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

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound
As St. Athanasius (fourth century) writes, “The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord's day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old; in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord's day as being the memorial of the new creation.” (On Sabbath and Circumcision, 3).

GE
Although the Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Sabbath also was the first day and beginning of the finished creation. So the argument holds nothing. But all such reasoning is vanity. All that sets the standard is God’s Word and God’s Act through Christ according to the Scriptures.

Bound
This is why the ancient Church often refers to Sunday as the "eighth day." As the day of Resurrection, Sunday becomes the doorway through which we pass beyond this temporal and fading realm - this universe that operates on the seven-day cycle that the Sabbath remembers - into God's eternal day.

GE
Again, who were your ‘ancient Church’?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"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."

GE:
How can I answer just "Yes or No" if for Justin in the matter of his political dealings it is 'Yes' and in the case of Ignatius it in no way is 'Yes'.

You cannot 'judge' them on the same grounds; the grounds for judging are not the same.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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

GE:
The Bible specifies the First Day for what, and, where?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
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?

GE:
Put on those glasses I recommended, they aid in near-sightedness. I never, "present(ed) that the early Christian felt they needed to observe the Sabbath as Jews". The necessity to keep Sabbath originates with being the People of God, from the need to worship for being this Community of Believers in Christ, and from the necessity to so communicate for worship. But most fundamentally the keeping of the Sabbath by the early Church sprang from this: "If Jesus had given them rest", that is, If Jesus saved them, which He did; and, from this, "He - Jesus - having entered into His own rest as God in his own". "THEREFORE, says the writer, "remains valid for the People of God (the New Christianity) a keeping of the Sabbath Day".

Please, kindly do not return the answer 'sabbatismos'='katapausis'. If they were the same, the writer would have said the same. He did not, but under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the DIFFERENT words he used, for the edification of the Body of Christ's Own, who "feasting, eating and drinking" of Jesus Christ spiritually, "celebrated Sabbaths' Feast". The writer deceived not, nor dealt dfraudulently with the Word of God, but feared God in his very use of each word he wrote. Verses after verses 8-10.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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

What does that even mean? Why put DV on your books. I'm so lost with this discussion.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"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."

GE:
You ONLY, repeat your own 'rhetoric' of before. I have dealt on every point of yours in this statement or rather contention of yours, but you only try to make me look silly by challenging me on them as if I have had no answer before.
This time I'll only answer through straight forward denial of: Your "evidence",

"the early Christians felt they needed to observe the Sabbath as Jews";

that Sunday was called the Lord's day as you posit!

"to the contrary" that the Sabbath is called the Lord's Day";

"as early as 69 AD" which anyone can see you meant for 169;

that "Ignatius" supplies an 'example' in your favour and not in mine;

"that Christians observed the Lord's day apart from the Sabbath",

that the Christians had "two observances (that) were two different days"

... and herewith with compliments shall return your own, Outside of novel hermeneutics you have, so far, offered no evidence to suggest that the Lord's day is Sunday - or rather, was Sunday. For me this is no problem for sabbatarians, but one fabricated to unsettle the uncertain.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

More on a positive note,

I love the German in Ez13:1, "Dass Herrn Wort GESCAH zu mir ...", "The Word of God HAPPENED to me". God's Word is still His CREATING Word! "The LORD speaks, and it is."

We shall understand nothing of God's revelation in Christ or in the Scriptures, 'happen' His Word not to, and in, us.

We must put away our own spirit, verse 3, (and 2, our own heart).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What does that even mean? Why put DV on your books. I'm so lost with this discussion.

GE
I also got at a loss with this discussion. DV means God willing. I won't be able to breath my next breath, if not God willing.

This conversation made me realise, there is in every man a lying spirit - in me foremost. I used to have on every back-page of my books Tyndale's statement as a whole his, wherein he prayed God to take away his part in Christ had he not always dealt honestly to his conscience. I felt - as a result of this conversation, I am unable to claim such honesty to myself, but have to admit my sinfulness in every corner of my heart. Whatever I have said or written, I did sin in it and through it. Without God's forgiveness in every word or argument of mine, ever, I am both lost and damned.
I think I could sum it up in one word: Integrity. Like integrity proves my lack of integrity; so does it prove the lack of it in anyone else. No one is exempted from God's judgments, and every knee shall bow before God in judgement. One shall be found before the face of God, in Christ, or outside of Christ. I for myself speaking, can only confess and pray, God be merciful to me, sinner, for my part in Christ Jesus, Saviour Lord!

This I write, from the effects of this discussion upon my own soul. Be it ridiculous to anyone. But be unfaithful to the Word of God as concerns The Sabbath of the LORD your God, may my soul burn in hell!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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

GE:
If I said, The bible specifies, the first day of the week, that would be Sunday, I must call God a liar. The Bible does not 'specify' it.

If I said, The bible specifies, the first day of the week, that would be the Sabbath, I must call God a liar. The Bible does not 'specify' it.

If I said, The bible specifies, the first day of the week, that would be the Lord's Day, I must call God a liar. The Bible does not 'specify' it.

