all days belong to God who only has immortality and who only created all things and appointed all things and all days according to his own will and power. If you haven’t got the Scriptures, you won’t know about any of God’s appointments. No “natural law written on your heart” or not, can make you any the wiser in the things of God. Maybe in the things of nature; but not in the things of God. Like not even history can replace the Scriptures when it comes to the things of God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound
Despite sabbatarian claims, it is an unavoidable historical fact that Sunday was established as the highest and holiest of days long before the councils and proclamations of the fourth century. It was observed by the very first Christians and by all succeeding generations.

Now, obviously, it's difficult to accuse the first followers of any religion of apostasy. But I also contend it is spiritually irresponsible to label as apostates men like St. Ignatius and St. Justin, who stood against the powers of darkness and shed their life's blood for their beloved Christ. "Ambition" and "thirst for power" did not motivate these men. As leaders of an outlawed religion, they received no reward through their positions but martyrdom. So when they affirmed the Church's tradition of worshiping on Sunday, they were simply doing their job - preserving the Faith of the Apostles.

GE
Bound, how many times more are you going to say the same things? Until you hope I’ll admit I accused them of the things you imply I did and shall recant? I’ll not admit or recant; but will tell you again, it is you, falsely accusing me of these accusations.
However noble men like Justin were, they were just sinners like you and I. They were not Apostles of Jesus Christ even though they became martyrs for their faith. However, you have not even noticed that I deny this taken for granted level placement of Justin and Ignatius which you hold. Justin dealt fraudulently with the Scriptures; Fact. In his ‘sabbath-passages’ Ignatius did not deal fraudulently with the Scriptures. However short the period of time between them, Ignatius will always be the earlier and nearer to the Apostolic age than Justin. Maybe it was the regions they lived in that might have influenced them differently; I don’t know. You are the one who claims ‘history’ to be judge. I didn’t live through that history; I am committed to the writings they have left posterity. Objective stuff which must be approached detached; not as though one knew the age like one’s own. That is playing Judge. then what does such a judge do? He ‘saints’ whomever he likes, and anatomises whomever he dislikes; and attributes everything of his own liking to the sainted, and everything of his disliking to the damned anatomised. Such is Roman Catholicism.
“St. Justin, who stood against the powers of darkness” is absolved from all his sins because he argues for Sunday worship. Meanwhile Justin’s very Sunday-pleas are compromise with “the powers of darkness”. Survival ‘motivated’ the man. So is it if one trust princes or saints. But to Bound, that means, “So when they affirmed the Church's tradition of worshiping on Sunday, they were simply doing their job - preserving the Faith of the Apostles.”
You oblige me to be repetitive. Of neither Ignatius and Justin is it true “they affirmed the Church's tradition of worshiping on Sunday”. “Worshiping on Sunday” was, no, ‘tradition’ of the Church. That is why Justin begged the pagan Emperor’s favour (that was, tradition’s favour!) with regard to the Christian’s acceptance of the Sunday-worship of pagan tradition. That is the ‘history’ conspicuously evident from the document. But no one is as blind as he does not want to see. Apologists like you read and just read over, these ‘historical facts’. You REFUSE to distinguish them.
Then of Ignatius is not true what became true of Justin. Again you are pretending blind Ignatius never mentions Sunday while Justin never mentions the Lord’s Day. What shall I do to make you just READ correctly and honestly? I shall tell you, take off your ‘historic’ glasses and use your literal and reality glasses.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound, “They received no reward through their positions but martyrdom.” That can be true of Ignatius. But Justin scored a deal. ‘O sir emperor, Look how we Christians all worship our Lord Jesus on the day of your sun-god lord! Is it not wonderful we have this most important day to you in common?’ As it usually goes with one that surrender to a godless power, Justin suffered martyrdom regardless.
When I say Justin perverted the Scriptures in Mt28:1 and set the trend for every age after him, I do not condemn his soul to damnation. But I do judge concerning what he wrote and aimed at, and condemn it to damnation as far as I have authority to, and that limit is set to me as it is set to you who judge what Justin wrote into eternal heavenly bliss. There’s no difference between your and my judging; judge we judge Justin. Only query as far as I am concerned, is, by what standard do we judge Justin? I say what he wrote should be judged by the Scriptures only; therefore I shall be obliged to condemn ‘Justin’. You decided to judge Justin by history; and of course, shall I be such a fool as to oppose your verdict? By the mere status quo of the Church’s Sunday veneration, Justin should be greatest of saints!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

