Was the first day of the week or Sunday ever made a day of worship?

Genesis 2 King James Version (KJV)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

In Genesis 2:1-3 we read that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. The Hebrew word translated 'sanctified' in Genesis 2:3 and 'hallowed' in Exodus 20:11 is qadash, a word meaning 'to hallow, to pronounce holy, to consecrate, to set apart for holy use.'

There is no denying that God was here setting aside the Sabbath as holy time. So when God first created man, and made the Sabbath for man as Christ declare, would He have failed to mention to man that the seventh day was holy time? Certainly not, the seventh day was set apart from Creation.

Now lets look at Sunday or the first day of the week is the first day said to be a day of worship, never is it said to be the Christian substitute for the Old Testament Sabbath, and never do the texts suggest that the first day of the week should be regarded as a memorial of Christ's resurrection. Lets look at the New Testament passages that mention the first day of the week.

Matthew 28:1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Jesus was crucified on Friday. He rested in the tomb over the Sabbath and rose early on Sunday morning. The verse indicates that the women disciples returned to the tomb at the very first opportunity after the death and burial of Jesus. Because the Sabbath came so soon after His burial, they could not approach the tomb again until after sundown on Sabbath evening. (The Sabbath began at sundown on the sixth day and ended at sundown on the seventh day; compare Lev. 23:32; Neh. 13:19; Mark 1:21, 32) Early Sunday morning was the most convenient time for them to visit the tomb.

Mark 16:1-2 King James Version (KJV)

1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Mark records the same events as Matthew with the additional information that the women visited the tomb early on the Sunday morning for the express purpose of anointing Jesus' body with spices.

Mark 16:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

This verse simply records that, after His resurrection early on the Sunday morning, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

Luke 23:54 King James Version (KJV)

54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

Luke 24:1 King James Version (KJV)

24 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

The Sabbath came a few hours after Jesus' death on the cross. The women "rested the sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56, KJV). Then very early in the morning of the first day they visited the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus. The fact that they observed the Sabbath rest is sufficient indication that Jesus had never attempted to change the day or to suggest that after His death the first day would replace the Sabbath.

John 20:1 King James Version (KJV)

20 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Mary Magdalene visited the tomb early the first day of the week. Nothing is said of Sunday as a day of worship or rest.
John 20:19 King James Version (KJV)

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

On the evening of the first day of the week the disciples were assembled behind locked doors "for fear of the Jews." Jesus appeared to them at that time. The passage does not say that henceforth Sunday was to be the day for worship. Since it was the evening of the first day of the week that Jesus appeared to the disciples, it was after sundown. According to Jewish reckoning this was actually the beginning of the second day (Monday; compare Gen. 1:5, 8 ). A week later when Thomas happened to be present, Jesus met with the disciples again (verse 26). But, writing years later, John records nothing regarding Sunday as a day of Christian worship. John's narrative gives no warrant for regarding Sunday as a substitute for the Sabbath or as a day to be distinguished by Christians above any other day of the week. And there is no indication in the passage that Sunday should henceforth be observed as a memorial of Christ's resurrection.

Acts 20:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Since the meeting was held at night on the first day of the week, it may have been Saturday night. According to Jewish reckoning, the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began at sundown of the seventh day. If it were Sunday evening, the event gives no suggestion that Sunday should be observed as a day of worship. The following verses record that Paul preached a sermon on Thursday. The next day after the meeting recorded in Acts 20:7 (Monday), Paul and his party set sail for Mitylene (Acts 20:13, 14). The following day (Tuesday) they arrived opposite Chios (verse 15). The next day (Wednesday) they passed Samos (verse 15), and the day after that (Thursday) they arrived at Miletus (verse 15). The elders of the church of Ephesus met Paul at Miletus, and he preached to them (Acts 20:16-36). Because a Christian service was held on Thursday, do we conclude that Thursday is a day for regular Christian worship replacing the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath? A religious service on Sunday, Thursday, or any other day certainly did not make that day a replacement for the seventh-day Sabbath or a day of regular Christian worship and rest. There is no special significance in the disciples breaking bread at this first-day meeting, for they broke bread "daily" (Acts 2:46). We are not told that it was a Lord's Supper celebration, nor are we told that henceforth Sunday should be the day for this service to be conducted. To read Sunday sacredness or Sunday observance into Acts 20:7 is to do violence to the text.

