As almost every Christian denomination observes Sunday instead of Saturday (Sabbath) as the day of worship, when did the change from Saturday to Sunday take place?

I am only aware of a few Christian denominations that observe Saturday (Sabbath) as the day of worship, namely Seventh-day Pentecostals, Seventh-day Baptists, Messianic Jews, and (of course) Seventh-day Adventists.

In a lecture at Loma Linda University Elder C. Mervin Maxwell was giving us information on a book he was writing on the change. Sadly he died soon thereafter and I don't know if anyone is doing the final research. It sounded like it would have been a powerful book. While a stonch supporter of the Sabbath it was sensitive to Sundaykeepers as well.

He was saying that with things that were going on in the world during the 2nd century that Sundaykeeping was probably the best choice at the time, but now we are no longer living in those times and should return to the Sabbath.

Scholars have been pointing out that in the first century while Sabbath was the Sabbath, that Chirstians would also meet on Sundays to talk about things that were unique to Christians and not just in common for Chistians and Jews, and to the gentiles, especially after the Church - Synogogue split of 135 AD (and also that prayer agains Christians in 90 AD) gentile believers tended to focus more on the day that was more focused on Christianity than Judio-Christianity. There are non-adventist scholars, who are Sundaykeepers who say that God still expects Christians of Jewish heritage to keep the Sabbath and that the church needs to be accomidating of Sabbathkeepers and to encourage converts from Judaism to continue to keep the Sabbath.

Others have pointed out that with the rise of the doctrine of Evolution in the mid 1800s that God would call attention to the cultic symbol of worshiping him as creator, and that there is a message in the Sabbath even for Sunday keepers and that there will be a test in the issues about the Sabbath and Sunday laws that will play an eschatalogical role.

This is a bit different from what has developed into a traditon in Adventism:

The mark of the beast is imposed religion. and Sunday laws are imposed religion thus related to the mark of the beast.

But we have skiped over some steps, instead of seeing the broder picture of liberty of conscience and worshiping God according to the dictates of our own conscience, we have made the mark specifically Sunday laws, and we turn to a higher law that if going to be imposed on you, and we have thus become smug in this tradition.

But we probably have a lot more to learn about the Sabbath and the ability to preach it more fully than our tradition allows us to do, and that Dr. Maxwell's research may have been helpful in this and thus his death as an attack by Satan on this book he was writing.

The replacement of Sabbath-keeping with Sunday-keeping began with the Catholic Church. Here's what the inspired record says about it:

Very interesting post.

Is there a transcript of what he had accomplished prior to his death?

Has somebody else taken up the task of completing the unfinished mantle?

Bumping this for a hopeful answer from MM.

Sunday observance began virtually simultainiously with the start of the Christian church. Constantine's edict had nothing to do with it.

It's not really fair to say that the "Catholic" church started Sunday keeping, or changed the day. In the first century there was only one church. It's more accurate to say Christians generally were worshiping on Sunday. Another Christian church did not arise until 1517. (Lutherans)

In the NT there is almost no discussion of the Sabbath/Sunday "issue", and only a handful of texts even mention a day of worship in any context. So I have to ask: "Is Sabbath vs. Sunday REALLY the issue we are making out of it?"

I was afraid someone would ask. Actualy, I can. I just need a little time; I couldn't find the exact reference when I posted.

The above quote may be found at this website: http://www.gci.org/law/sabbath/hanson

The books of the NT were written between 63 and 120 AD (very approximately), so Justin's writtings are contemporary with the formation of the NT.

Constantine was Emperor from 306-337 AD, which is, at the least, 140 years later. He did not change the day, but simply codefied what was general (should I say universal?) practice in the church.

Just out of curiosity, are posters on this forum aware of (and understand) the arguements for keeting Sunday rather than Saturday? (And its not sufficient to simply say "Its not in the Bible.")

Just a question. Not a challenge or judgement.

I think I can safely say that about everyone on this forum has heard about all of the arguements for and against Sunday worship. None of the ones for Sunday are Biblical. Not one in there kept the venerable day of the sun. They all kept the Sabbath. It isn't drawn out in scripture simply because it was never questioned. There are only two texts that Sunday people like to use. Atcs 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2. Neither even mention worship, or God, or the Lord. Like your married children aren't reminded to change their underwear, no one mentioned what day God set aside at Creation for His day, the 4th Commandment.

No, it began after the death of the apostles, otherwise they would have written about it.


Constantine's edict made Sunday a public festival to the whole Roman Empire, but of course it had gradually been increasing in sacredness before that.


There were religious meetings both on Sunday and on the Sabbath, but Sunday was really kept only in certain places.


But there should be in case Sunday was already observed at that time, since this would have been a reason for controversy, like circumcision.

Second century.

What are they? Because I'm aware of just one: tradition.

So we say. Actually in the Law of Moses there are several 8th day(Sunday) ritual pointing to the sonship of God.

1)Ex 22:29 Present the firstborn of thy sons to the Lord. Typically done at circumcision. Jesus was presented to the Lord on the 8th Day according to the Law(Lk 2:21).