And you call me mystical! The only thing I got out of that is that the Resurrection is important to you. But has no bearing on the thread. I am not a systematic theologian (go figure). I like things broken down simply and from there you can build on it. Is the Sabbath (Shabbat) the day we should have ecclesia (congregation of those called out) and celebrate communion together or the day after; on Sunday? Once this is answered then it seems to me that you can build your argument. I'm sorry that I'm simple and need assistance in understanding what you are saying. I've gotten more information reading Anselm and that was difficult.

GE:
Before we may conclude, "Is the Sabbath (Shabbat) the day we should have ecclesia (congregation of those called out) and celebrate communion together or the day after; on Sunday?", it should be determined ON WHICH DAY DID CHRIST RISE FROM THE DEAD? Once this is answered then only can one build one's argument of ""Is the Sabbath (Shabbat) the day we should have ecclesia (congregation of those called out) and celebrate communion together or the day after; on Sunday?" Not before.
You will get used to my 'method' there is some madness in it!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"Note that he wrote clearly "Sunday is the day... Jesus Christ our Saviour ... rose from the dead"."

GE:
Note that Matthew wrote clearly and, ja, LITERALLY, "Sabbath is the day" (Sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi') WHEN Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. (MT28:1)

YOU CHOOSE WHOM YOU WILL BELIEVE!
CHOOSE YE WHOM YE WILL SERVE!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

bOUND:
"I encourage you to read his words in The First Apology and remember Justin lived (100-165 AD). This is not text from the fourth century but the second century."

GE:
I beg you to show where or when I professed otherwise.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"So let me understand your argument. You are refuting St. Justin as an apostate or are you saying that he agrees with Sabbatarian arguments?"

GE:
What a choice you leave me! I don't refute or say any.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"As I supplied in an earlier post, St. Justin Martyr (100-165), defending the Christian Faith before the pagan emperor and philosophers of Rome, had this to say about the Christian day of worship:

Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which... Jesus Christ our Saviour... rose from the dead. "

GE:
Question: WHO, are or were, "we all"?

All Christians? Half a century after the last apostles and nobody thought to worship on the Sabbath? Then what did Justin write for against some who in fact did still worship on the Sabbath? So, this one, 'all Christians', is ruled out.

Two other options remain; two options NO argument however strong or weak can be brought:

One. 'All we' in the mind of Justin - all those who agreed with him. Together with the sudden appearance of the Sun's Day of worship in Christian literature, this mention of the secluded 'all' of Christians who with Justin on the Sun's Day worshipped, give the first historic indicators of ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISION in Christiandom.

Two. "all we" - 'we Christians', 'Lord-Jesus-Christ-worshippers', like, 'we, heathen, 'Lord-Sun-worshippers', 'We all', sir emperor, you, and I and all of US!

 

[bound]

Bound:
"So let me understand your argument. You are refuting St. Justin as an apostate or are you saying that he agrees with Sabbatarian arguments?"

GE:
What a choice you leave me! I don't refute or say any.

Grace and Peace GE,

Friend I'm not trying to 'narrow' your choices but I am trying to determine if you believe St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius of Antioch were in deed apostates in rebellion to the Christian Faith?

Yes or No would be appreciated. Let's just cut to the chase.

Also, what evidence do you have, outside of novel hermeneutics, to present that the early Christian felt they needed to observe the Sabbath as Jews or that the Sabbath was called the Lord's day as your posit? I have offered you evidence to the contrary as early as 69 AD, with the example of St. Ignatius, that Christians observed the Lord's day apart from the Sabbath and in fact the two observances were two different days. Outside of novel hermeneutics you have, so far, offered no evidence to suggest that the Lord's day is the Sabbath. For me this is a real problem for sabbatarians.

 

[donnA]

It's never bad to go to church, even if people try to convince otherwise.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE:
Before we may conclude, "Is the Sabbath (Shabbat) the day we should have ecclesia (congregation of those called out) and celebrate communion together or the day after; on Sunday?", it should be determined ON WHICH DAY DID CHRIST RISE FROM THE DEAD? Once this is answered then only can one build one's argument of ""Is the Sabbath (Shabbat) the day we should have ecclesia (congregation of those called out) and celebrate communion together or the day after; on Sunday?" Not before.
You will get used to my 'method' there is some madness in it!