If I said NOT, The Bible specifies, "The Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God", I must call God a liar. The Bible does, 'specify' it.

If I said NOT, The Bible specifies, "Therefore remains for the People of God, a keeping of the Sabbath Day", I must call God a liar. The Bible does,'specify' it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE
I also got at a loss with this discussion. DV means God willing. I won't be able to breath my next breath, if not God willing.

This conversation made me realise, there is in every man a lying spirit - in me foremost. I used to have on every back-page of my books Tyndale's statement as a whole his, wherein he prayed God to take away his part in Christ had he not always dealt honestly to his conscience. I felt - as a result of this conversation, I am unable to claim such honesty to myself, but have to admit my sinfulness in every corner of my heart. Whatever I have said or written, I did sin in it and through it. Without God's forgiveness in every word or argument of mine, ever, I am both lost and damned.
I think I could sum it up in one word: Integrity. Like integrity proves my lack of integrity; so does it prove the lack of it in anyone else. No one is exempted from God's judgments, and every knee shall bow before God in judgement. One shall be found before the face of God, in Christ, or outside of Christ. I for myself speaking, can only confess and pray, God be merciful to me, sinner, for my part in Christ Jesus, Saviour Lord!

This I write, from the effects of this discussion upon my own soul. Be it ridiculous to anyone. But be unfaithful to the Word of God as concerns The Sabbath of the LORD your God, may my soul burn in hell!

DV = Deus Voluntas? as in the Pater Noster -> "Fiat voluntas tua"?

You really are an enigma. In the mental health profession they say person who hears a word and repeats word that sounds like the first with no cohesive meaningful conjuction is clanging. At least where I'm from. What you seem to do is as a thought enters your mind you jump to that subject regardless of the current topic. Maybe its your way of expounding your thoughts futher I don't know but I'm having a hard time following your train of thought. You feel that you and all men are having a problem with integrity. I don't know why unless it is to say that you haven't said plainly what you think or believe about the day of resurection. You state that initially the Lords day was considered saturday and that a latter development that it was changed to Sunday though you seem to view this as spurious even though you haven't said it.

 

[bound]

You ONLY, repeat your own 'rhetoric' of before. I have dealt on every point of yours in this statement or rather contention of yours, but you only try to make me look silly by challenging me on them as if I have had no answer before.

GE,

When did historical evidence become 'rhetoric'?

I have given you historical evidence which you have not refuted with any evidence. You have attempted to twist their meaning but you have no evidence for your position.

This time I'll only answer through straight forward denial of: Your "evidence", "the early Christians felt they needed to observe the Sabbath as Jews"; that Sunday was called the Lord's day as you posit!

I didn't 'posit' I gave historical evidence to the fact that two martyrs distinguished between the Lord's day and the Sabbath.

"to the contrary" that the Sabbath is called the Lord's Day";"as early as 69 AD" which anyone can see you meant for 169;

tossing in your own words into historical text to twist its meaning doesn't contradict it's 'actual' meaning. Especially when we have multiple texts which point out the fact that the Lord's day was a distinct day from the Sabbath.

that "Ignatius" supplies an 'example' in your favour and not in mine; "that Christians observed the Lord's day apart from the Sabbath", that the Christians had "two observances (that) were two different days" ... and herewith with compliments shall return your own, Outside of novel hermeneutics you have, so far, offered no evidence to suggest that the Lord's day is Sunday - or rather, was Sunday. For me this is no problem for sabbatarians, but one fabricated to unsettle the uncertain.

Okay so you are calling the evidence I offered on St. Ignatius fabricated? This is the first time you have said this. Before you attempted to 'read' your own interpretation into the text. Now you are denying it as a fabrication?

Which is it?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DV = Deus Voluntas? as in the Pater Noster -> "Fiat voluntas tua"?

You really are an enigma. In the mental health profession they say person who hears a word and repeats word that sounds like the first with no cohesive meaningful conjuction is clanging. At least where I'm from. What you seem to do is as a thought enters your mind you jump to that subject regardless of the current topic. Maybe its your way of expounding your thoughts futher I don't know but I'm having a hard time following your train of thought. You feel that you and all men are having a problem with integrity. I don't know why unless it is to say that you haven't said plainly what you think or believe about the day of resurection. You state that initially the Lords day was considered saturday and that a latter development that it was changed to Sunday though you seem to view this as spurious even though you haven't said it.

GE
My last post was meant to show the lying spirit in this discussion. It made me think of my use of Tyndale, and that I am not able to claim untainted integrity like he did. So I changed it on the back page of every book of mine - for future prints.

I say Bound also is subject to a lying spirit; he is not exempt like I am not exempt. Bound's talking on the first century documents to me proves but one thing: He - you hear me Bound - you have no clue of what actually is contained in either Barnabas, Justin or Ignatius. You are ignorant as concerns their content. That I have shown you, over and over. And while you are unable to recognise where you are at a complete loss as to fact, you are also unable to recognise where you are at a complete loss to understand.

My above post in answer to DonnaA also answers your claims.