2)Ex 22:30 Present the firstborn of thy oxen and thy sheep on the 8th Day

3)Lev 23:11 Wave Sheaf (symbolizing ressurection and presentation of Jesus who was the firstfruit to God)

4)Lev 23:15 Pentecost -- it always fell on the 8th day which was counting 7 sabbaths by which Pentecost was on Sunday on the 50th day.

5)Lev 23:36; Num 35-40 Feast of Tabernalces -- on the 8th Day

6)Lev 8:35-9:23; Rom 12:1 Consecreation of Priests. ON the 8th day.

Here’s an interesting discussion on Adventist Online concerning the change from Sabbath Keeping to Sunday. Someone had brought the Epistle of Barnabas has been the strongest support for this change.

Here is a reply from Myron who studied the Law of Moses in great dept what he say about the 8th day observance in the Law and the early church.

This is a fallacious argument which uses the eigth day from birth (which could fall on any day of the week), the eigth day for the consacration of the priests (which, again, could fall on any day of the week), the eigth day of a feast (which, again, could fall on any day of the week), and the day after the Sabbath in two feasts (which would fall on the first day of the week, since the eigth day of the week does not exist).

So it is clear from the responses of Rosangela and Harold that they, at least, have no idea what the rational is for keeping Sunday. This is a shame, because until you know how Sunday-keepers view the world and how they justify keeping the first day of the week, no progress will be made in convincing them to keep the seventh.

As Sun-Tz says "Know your enemy." Sun-Tzu "The Art of War"

I have seen no argument which would make sense, so in fact Sundaykeeping is irrational.
What is the rationale for keeping Sunday? Let's discuss it here.

As I said, in all my discussions with them, the only argument I've seen them use, apart from a few twisted Biblical texts, is tradition (Church fathers). Is there any other?

John Paul II's arguments in his letter Dies Domini:

“The fundamental importance of Sunday has been recognized through two thousand years of history and was emphatically restated by the Second Vatican Council: ‘Every seven days, the Church celebrates the Easter mystery. This is a tradition going back to the Apostles...’” Dies Domini, 3.

“So that the abiding value of Sunday in the Christian life will be clear to all the faithful. In doing this, we follow in the footsteps of the age-old tradition of the Church.” Dies Domini, 6.

“In the light of this constant and universal tradition, it is clear that, although the Lord's Day is rooted in the very work of creation and even more in the mystery of the biblical "rest" of God, it is nonetheless to the Resurrection of Christ that we must look in order to understand fully the Lord's Day.” Dies Domini, 19.

“With its weekly recurrence, the Lord's Day is rooted in the most ancient tradition of the Church and is vitally important for the Christian.” Dies Domini, 76.

“The spiritual and pastoral riches of Sunday, as it has been handed on to us by tradition, are truly great.” Dies Domini, 81

Yes, there are other reasons. The reasons stem from a way of viewing the world. Change the world view and you change the reasons. Presto! You have Sabbath observance. Unfortunately, most Sunday keepers (like most Sabbath keepers) don't know the reasons for what they do.

When JPII appeals to tradition in his Dies Domini he is basing this appeal on a universally (read "Catholic") accepted authority--that of the power of the Apostles to make decisions in the church. (Which finds its ultimate form in the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope.) Protestants rejected this authority at the Reformation, but for Catholics it is still valid. In other words, Catholics have two authorities: Scripture, and Apostolic Authority.

Sundaykeepers' reasons indeed must stem from their way of viewing the world, or from some other source, since they can't justify their belief through the Bible.

Not surprisingly, you missed the point. They don't need to justify their belief from the Bible, because Apostolic Authority is an equally valid authority. Therefore, "It's not in the Bible." is an invalid arguement.

You are speaking about Catholics. I'm more concerned about Protestants. Their arguments basically are the same, although they don't profess to accept tradition. This is a contradiction.

Basically the rational for Sunday comes from a disregard of the Old Testament as a source of doctrine.
The New Covenant supposedly comes with a new outline of "law" built more on love. Only the commandments expressly mentioned by the apostles continue into the new covenant.
Since Paul mentions in several places that "days" are apparently not important (Col. 2:16, Gal. 4:10, Romans 14:6)therefore the Sabbath day isn't important.

They then will say Jesus set a new day by example which is now the Christian day for assembly. Since Jesus rose on Sunday, met with the disciples on several Sundays, sent the Holy Spirit on Sunday...

The Jewish Sabbath, they often say, was a type of the rest to come in Christ. Therefore it was a shadow, just like all the other ceremonial laws. They will point to Lev. 23 where the Sabbath is listed along with the Jewish festivals, and to Hebrews 3.

They will then quote the VERY FEW remaining documents that have been known to be "doctored" over the ages, written by "the fathers" to prove that Christians from the earliest years were already meeting on Sunday not Saturday.
However, it has been proven over and over that everything from wrong dates ascribed to those documents, misquoting, and additions were needed to make those documents say what is now the accepted understanding of what they say. It is also ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church was very industrious in obliterating writings that didn't agree with her version of things.