So are you saying Sunday was not the day Jesus rose from the dead?

 

[donnA]

The bible specifies, the first day of the week, that would be Sunday. Who now wants to call God a liar?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Announcement:

Henceforth will, DV, appear on the backpage of all my books, and, on the inner sleeve-page,

I pray God, who alone sees the heart, beseeching Him that my part in the blood of Christ be not taken from me, if I wrote of all that I have written throughout all my books, aught of an evil purpose, aught of against my conscience, or to stir up any false doctrine or opinion in the Church of Christ, being who I am, and thrown upon the mercies of His forgiveness.

“As concerning all I have translated … I beseech all men to read it for that purpose I wrote it even to bring them to the knowledge of the Scripture. And as far as the Scripture approve it, so far to allow it; and if in any place the Word of God disallow it, then to refuse it, as I do before our Saviour Christ and his Congregation.” Tyndale

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound
Despite sabbatarian claims, it is an unavoidable historical fact that Sunday was established as the highest and holiest of days long before the councils and proclamations of the fourth century. It was observed by the very first Christians and by all succeeding generations.
Now, obviously, it's difficult to accuse the first followers of any religion of apostasy. But I also contend it is spiritually irresponsible to label as apostates men like St. Ignatius and St. Justin, who stood against the powers of darkness and shed their life's blood for their beloved Christ. "Ambition" and "thirst for power" did not motivate these men. As leaders of an outlawed religion, they received no reward through their positions but martyrdom. So when they affirmed the Church's tradition of worshiping on Sunday, they were simply doing their job - preserving the Faith of the Apostles.

GE
Bound, how many times more are you going to say the same things? Until you hope I’ll admit I accused them of the things you imply I did and shall recant? I’ll not admit or recant; but will tell you again, it is you, falsely accusing me of these accusations.
However noble men like Justin were, they were just sinners like you and I. They were not Apostles of Jesus Christ even though they became martyrs for their faith. However, you have not even noticed that I deny this taken for granted level placement of Justin and Ignatius which you hold. Justin dealt fraudulently with the Scriptures; Fact. In his ‘sabbath-passages’ Ignatius did not deal fraudulently with the Scriptures. However short the period of time between them, Ignatius will always be the earlier and nearer to the Apostolic age than Justin. Maybe it was the regions they lived in that might have influenced them differently; I don’t know. You are the one who claims ‘history’ to be judge. I didn’t live through that history; I am committed to the writings they have left posterity. Objective stuff which must be approached detached; not as though one knew the age like one’s own. That is playing Judge. then what does such a judge do? He ‘saints’ whomever he likes, and anatomises whomever he dislikes; and attributes everything of his own liking to the sainted, and everything of his disliking to the damned anatomised. Such is Roman Catholicism.
“St. Justin, who stood against the powers of darkness” is absolved from all his sins because he argues for Sunday worship. Meanwhile Justin’s very Sunday-pleas are compromise with “the powers of darkness”. Simply survival, ‘motivated’ the man. So is it if one trust princes or saints.
But to Bound, that means, “So when they affirmed the Church's tradition of worshiping on Sunday, they were simply doing their job - preserving the Faith of the Apostles.” You oblige me to be repetitive. You pretend blind Ignatius never mentions Sunday or that Justin never mentions the Lord’s Day.
Of neither Ignatius and Justin is it true “they affirmed the Church's tradition of worshiping on Sunday”. “Worshiping on Sunday” was, no, ‘tradition’ of the Church as yet. Even Justin, had to beg the pagan Emperor’s recognition of the Christian’s Sunday-worship for this new thing it was and which Justin hoped would become the acceptable and vogue with Christianity. It is your ‘history’, conspicuously evident from the document itself.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound, “They received no reward through their positions but martyrdom.”
GE,
That can be true of Ignatius. But Justin scored a deal. ‘O sir emperor, Look how we Christians all worship our Lord Jesus on the day of your sun-god lord! Is it not wonderful we have this most important day to you, in common?’ As it usually goes with one that surrender to a godless power, Justin suffered martyrdom regardless.
When I say Justin perverted the Scriptures in Mt28:1 and set the trend for every age after him, I do not condemn his soul to damnation. But I do judge concerning what he wrote and aimed at, and condemn it to damnation as far as I have authority to, and that limit is set to me as it is set to you who judge what Justin wrote into eternal heavenly bliss. There’s no difference between your and my judging; judge we judge Justin. Only query as far as I am concerned, is, by what standard do we judge Justin? I say what he wrote should be judged by the Scriptures only; therefore I shall be obliged to condemn ‘Justin’. You decided to judge Justin by history; and of course, shall I be such a fool as to oppose your verdict? By the mere status quo of the Church’s Sunday veneration, Justin should be greatest of saints!