1 Corinthians 16:1-3 King James Version (KJV)

16 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

3 And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
.

These verses may be literally translated from the Greek as follows: "And concerning the collection for the saints, as I instructed the churches of Galatia, so also you do. On the first day of the week let each of you place (or 'lay') by himself, storing up whatever he might be prospered, so that when I come there might be no collections." (Italics supplied.) The phrase "by himself" (par' heauto), followed by the participle "storing up" or "saving" (thesaupizon), rules out the possibility that this is a reference to an offering taken up in a worship service. The Christian believer was to check his accounts on Sunday and put by at home the money that he wished to give to Paul for the support of the church. When Paul arrived, then the offerings of each individual would be collected.

None of these eight New Testament references to the first day of the week (Sunday), provides any evidence that Jesus or His disciples changed the day of worship from the seventh to the first day. Nor is the first day of the week represented as a time to memorialize the resurrection of Christ. Whatever special significance was given to Sunday in the later history of the church, it had no basis in the teaching or practice of Jesus and His apostles.

Jesus instructed His disciples to observe the Sabbath after His death (Matt. 24:20). Jesus' instruction was incorporated into His interpretation of Daniel 8 (compare Matthew 24:15 ff.). Daniel predicted that the work of the little horn power would continue until the setting up of God's kingdom (Dan. 8:25). Hence, Jesus' instruction to flee from the little horn power was not confined to Christians at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Toward the end of time, during the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21, of which earlier tribulations were a type or preview, God's people will be obliged to flee again. Jesus' instruction that we pray that our flight will not be on the Sabbath day emphasizes His will that we engage in only those activities on the Sabbath that are consistent with worship and spiritual rest.

The record of the book of Acts (chapters 13, 16-18) establishes that the apostles consistently kept the Sabbath day as a time for worship and fellowship. This observance was not merely a means of meeting the Jews in the synagogue on their Sabbath day. In Philippi, Paul and his companions met for worship by the riverside. Luke says, "On the sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed [or "thought" or "assumed" : Greek nomizo] there was a place for prayer. . . ." (Acts 16:13). The apostles selected a place by the river that they thought would be appropriate for their Sabbath worship service, and there they prayed and witnessed for their Lord.

Jesus and the apostles kept the seventh-day Sabbath and instructed others to do likewise, so it wasn't changed by them.....excerpts from "The Sabbath in Scripture and History" by Kenneth A. Strand,.

Arguing over which Gregorian Calendar day is THE universal seventh day is futile. It's like vehemently arguing over the time that the sun rises or sets when every day, it does so at different times. Every time zone has its own seventh day.

Secondly, when does Saturday begin? The Pope declared by fiat, that a particular period of time will be called "Saturday" after the Roman celestial god, Saturn; and Saturday will begin at the stoke of midnight + 1 second on whichever day is Friday in line with everybody's peculiarly own time zone. That is what the Pope said (Pope Gregory).

And amazingly, all SDA agree. Ask any SDA the time and they would give you the time according to Pope Gregory. Ask any SDA the day of the week, or the month of the year or when does the new year start, and they would always tell you, without blushing or blinking --- according to what Pope Gregory said, "it is so and so."

Pope Gregory was a powerful man. Even SDA obediently do as he says to this very day.

///

James, when do you say "the day of the week, or the month of the year or when does the new year start"?

When does the day begin and end?
Let's allow scripture to tell us.
In Genesis, chapter one, the 'evening and morning' make a day. Lev. 23:32 "from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath." That's plain enough that according to scripture its from sunset to sunset.

When we define a Day that God sanctified and made holy, do we define it according to scripture or shall we keep the civil day, from midnight to midnight?"

If we believe the word of God is the spiritual authority, we would observe this day as the Bible does, from sunset to sunset.

But those that observe the Roman day of worship --Sunday--we should expect to find them defining the day as the Romans did, that is, "from midnight to midnight."

What a sure sign that Sunday observance has a Roman origin!
The Bible gives the reckoning, from sunset to sunset. But instead of that, Sunday observance bears the signature of Rome reckoning the day from midnight to midnight.


Also the Gregorian calendar did not change the weekly cycle.

When the Julian calendar changed to the Gregorian calendar in 1582, no days of the week were lost. Thursday, October 4, 1582, on the Julian calendar was followed by Friday, October 15, on the new Gregorian calendar. No days were "lost" when the calendars transitioned from Julian to Gregorian, there were still seven days in the week, the modern week is identical to the Biblical week.