Pressed further they will say Adventists don't know what they are talking about when they say Christians adopted the pagan Sunday as the Romans didn't even have a seven day week in the first century, so they couldn't have been keeping a pagan holiday every sunday.

So yes, they have dug themselves a pretty impressive wall against God's fourth commandment.

The argument which says that "days" are not important contradicts the one which says that Christ set a new day. They are saying, on one hand, that all days are equal and no day is important, and, on the other hand, that there is one day more important than the others - the first day of the week, the day of Christ's resurrection, "the Lord's day."
???

Agree -- there are many contradictions in the arguments against God's Holy Sabbath Day.

We also need to remember the arguments come from people who are not always agreed on every point. Many do not think of Sunday as another Sabbath, but simply as a good day to "assemble together" and worship the Lord.
On the other hand we have the Puritan concept that indeed the full solemnity of the Sabbath now rests on the first day of the week.

The fact is that those who argue that it really makes no difference on which day people assemble for worship and deny that Sunday is a new Sabbath, still, BY DEFAULT will accept Sunday.
That's the snare some Adventists are falling into. Accepting the "the actual day isn't important, just don't forsake assembling together with believers" argument -- will, when the crises comes, shift to Sunday.


Actually I think Col. 2:16 is a wonderful text for Sabbath keepers because it does NOT say anything about sabbaths being abolished -- it says LET NO MAN JUDGE you concerning... The chapter is speaking of man made commandments and traditions, not God's commands.(see Col. 2:8,22) When the Sunday crises comes that text will be in our favor, not against us, even though people try to use it against us now.

Another glaring contradiction I see, is saying the ten commandments were nailed to the cross, thus they are no longer binding on Christians but then we see them all coming together for TEN COMMANDMENT DAY, and lobbying to have the commandments posted in schools, courtrooms and other public places.

Can anyone answer the last objection in my first post. I'd be grateful for any historical back up.

The objection that the pagans (Romans) didn't even have a seven day week so how could Christians have adopted a pagan sunday.

I think we have been looking too hard into paganism to explain the Sunday observance, when all along the 8th Day observance was in the Law of Moses and already kept by Judaism aside with the 7th day Sabbath.

Early Christianity had recently experience two major events that happened on the 8th Day(Sunday) the ressurection of Christ(the waving of firstfruit) and the Pentecost(two loaves with leavened) who received only a deposit of the Spirit of God. Both these events are ANTITYPES of the Laws concerning the 8th Day.

The fall Feast of Tabernacle is currently another major event that points to the 8th Day. The Jubilee is the crown of all the 8th Day Observance type of Law. Pentecost is based on the Jubiliee with its 7 weeks of sabbaths = 49 days of counting the omers until the 50th. So the Jubillee Type was in (i)days for Pentecost, (ii) years when they entered the promise land(Kingdom of God), (iii) milleniums in the restitution of all things.

Please note that the 8th Day observance is based on the 7th Day observance.

“The 8th day ceremonies has nothing to do about replacing the Sabbath. These are about Sonship, and are about the sons of God beginning their work in service to God and fellow man.”

I think JAK brought up a very important point. The SDAs, Protestants, and Catholics do not understand the origins of the Sunday Keeping in the early church; nor why Jesus’ ressurection and the Pentecost where fulfilled on the 8th Day. I think this lack of knowledge crept in very early in the early church and that’s possibly why the 8th Day observance got transpose by some into a day of worship instead of understanding that it was a ceremony/fulfillment of sonship and of beginning of service.

Although this thread deals with the origin of Sunday observance, I'm not convinced that it's all that important. More important, in my mind, are the current reasons for doing something, in this case worshiping on Sunday. It does not really matter how it started.

There were just two festivals that landed on Sunday.
The waving of the First Sheaf and the day of Penticost.

That means TWICE A YEAR, a special event took place on a Sunday.

The Feast of Tabernacles was not governed by the weekly cycle. It began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month and just like in our calendar the fifteenth day of a month can land on any day of the week, so the two "sabbaths" of the Feast of Tabernacles could have both been on Mondays one year, Tuesdays the next, etc.

So that really was NOT at all connected with Sunday being anything special.

Our own campmeetings are eight day events, I don't think anyone thinks of the second Sabbath as being any special "eighth" day worship day.

Personally I think the "eighth day" concept as referring to sunday was not at all part of the Jewish thinking.

It was something that those who wanted to disassociate themselves from the Jews developed. They added spiritualized dimensions to the number "eight", applied it to Sunday in an effort to make the Sabbath to Sunday switch.

Nor do I believe the early Christians were meeting on Sunday on any regular basis. They were keeping the 7th day Sabbath.

Even in the 5th Century Socrates wrote:

"Nor is there less variation in regard to religious assemblies. For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this. The Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebaïs, hold their religious assemblies on the sabbath...



The assumption that Christians were keeping Sunday early on is what the Catholic church would like us to believe.

Before taking the ancient "writings" of "church fathers" as the final word, we need to make sure they ACTUALLY wrote what is attributed to them. And then there's also the fact that Rome diligently destroyed all writings considered "heretical", thus we do not have the writings from the "church in the wilderness", and there is evidence that there WERE such writings, but all we have is what their enemies wrote ABOUT them.