Bound, “When these facts are recognized, Constantine's edict of 321 can be understood in its true historical light.”
GE,
Ja, but with reservations. Was Constantine ever a Christian? Did he promulgate the edict from Christian motive? The edict itself defines its motives and reason, even its nature per se, and that, was nil percent Christian and 100 percent pagan.

Bound, “Constantine embraced Christianity during his campaign against Maxentius in 312. He spent the rest of his life trying to make the laws of the Roman Empire consistant with Christian ideals and practices not the other way round. Proclaiming the traditional day of Christian worship (Sunday) as an official day of rest was just part of that ongoing process.
GE,
Here begins the part I shall leave for the Seventh Day Adventists and company like ‘the sabbatarians’ and Bound, to answer. I have a long study of mine on these questions - and maybe a fact or two – lying in the drawer for decades now; worthless, not because anything wrong with it, but because of its irrelevancy! I have become disinterested in it. If it may interest others, my best wishes. Whatever the outcome, as far as for me, it will be meaningless for getting to grips with the real issue of Christianity’s Sunday veneration and Sabbath desecration.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound, “From this same perspective, the pronouncement by the bishops at the Council of Laodicea - that Christians must not rest on the Sabbath, but rather honor the Lord's day - is seen as just another skirmish in the battle against those who would force practices of the Jewish Old Coventant upon the New Coventant believers... to put the Light back into Shadow. This is a problem the Church has faced from its very beginning. It's the reason St. Paul had to admonish the Galations, ...”
GE,
The problem/s at and of the Council of Laodicea, were “a problem the Church has faced from its very beginning. It's the reason St. Paul had to admonish the Galations...”?? What a ‘leap on nothing’ and ‘against reason’, dear Bound! Do you want me to take you seriously?

Bound, “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire against to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain (Galatians 4:9-11).”
GE,
It could be you are quite right you know! Come to think of it, Sunday promulgated so strongly that very “weak and beggarly element to which you desire again to be in bondage” to! As at the Council of Laodicea, so in this very discussion.