I'll summarise my claims for you, mentioning the facts - no 'interpretation':

Ignatius is the ONLY 1st century writer (The Teaching excepted) who uses the expression "The Lord's (life)"
Ignatius not even uses the expression "The Lord's Day".
Ignatius ASSOCIATES by contrasting, "'Sabbatising ... WITHOUT Christ", with 'Sabbatising' "according to the Lord's LIFE".
Ignatius not at all mentions or suggests the First Day of the week.

Barnabas is the only 1st c. writer who refers to the 'eighth day'
Barnabas associated the 'eighth day' with the "seventh era", which in turn, he associates with the Seventh day Sabbath
Barnabas not all all mentions or suggests the First Day of the week.

Justin not at all mentions or suggests "The Lord's Day"!
Justin twists Matthew's words and meaning around to make "On the Sabbath", "On Sunday", and to make it mean "after" the sabbath.


Where Barnabas and Ignatius argued ABOUT THE SABBATH WITH REGARD TO THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, Justin LIES and asserts the resurrection was "On the day of the sun" and 'after', the Sabbath.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE
My last post was meant to show the lying spirit in this discussion. It made me think of my use of Tyndale, and that I am not able to claim untainted integrity like he did. So I changed it on the back page of every book of mine - for future prints.

I say Bound also is subject to a lying spirit; he is not exempt like I am not exempt. Bound's talking on the first century documents to me proves but one thing: He - you hear me Bound - you have no clue of what actually is contained in either Barnabas, Justin or Ignatius. You are ignorant as concerns their content. That I have shown you, over and over. And while you are unable to recognise where you are at a complete loss as to fact, you are also unable to recognise where you are at a complete loss to understand.

My above post in answer to DonnaA also answers your claims.

I'll summarise my claims for you, mentioning the facts - no 'interpretation':

Ignatius is the ONLY 1st century writer (The Teaching excepted) who uses the expression "The Lord's (life)"
Ignatius not even uses the expression "The Lord's Day".
Ignatius ASSOCIATES by contrasting, "'Sabbatising ... WITHOUT Christ", with 'Sabbatising' "according to the Lord's LIFE".
Ignatius not at all mentions or suggests the First Day of the week.

Barnabas is the only 1st c. writer who refers to the 'eighth day'
Barnabas associated the 'eighth day' with the "seventh era", which in turn, he associates with the Seventh day Sabbath
Barnabas not all all mentions or suggests the First Day of the week.

Justin not at all mentions or suggests "The Lord's Day"!
Justin twists Matthew's words and meaning around to make "On the Sabbath", "On Sunday", and to make it mean "after" the sabbath.


Where Barnabas and Ignatius argued ABOUT THE SABBATH WITH REGARD TO THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, Justin LIES and asserts the resurrection was "On the day of the sun" and 'after', the Sabbath.

Gratias.

This I can follow. Again thank you.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"When did historical evidence become 'rhetoric'?"

GE:
When, through the pen of Bound, rhetoric, became 'historical evidence'.

Bound, do you realise, that you throughout this discussion, vis a vis your theory did not quote one single word or phrase from your 'evidence'?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"Especially when we have multiple texts which point out the fact that the Lord's day was a distinct day from the Sabbath."

GE:
"multiple texts" ... In the first century: ONE="multiple texts"; In the 2nd c., 0="multiple texts";
If 'The Lord's (Life)', then in the 2nd c., ONE="multiple texts".

You remind me of Prof. Bacchiocchi. whose 'abundant evidence' for a sunrise reckoning of the day in the NT, is Mt.28:1 - ONE - which actually is Zero 'evidence'! You remind me also of another SDA I debated with and was summarily dismissed and banned when I opposed him, who talked of dictionaries and commentaries as 'evidence'. The fact something is in one or the other gigantic book, is of NO consequence to me.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"I didn't 'posit' I gave historical evidence to the fact that two martyrs distinguished between the Lord's day and the Sabbath."

GE:
Another 'evidence' that I am right (in post 154, e.g.), that Bound does not know his tables.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"Okay so you are calling the evidence I offered on St. Ignatius fabricated?"

GE:
My dear Bound, You are not supposed to offer evidence on 'St. Ignatius'. (He has been sainted already.) 'St Ignatius' is supposed to offer evidence on the stuff you have fabricated on him, pretending you have him as evidence for or on it!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bound:
"This is the first time you have said this. Before you attempted to 'read' your own interpretation into the text. Now you are denying it as a fabrication?

Which is it?"

GE:
Whichever you like!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Correction and my apology:

GE:
"Barnabas is the only 1st c. writer who refers to the 'eighth day'"

GE:
Which is wrong; Justin also uses the expression in his Diatribe against Trypho.

See a good thread on BaptistBoard during +- August 2005. I lost the 'Title'

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here's the thread, http://www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-12109.html , Title, 'The "Sabbath" remains for the People of God'

Kamoroso posted an article by 'Lewis' I don't agree on many aspects. But you'll find Ignatius on the 'eighth day' there. I think Ig. was influenced by Barnabas, did not like Barnabas' association with the Sabbath; so made it fit Sunday.