The seven-day week was adopted by the Romans around the beginning of the first century AD, that is, at the beginning of the Christian era.

Thanks Rosangela
I think with a little research the seven day week can be traced right back to creation.

Actually Justin's letter is a powerful answer to those who say Rome knew nothing about a day in honor to the sun known as Sunday or the seven day week.
Either Justin's letter was interloped (added to) to prove early Sunday worship, or the Romans already were honouring Sunday (in a seven week cycle) as a special day dedicated to the sun.
The Sunday promoters can't have it both ways.

I believe it is the latter. Justinian shows the biggest reason why SOME early Christians were moving to Sunday. They wanted to be disassociated from the Jews.

The Jews were in constant trouble with Rome. Rome had destroyed their city and temple in 70 AD. The Romans, under Hadrian, crushed a second Jewish rebellion for independence in a three-year war ending in 135 AD. The rebellion was led by Simon bar Kochba, who was declared to be the messiah. This time the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem even plowing it up and banning all Jews from the area. Emperor Hadrian prohibited Sabbath worship throughout the Roman Empire as well as circumcision. So it was a Tough time!

Justin the Martyr wrote to the Roman Emperor Antoninus, who ruled from 138-161. So we see this was written soon after all the major Jewish catastrophies. He is trying to gain favor for Christians from the new Roman Emperor.

Justin writes:


So what do we have here --
1. A life and death struggle in which some of the Christians feel it imperative to be disassociated with the Jews.

2. A decree forbidding worship on Saturday and other Jewish identifying practices.

3. A man trying to win the favor of new Roman emperor.

4. A clear indication that this Roman emperor was well acquainted with calling the days of the week by the pagan names "sunday" "Saturnday"

These pagan names were NOT the names the Jewish used for their weekdays. They were clearly pagan. And obviously in use when the shift to sunday was being pushed.

5. Now we can consider this -- German Adventists have been severely critisized for their support of Hitler in his early years, and for compromising on the Sabbath due to political and often life and death demands to participate in the war.
Does this mean that the compromise is the RIGHT action and should now be regarded as the NORM for Adventist believers?

I think we would answer that with a resounding "NO".
Yet, the Christian world looks at a similar compromise as written by Justin, and say "YES" the compromise should be regarded as the norm.

Yet, if it really was the norm then why would the Catholic church for centuries after this be issuing decrees and working in many ways and many places to gradually stamp out, and outlaw worship on the true Sabbath?

We need to keep in focus the centuries long battle the Catholic church waged against the Sabbath? Then the true picture as outlined in Spirit of Prophecy comes back into focus.

I presume you are refering to this quote:




Please post documentation supporting the accusation that the early documents have been "doctored". Also, please post the original documents, (or links to them) so we can compare them. Since it has been "proved over and over", that should not be hard.

Point number two. Having just maligned the quote from Justin Martyr as being "doctored" with additions, spurious dates, etc., you now use it to support an allegation of your own. Can you please explain. Are the early manuscripts reliable or not?

Maybe. (Early manuscripts do not support that view.) Or maybe they didn't write about it because they recognized that it wasn't a critical issue.



I have no idea what you are saying here.

Perhaps you would like to email the author, Thomas D. Hanson, Sr. http://www.gci.org/aboutus/contact


(A very interesting read, by the way. The author quotes many SDA sources, if you check the end notes link. http://www.gci.org/law/sabbath/hansonnotes)

Judaizers adhered to the need to observe the Mosaic laws. Do you think they would urge the new Christians to observe circumcision (a frequent theme in Paul's letters) but wouldn't urge them to observe the Sabbath (since the latter were supposedly observing Sunday)?

Any internet source will give the birth and death dates for Justin Martyr as c. 100 and c. 165, respectively. This is obviously second century and what he wrote was obviously a mistake.

I've taken a quick look at the article.


This is pathetic. Not having one single Bible passage to quote which commands Sunday to be observed, the author, obviously, has to rely on tradition.

No, I wasn't refering to Justin.
I already dealt with Justin's quote in the post just above your remarks. Justin was trying to impress the emperor.
To deduce from that, that all Christians were from that point onward worshipping on Sunday is a terrific leap in logic.

About like saying because German Adventists slipped on the Sabbath issue during Hitler's time thus since that time all Adventists have followed their decisions.

These are quotes found at anti Adventist and anti Sabbath websites like www. Bible.ca.

These were very numerous at one point, though some have disappeared since their methods were exposed.

Let's start with the Didache.



First of all you won't find that quote in the Didache at all. It comes from a document written 200 years later. (So much for accurately portraying dates on those websites)



Now I wonder why the anti-Sabbath website elipsed "every Sabbath day" ?? Obviously in the third century they were still observing the Sabbath day !!! Even if the day of resurrection also had meetings on it.

At that point they were not to fast on the Sabbath except one -- further study reveals that one was the yearly rememberance of Christ being in the grave.
Later decades we find commands to fast on the Sabbath -- the papal means of casting contempt upon the God's Holy Day.