Bound, “So what, ultimately, do sabbatarians need to understand here? What do they need to see, in order to avoid historical misunderstandings and scriptureal misinterpretations? Like the early Christians, sabbatarians must come to recognize that the Incarnation, life, death, and Resurrection of Christ opened a new way to God for us. They need to accept that the ways of God's Old Coventant - including the Sabbath worship - have been surpassed in the new Kingdom of Grace.”
GE,
Christianity in fact, from New Testament times, had to learn the ways of God's Covenant - including the Sabbath - have been surpassed in the new Kingdom of Grace. No longer is its core and heart, or essence and content, God’s first creating, or God’s first redeeming of Israel, but God’s Redeeming of the Israel of God in spirit and truth through Jesus Christ. “If then Jesus had given them rest, He shall not after this (His salvation), speak of another day thereafter— therefore there remains for God’s People a keeping of the Sabbath, He having entered into His own rest as God into his own.” Hb4:8-10.
So what, ultimately, do anti-sabbatharian sabbatharians need to understand here? What do they need to see, in order to avoid historical misunderstandings and Scriptural misinterpret-ations? Like the early Christians, they must come to recognize that the Incarnation, life, death, and Resurrection of Christ opened a new way to God for us. They need to see this, in the own understanding of the Early or Apostolic Church, as written and revealed in their own writings, the New Testament. (Not the ‘dynamic-equivalent’ way, which requires yonder Church life and writings, to be shown and revealed in later – or / and present – Church life and writings.)
The Gospels were composed at that stage in its history where the Church had had come to the recognition and full understanding, that the Incarnation, life, death, and Resurrection of Christ opened a new way to God for us. All the writings of the New Testament incidentally are the direct result of this knowledge, understanding and certainty; but the Gospels more than the other. I have said this before; I say it again, Show Sunday-sanctity in the Gospels, then I’ll pay attention to Sunday-argumentations.
One may say the Gospels are already of the ‘post-Apostolic age’ - the chief of the apostles, Paul and his era no longer featuring as when they made their influence felt at Pentecost and its after-shockwaves. The Gospels in themselves are the ‘later Christian literature’; not even the Teaching, Ignatius or Barnabas are ‘early Christian literature’. They rather were ‘early post-apostolic Christianity’. Justin must be filed in the ‘late post-apostolic Christianity’ file, so far is it removed from ‘apostolic’, not only in date, but in essence. Light years removed, came and went the Councils and saints like shooting stars.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound, “Of course, even one who accepts the fact that the Church has always worshiped on Sunday may still ask, "Why did the Church make that change? How could it set aside the Fourth Commandment like that?" To answer those questions, one must look to the teachings of the ancient Church - the Church that opened its doors on the Day of Pentecost and has preserved the teachings of the Apostles unaltered ever since.”
GE,
Your old trick, as always with you and your like, Make a statement first of something totally unwarranted as if the surest thing on earth, and take for granted your reader will just as unwarranted presume with you. (Or that you’re the best of buddies. How could he question your integrity?!) E.g., “Of course, even one who accepts the fact that the Church has always worshiped on Sunday may still ask” ...
I have last seen this method so masterly applied by Prof. Samuele Bacchiocchi the Seventh Day Adventists of renown second to none but Mrs E.G. White! And you tell me, Bound, you “can see the classic sabbatarian apologetic running all through (MY) posts”! I have seen nothing but, ‘the classic sabbatarian apologetic’ in your ‘rhetoric’ - only in reverse gear.
Bound, “Why did the Church make that change? How could it set aside the Fourth Commandment like that?”
GE,
The same thing: Assumption stated for fact to depart from as if fact. Bacchiocchi has met his match in Bound.
The Church never did any such thing as ‘set aside’ or ‘change’ the Fourth Commandment - never at the beginning; never afterwards. It was the apostates who ‘set aside’ and ‘changed’ the Fourth Commandment; not the Church.
Why, seen the ‘fact’ (according to you) the Church has always worshiped on Sunday, ‘change’ or ‘set aside’ the Fourth Commandment? ONLY if LATER ‘set aside’ or ‘changed’, can you talk of ‘set aside’ or ‘changed’; not if ‘always’ as from the start the Church has worshiped on Sunday.

Bound, “In examining those teachings, the sabbatarian will discover something he may find quite surprising: According to the ancient Church, Saturday is the Sabbath! The Sabbath was never "changed" from Saturday to Sunday, as some Christians mistakenly claim.”
GE
Another of your hackneyed sabbatarian-istic ‘surprises’, Bound. This ‘discovery’ of yours is centuries old.

Bound, “For two thousand years, the Church has recognized Saturday as a holy day that commemorate God's resting after the creation of the world.”
GE
Which only the vulnerable ignorant may receive for news or even for Gospel.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound, “The Church also reveres Saturday as the day on which Christ descended into hell, shattering its gates and freeing mankind forever from the bonds of death.”
GE
Which of course is rubbish, unless you meant “The Church” is the Roman Catholic Church. The Seventh Day Adventists say Jesus ‘rested in the tomb’. Which is the greater blasphemy, is for everyone to decide for himself. Because Christ shattered the gates of hell and in Himself freed all redeemed forever from the bonds of death, not “the day on which Christ descended into hell”, but on the day “the God of Peace (or ‘rest’) brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the (one and only) Everlasting Covenant” (of Grace), “having worked” ... “through Jesus Christ: That-Which-Is-Well-Pleasing-In-His-Sight, That to Whom be glory for ever.” That Resurrection from the dead, was on no other day than “In the Sabbath’s fullness in the very height of daylight tending towards the First Day of the week.” In plain English, Christ ‘descended’ not into hell, but from the dead, death and hell and grave, “afternoon of the Sabbath Day”, rose!


Bound
Now, as the Council of Laodicea's pronouncement indicates, the Church has never observed the Sabbath in a Jewish manner - with things like mandatory resting from work and travel restrictions.