There were actually four quotes that anti-Sabbath website was attributing to the 90AD Didache that weren't there at all. They were all lifted out of the Apostolic Consitiutions of the 3rd century.

However, all those quotes prove is that Christians liked to have an early morning meeting on Sundays.
In fact they seemed to gather EVERY morning!

Look at these quotes:




So what do we see?

We do NOT see Christians as having given up the Sabbath at all.
Yes, they do meet on Sundays and as time progresses Sunday (with the help of Roman Catholic Church) will push out the Sabbath, but it had not done so prior to the days of Constantine.

There is no evidence that they had given up the Sabbath in these 3rd century writings.

But back to the problems in these writings.

This quote really is from the Didache



Sounds pretty convincing BUT....

The Greek word for "day" does not even appear in the original greek passage. It has been added by the translators

It could just as easily read:
"But for every Lord's Supper gather yourselves together and break bread give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."

However there is something even more interesting --
If the missing noun is "day" -- what evidence from scripture do we have that these early Christians refer to Sunday? NONE!
All through scriptures the LORD claims the seventh day as His.

Those who understand GREEK have found something very interesting in Didache 14:1 something that has disappeared in the English translations.



Notice the last words of chapter 13 are "according to the commandment."


Now according to Bob Pickle who studied this passage from the Greek --

Kata is the Greek preposition translated "according to." The next word, ten, is the direct article in front of "commandment." (Ten is pronounced "tane": what looks like a "v" is really an "n," and the letter that looks like an "n" with a tail corresponds to the "e" in "obey.") Entolen is the word for "commandment." The -en at the end of entolen alerts us to the fact that entolen is a feminine word, singular in number, and accusative in case.

Notice how kuriaken, which we have translated "imperial," also ends with en. Kuriaken is an adjective. Adjectives must typically agree with the words they are modifying in gender, number, and case. Translators have usually assumed that the word being modified by kuriaken is hemera, the Greek word for day, even though hemera is nowhere to be seen in the text. However, it is fairly clear from the context that the word being modified is actually entolen, "commandment," since that word immediately precedes kata kuriaken, and is also feminine and singular.

In other words, Didache 14:1, far from commanding worship on the first day of the week, is actually directing Christians to gather for worship in harmony with the imperial commandment of the Lord. And what can that but bring to mind but the Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue!

------------


Didache 14 According to the imperial commandment of the Lord, after being gathered together, break bread and give thanks. . . .—suggested translation.

Ignatius
The real Ignatius, lived about 110 AD.
Something like 15 letters were attributed to him, but now even the anti-Sabbath scholars reject most (some even all) the writings attributed to him as being fake. Saying they were written years later by some zealous person trying to establish apostalic authority on things that had no apostolic authority.

His epistle to the Magnesians comes in two forms, one much longer than the other. Some scholars think MAYBE the shorter one is authentic. The second obviously seems to be added onto by a later writer.


"The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent interpolation." (History of the Christian Church, Philip Shaff, Vol 2, ch 4)

I was just doing a thread on this subject in another site, so I will bring over some what I found that relates to the origin.

The Romans often called their sun god by the name, Sol Invictus, "the Invincible Sun." During the early centuries of the Christian Era, pagan sun worship was the greatest rival of Christianity.

The pagan religion would closely approximate in several ways Christianity. It had such features as a dying, rising Saviour, special religious suppers, a special holy day out of the weekly seven--the Sun Day, initial baptism of its converts (in the blood of a slaughtered bull), and other similarities.

Gradually, large numbers of Romans began observing Sunday as a holy day in honor of the gods of the sun, especially Mithra. He was especially liked by the Roman soldiers, for his worship included athletic feats of skill and "warlike manliness." and they carried this belief with them as they came up through the ranks. When Augustus Caesar became emperor, just before the birth of Christ, Mithraism was already spreading westward from Asia into Europe, and into the Roman Empire.

Since the Roman generals, in times of crisis, frequently took over the emperorship, this also favored the growth of sun worship. (Two centuries later, the Roman generals Constantius Chlorus and his son Constantine were devoted to the Sun god.) The early church in Rome kept the Seventh day at its inception, as many Gentiles as well as Jew became Christians and kept the Seventh-day Sabbath. Josephus, a historian who lived in the first century, remarks on how widespread throughout the empire was the keeping of the Seventh-day Sabbath at that time.

But then two important events occurred that shattered all this. In A.D. 70, nearly forty years after the death of Christ, and then again in A.D. 135, serious Jewish revolts were put down with much bloodshed. As a result of this, the hatred of the Romans toward anything that savored of Judaism became intense. Hadrian, the emperor, issued an edict soon after, strictly prohibiting the observance of the Seventh-day Sabbath. But imperial decrees tended to be short-lived, and Christians generally disregarded it. However in Rome itself, the capitol of the empire, things were different.

Anicetus, the local bishop, or religious leader, of the Christian church in the city of Rome , urged his followers as well as neighboring churches to keep the first day instead of the Seventh. At the risk of his life, the aged Polycarp, who had been a close friend of the Apostle John before his death about 100 A.D., traveled to Rome about the year 155, and strongly protested this action on the part of Anicetus. The Roman bishop refused to yield to Scripture in this matter, but otherwise the meeting was courteous. Polycarp returned to Smyrna and was martyred the next year.

By the middle of the second century, Sun worship was very popular among the Romans. The emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.) erected a temple to Mithra at Ostai, a seaport town a few miles below Rome. Pius' name is also written at the base of the famous temple of the Sun at Baalbek (Heliopolis) in Syria. Justin Martyr, a leading Christian writer at the time, wrote an open letter to Pius, in which he referred several times to the increasing influence of Mithraism in the Christian Church. By this time, Mithraism was becoming popular among the Christians at the Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Egypt.

Gradually, the worship of the Invincible Sun became even more popular and widespread among the Roman Empire. Emperor Aurelian (270-275 A.D.), whose mother was a priestess of the Sun, made this solar cult the official religion of the empire. His biographer, Flavius Vopiscus, says that the priests of the Temple of the Sun at Rome were called pontiffs. They were priests of their dying-rising Saviour--Mithra, and vicegerents in religious matters next to him.

By this time, the middle of the second century, the early church, especially in Alexandria and Rome let in a flood of pagan beliefs and other aspects of sun worship and began keeping Sunday, and in order to excuse their practice, since it was not Scriptural, they called it "the Lord's Day" even though it was obvious to all that Revelation 1:10 said nothing about Sunday.

Nimrod was menitioned in the Bible, and seems to be the source of many of the pagan relions that took root. In Persia Nimrod was called “Mithras,” In Greece, he was called “Helios,” and in Rome he was called “Sol Invictus” – the “unconquerable sun.” Interestingly, in Samaria he was called “Anu.” The Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition, Vol. 1, p. 432, says this about Anu: “Anu was associated with the city of Erech in Southern Babylonia . . . Anu was regarded as the god of the heavens.”

The Bible says this: “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.” ( Gen. 10:10). In the above quote the city of Erech is described as one of the cities of Nimrod. Yet in the quote from the encyclopedia, it associates Erech with Anu. Here is proof that Nimrod was known by different names in different parts of the world!

It was from this sun-worship that we get the name Sunday for the first day of the week. “Sunday is the first day of the week, adopted from the Roman calendar because it was dedicated to the worship of the sun.” – Unger’s Bible Dictionary under the article “Sunday.”

In fact, the names for the days of the week came from pagan Gods or worship. Sun–day was named after the sun. Moon-day named from the worship of the moon became Monday. From the worship of the pagan god Tiu came Tiu’s-day or Tuesday. From the pagan god Woden came Woden’s-day or as we know it today Wednesday. Thor’s-day became Thursday. Frigga’s-day became Friday, and Saturn-day became Saturday.

In the Bible the only day that had a name recognized was the seventh-day Sabbath. Sunday was simply called in the Bible “the first day of the week.” (See John 20:1). So the religion of sun worship in Isreal was Baal, and though other names were used in different languages, it all came from the same source and spread into almost every part of the ancient world.

Now Sunday worhip was slowly being brought in through the celebration of the Passover which the Bishop of Rome extended so continued to the pagan festival on Sunday. So Polycarp tried to put a stop to allowing Sunday as a day of worship coming in the back door as part of Passover as the Bishop of Rome was realy catering to the pagans that held Sunday as day of their gods.

The Quartodeciman controversy, is said to be concerning the date on which the Passover or Pascha should be celebrated, but it really was that the Passover was extended to allow Sunday worship, so lets take a look at the explanation.

The term "Quartodeciman" refers to the practice of celebrating Pascha or Easter on Nisan 14 of the Hebrew calendar, "the Lord's passover" (Leviticus 23:5). According to the church historian Eusebius, the 'Quartodeciman' Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna, by tradition a disciple of John the Evangelist) debated the question with Anicetus (bishop of Rome). The Roman province of Asia was 'Quartodeciman', while the Roman and Alexandrian churches continued in connecting it to Sunday allowing the first worhip in the church on the first day and become what is now Easter. This is how Sunday came into the church, using the Passover and legitimizing itself without any scriptural support or change from Christ or the Apostles.

Yes, Mithraism was a rival to Christianity and had some very similar concepts (though quite different fundamentally).

However, Constantine's law would never have taken place had not Christianity already adopted to a large extent the making of Sunday as a special day for religious meetings. The 70 AD and 130 AD wars against the Jews with the resulting laws against Jewish worship practices (including a decree by Hadrian that forbade keeping the seventh day) was pushing some of the Christains into Sunday worship. Most were regarding the 7th day as the Sabbath -- but holding meetings Sunday seemed wise in pacifying the Romans.

So when Constantine made his decree it was an attempt to UNITE Christians and pagans on a "common ground".

The Roman bishop (pope Sylvester) stood right beside Constantine.