GE
‘The Church’ – Roman Catholic or Protestant – has as much judaised ‘sabbatizing’ on Sundays as ever did the Jews on Sabbaths! I know enough of history to that, ‘with things like mandatory resting from work and travel restrictions’ the caboodle!

Bound
But the Sabbath is a day on which special services and liturgical practices has historically been observed.

GE
Which day of the week now is this ‘sabbath’?

Bound
In fact, I've heard sabbatarians quote historical claims that Christians of later centuries continued to keep the Sabbath. But they misunderstand these texts, because they do not recognize that the honor the ancient Church gives to the Sabbath has always been secondary to it sreverence for Sunday. For while the Church believes that the Sabbath is holy, and the creation it commemorates is awesome, it understands that both have been infinitely superseded in the coming of the Son of God to earth.

GE
Must your ‘Sabbaths’ now mean ‘Sundays’? Then I understand what you actually say is Sunday is the “day on which special services and liturgical practices has historically been observed”, which of course is true, depending on who the ‘Church’ you speak of, actually is. If the Apostolic Church, then it must the Seventh Day that was the Sabbath Day on which special services and liturgical practices historically were observed.




Many aspects of the old creation have already disappeared. For instance, St. Paul assures us that "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). For those who believe in Jesus Christ, death - an inescapable feature of the old creation - has been "abolished" (2 Timothy 1:10).”
GE
And so you will carry on without stopping, unless stopped. I stop you where it got unbearable - at this lie, “death - an inescapable feature of the old creation”. At this point in time there is no ‘old creation’; it is the same ‘old creation’ to this day. And whether or not, God’s ‘old creation’ has never had “death – an inescapable feature”. The very thought is blasphemy.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound, “So the new creation has already burst forth into existence. When did this begin to unfold? On the day of Christ's glorious Resurrection! One that day, God established the foundations of this new world that includes eternal life for mankind. Rising in the flesh, Christ our God made possible our eternal union with Him. By the power of His Resurrection, man is blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and may live in oneness with the Father under the earnest of new heavens and a new earth.” So far, so good.

Bound
Now, the old creation was commemorated on Saturday, the day of its ending.”

GE
The creation was not commemorated on ‘Saturday’; it was ‘commemorated’, “on the Seventh Day the LORD rested.” The Sabbath is not the “ending” of any ‘old creation’; it is the day of God’s finishing and bringing to end all His works old and new— making of it the first day for God’s creation, old, or, new. God’s creation and salvation are perfected “In the Sabbath”.
“ Wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day and hallowed it.” It is not at all said in Exodus 20, “God finished all His Works”, because it is only said in the New Testament, in Hb4:4-5. That first Seventh Day Sabbath at the creation was the Sabbath of God’s New Creation whether seen from ‘Old Testament’ or ‘New Testament’ perspective. The New Testament Sabbath by the resurrection of Christ from the dead on it, is the true Sabbath of God’s Rest as well as of God’s finished creation.

Bound
The New Testament tells us that this creation in which we live, the one that God spent six days creating, will not last. St. John declares, "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away" (Revelation 21:1).

GE
God declared his ‘old creation’, “good”, “indeed very good”, and even on its Seventh Day, rested from all His works— ‘rested’— even through Jesus Christ in resurrection from the dead! But Bound declares, “death - an inescapable feature of the old creation”.
“I saw a new earth and a new heaven” – the earth and heaven of God’s creation – redeemed from corruptibility and death brought upon it— not by God or by his creating it, but by man and his sin! Heaven and earth shall pass away, if could pass away the Word of God. “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled.” Mt5:18, cf., Phil1:6, Ps138:8. God’s creation stands as fast as God’s Word. The Word of God in Jesus Christ, redeeming and saving his ‘old’ creation, confirms and affirms the works of God’s redemption. The works of God are one in Jesus Christ.
Bound
But the new creation will never pass away. Thus, it can only be commemorated on the day on which it begins.

GE
Which simply is your fancy. Not only have you no Scripture for it, even ‘reason’ says ‘commemorate’ means to bring to memory an event after its event. How can you ‘commemorate’ beforetime?
The new creation will never pass away; that new creation shall be be God’s old creation redeemed and restored. By the force of it, neither can God’s ‘old’ creation ‘pass away’ as if God never created it. What a commemoration of failure on the Part of God would that be!