Well, during the first centuries after Christ died, the early Christians began to make more and more concessions to the pagan practices around them. One of the practices that separated the pagans from the Christians was that they worshiped Jesus on the seventh day that we now call Saturday. Over a process of time with many pagans being allowed to join so some unscrupleous leaders could gain prestige over rivals, the Christians gradually began to worship on Sunday also, until both days became holy days (holidays). This resulted in the five day work week from Monday to Friday.

"Finally, at the Council of Laodicea, in A.D. 364, the leaders of the main body of the early Christian church officially changed the observance of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week. The Bible foresaw this apostasy coming into the Christian church. In Daniel 7:25 the Bible predicted a power that would 'intend to change times and law.'

"Many people have asked:'What is the difference between one day and another?' That is just the point. Since there is no difference between the days of the week, except that God says to keep one specific day holy, the only reason to change the day of worship from the day that God said to keep, to another day which He did not say to keep, is out of intentional rebellion against God. If God had said to keep Sunday, man would have decided to keep Monday. If He had said to keep Monday, man out of rebellion, would have decided to keep Tuesday. And once some men change the day, they would have sought to force all other men to follow them, and to make God's law unpopular.

Early Christian history of Sabbath keeping has been doctored.

Someone just posted the following on another forum and it just shows the diligence the Catholic Church uses to erase accounts of early Sabbath keeping.

The Chang-An Monument

"It was in the year 1625; the Jesuits had infiltrated the fabric of the Chinese cultured classes, when a sensational discovery was made. A large monument stone inscribed with nineteen hundred Chinese characters, and fifty Syrian words, was unearthed just outside the walls of Chang-An, the ancient capital of the Tang Dynasty. The news of this discovery caused a bustle of excitement in the ancient metropolitan city, and thousands were anxious to know what information about their cultural heritage was hidden in the writing.

The Jesuits, who were regarded as the teachers and scholars, were immediately summoned to decipher the inscriptions. To the astonishment of these haughty priests, there before their eyes, was a description of the prestigious position, and vast extent of the seventh-day Sabbath-keeping Christian Church of the East of a millennia before!

The ancient Chinese characters were inscribed in 781 AD, at the command of Emperor Tae-Tsung, to honor the arrival of an Assyrian missionary and his companions to the capitol in the year 635 AD from Ta Tsin, or Judea. The stone revealed beliefs and practices of the primitive Christian church, which were unrelated and out of harmony with the Roman Catholic beliefs.

One of the passages reads:

"On the Seventh Day we offer sacrifices after having purified our hearts, and received absolution from our sins. This religion, so perfect and so excellent, is difficult to name, but it enlightens darkness by its brilliant precepts.”

In a state of shock, the Jesuits, and the Mandarins, a class of scholarly religious Chinese rulers, worked to alter the Chinese characters to reflect the Catholic doctrines, for if the expectant population were to learn what the stone really said, it would greatly damage their beliefs in the Catholic doctrines, and diminish the influence of the Mandarins.

But something very different than the expected resulted. Today, after carefully comparing the known facts of history with an examination of the historical and doctrinal facts written on the stone, a fraud is obvious.

The Chang-An Monument, or the "speaking stone," as it is called, is considered to be as important a find as the Rosetta Stone, for it had the inscriptions in more than one language. The truth was preserved because the Jesuits were not able to read the inscription that was in Syrian.

From the reading of the stone today an irrefutable fact of history quickly becomes obvious.That ancient Sabbath-keeping Christianity had been very prominent and extensive throughout the Orient as late as the eighth and ninth centuries. "

Except from "Our Sabbath Heritage" by James Arrabito

Sorry, dedication. I do not accept as "proof" the posting of "someone" on "another forum", and particularly when the posting is a quote from someone as twistedly biased as James Arrabito.

Try reading some scholarly journals that are peer-reviewed and use actual primary-source documents as evidence. Read some articles that deal with the problems and challenges of translating ancient documents, and you will probably find that document "doctoring" (especially for nefarious purposes) is far less prevalent than conspiracy theorists would have you believe.

The arguement that the Catholic church changed Sabatarian documents is a non sequitur at best, since the church claims the right to change the day. Why would they care what the documents say? To go to great lengths to "erase accounts of early Sabbath keeping" implies that they are doing something wrong (worshiping on the wrong day) and need to cover it up. This is not true. They can worship on any day they like; they have the authority to change the day.

Of course they are doing something wrong, worshipping upon the wrong day.
They have acknowledged that they have no Biblical support for doing so, so they have to make it appear their "right" to change the day is based on "apostalic" example.

So they DO need to cover up the fact that early Christians continued to worship on the 7th day Sabbath in many different countries for centuries and they worked hard to exterminate God's Holy Day and replace it with their own day.

So you don't like the author of that rendition of the story of the Chinese monument -- well lets look further.

This is interesting

The following is by C. Gary Hullquist MD
"A Diagnostic History and Examination of the Biblical Day of Rest. p. 83-85

In the 16th century Jesuits began establishing a presence in the Orient....
The educated Chinese were attracted to the Jesuit knowledge...In 1615 China commissioned the translation of all the best European books into Chinese and the Jesuits because of their mastery of languages were given the assignment....

When the 8th century monument was accidently discovered in 1625, suddenly everyone was interested. Both the Chinese and the Jesuits wanted to replace the original stone with a newer, improved, updated version.
The Chinese were alarmed that they could not read the ancient characters which was embarrassing as they had long boasted that their language had remained unchanged over thousands of years. So it was their policy when finding ancient artifacts to replace them with new copies featuring the more modern and readable Mandarin characters (Wall, Charles William, "Ancient Orthography of the Jews" Whittaker and Co, London 1840, Vol. 2 p. 162)

The Jesuits found evidence of a strong Christian community that had existed long before they had arrived. This was damaging to the claim of Rome that their brand of religion was the first and dominant one. So the Jesuits prompted an official explanation that the replica was necessary because the Chinese characters were badly damaged when the original monument was unearthed. So the original stone, threatening to both the Chinese and the Catholic missionaries was conveniently destroyed.

Martin Martini, a Jesuit missionary in China around 1655 wrote:

“The governor was no soon apprised of the discovery of the monument then by a curiosity natural to the Chinese, he betook himself to the place and as soon as he examined the tokens of its venerable antiquity, he first composed a book in honor of the monument, then ordered that a stone of the same size be made on which he engraved the contents of the other and had inscribed point by point the same characters and the same letters which had been impressed in the original. (Kircher le Chine p. 10,11, also Wall, Charles William, "Ancient Orthography of the Jews" Whittaker and Co, London 1840, Vol. 2 p. 160)

Two other Jesuits, Boim and Samedus also mentioned that a second stone was prepared with the same dimensions and a replacement inscription. (Wall, Charles William, "Ancient Orthography of the Jews" Whittaker and Co, London 1840, Vol. 2 p. 163)

The Jesuits were very interested in the marble stone’s inscription as it clearly detailed the emergence and growth of the church in China, its acceptance by the T’ang Dynasty, and the tremendous influence it had on China, despite the fact that this same eastern church had been excommunicated by the bishop of Rome some 500 years earlier. The kind of Christianity described by the monument differed dramatically and embarrassingly from the flavor offered by Rome.

Compared to the Syriac inscriptions the revised Chinese message contained liberal embellishments and glaring omissions.
Charles William Wall made a comparative analysis of the Syriac and Chinese inscriptions with their respective usage in historical ages. His evidence is convincing proof of the Chinese counterfeit.

The Jesuits clearly assisted in the translation process. But neither they nor the Chinese could understand the seventh century Syriac , so they left it alone.

And one of those ommissions that appear in the Syriac is reference to worship on the seventh day.

dedication, it seems you have difficulties in understanding the thrust of your opponent's arguement. Two stories about the same incident do not make a conspiracy. Besides, you never said who the author was, just "a poster on another forum." Hardly authoritative.

I will try to spell out exactly why this (the second story) is not a credible source either:

A) The author is a MEDICAL DOCTOR. (C. Gary Hullquist MD), which, though he may be very good, does not make him an authority on ancient manuscripts. A simple internet search indicates that his area of expertise seems to be garlic.

B) He has an obvious bias. (He is a Sabbath keeper.) I'm NOT saying that is a bad thing; you and I are both Sabbath-keepers. But it does not make for a ballanced (UN-BIASED) reporting of history.

C) The title of the book indicates a treatise on Sabbath keeping. The question under discusstion, however, is a massive conspiracy by the Catholic Church to cover-up and alter original documents. So the story, at best, is anecdotal.

I think I understand what you are saying --
We are only allowed to study the "orthodox" presentations of certain scholars.

I thoroughly disagree!!!

After all a prophet of God wrote:



Who said that "Two stories about the same incident make a conspiracy."

The story is just ONE example to show the prophet of God was shown the reality of history.

The good doctor took his information from another -- a man named

Charles William Wall

who was definitely into ancient writing.

When argueing with a fool be sure they are not doing the same thing.

God said through His prophet --



Man's wisdom says that's foolishness.
Even the "few traces" must be discredited.

:sad

Actually this monument opens up a whole scope of Christian history that we rarely hear anything about.

The "Assyrian" Christian Church, which mainly comprised the region east of Jerusalem -- east of the Jordan with it's center in Persia.

These people were Sabbath keepers! Historians dismiss this fact as, "well they were mainly Jewish converts who were loath to leave the traditional Sabbath".
True -- many were from a Jewish background as the Christians in Jerusalem fled to that region just before Jerusalem fell to the Romans. But NOT all were from Jewish backgroun -- there were many who weren't Jewish, but from Syraic or Persian background.

It's apostalic leaders are reported to be Thomas, Bartholomew, Thaddeaus and Peter.

And this was no little group -- they had many churches and covered a large area.
It is astonishing to see how the Assyrian Church preserved the unity of its faith throughout its far-flung spiritual domain whether it was in India, Tibet, Turkestan, Persia, or China.

But unlike the western Roman church or even the Greek Orthodox Church the Assyrian church did not gain the protection of Rome.
They suffered persecution not only from the Roman Christian world, but also from the eastern heathen kings, and finally from the Moslems who destroyed the once thriving cities where apostalic Christian faith once thrived. They now lie in ruins.