Keeping the Sabbath on a round world.
Some say, but we live on a round world, we can't all possible keep the same day. That difficulty seems to exist only in the minds of people who don't want to observe the Sabbath, Because it isn't really a problem. As a matter of fact, nobody has ever found the slightest difficulty in observing the Sabbath in any country, because the Sabbath comes to every country. Board a plane in Halifax on a Monday morning, and fly to Hawaii, Monday will follow you there. Thus too the Sabbath follows Friday all around the world.

People don't seem to have any difficulty in regard to keeping a definite "resurrection day" (Sunday). Missionaries travelled from England to the other side of the world, and taught the natives to keep Sunday.

Why then, as soon as the seventh day is mentioned, people start saying, it can't be kept because we can't know what day that is?

But the fact that the day begins later in California than it does in Halifax, is no proof that it cannot be kept in both places. Wherever a person may be, there they will find the seventh day Sabbath, and there they can remember to keep it, as a sign that they KNOW the Creator God is the One that sanctifies them.

Therefore THE DAY is not holy, but the people should be holy on their own seventh day.

///

Scripture says:

Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.

To sanctify --
"to make holy; set apart as sacred; consecrate"

Ex. 20:11 The LORD... rested the seventh day: wherefore The LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

To hallow it means --
To make holy; to set apart from common.

So which 24-hour did God make holy:

1. the Chinese sabbath (Beijing time),
2. the Hebrew sabbath (Jerusalem time), or
3. the Panamanian sabbath (Panama time)?

Should everybody rest on THE holy 24 hours -- or THEIR holy 24 hours?

///

All three -- God blessed and sanctified the DAY - a specific day from sundown to sundown.
The seventh DAY was sanctified, not a specific time zone, He made the DAY holy, thus when that seventh DAY comes to your time zone, it is holy.

James, when do
you
say
"the day of the week, or the month of the year or when does the new year start"?

1. So the seventh day is holy and NOT a particular 24 hours of the week. SDA do not down all tools at Friday sundown Jerusalem time as if that were the beginning of a universal ultra holy 24 hours. They continue working until THEIR OWN sundown arrives beginning THEIR OWN Sabbath day.
    
2. Secondly, the week is cyclical, so that the seventh day is always the last day. Therefore anyone can safely work from Tuesdays to Sundays and have every Monday as Sabbath; and so forth.
    
3. The name of the day, just like the time in Jerusalem, is irrelevant; the Sabbath, according to the Commandment, just has to be the seventh day, or the last day, of one's week. The Commandment's focus is not on the name of the day, but that no man, woman, child, employer, employee, animal, plot of land, factory, visitor or immigrant should work themselves to death 24/7.
    
4. Exod. 20:10b ... "In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates." cf. Deut. 5:15
    
5. The Sabbath is a memorial of creation (Exod. 20:11); and just like the communion service, which memorializes the Atonement at Calvary (1 Cor. 11:26), is not celebrated only at the Jewish Passover Festival (if at all then), so the Sabbath is divorced from the name and time zone of some arbitrarily, universally defined week in favour of one's own local weekly cycle of faithful work and Sabbath rest.

But SDA love the letter of the Law; and have lost it's Spirit.

///

Yes, the word Sabbath means rest, in which everyday work ceases, on that point we can agree.

But notice, God did not bless the "rest", he blessed the "day", He did not bless, sanctify and hallow the "rest", He blessed and sanctified the "day" because in it He rested.

That "rest day" was THE seventh day, not "A" or any seventh day, but THE seventh day.

So how can anybody call just any day the Sabbath? How can we call any day THE "blessed" and "sanctified" day, other than the day that God specially blessed and sanctified?

It's true the Bible does not speak of a Monday, Tuesday -- etc.
It speaks of the 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day, 5th day, 6th or preparation day, and THE 7th day Sabbath.

A rose by any other name is still a rose, thus the 7th day Sabbath by any other name,
Sabti, Sobota, Sabado, Saptu, Savvato, Sabet, etc, is still the 7th day Sabbath.
Interesting how many languages call the day after Friday by a name meaning "rest" -- or "Sabbath".

If the particular day has no bearing upon the divine ordinance of rest and worship then it is rather meaningless. It becomes a "human ordinance" or matter of human convenience -- it is no longer God's special "date" with us.
Then indeed it becomes a "seeking after our own righteousness" an "I'll do it my way, Lord, when I feel like it" sort of thing.

But God Himself selected THE day when He invites us to come apart from the cares of this life and spend quality time with Him. He set it apart from the other days of the week, He bless and set apart a particular day for a holy purpose, and asked us to remember.

Dedication, I disagree with James' purpose of intent.

But... He does raise a question I hadn't considered. Does God invite us (the round world) to come apart from the cares of this life and spend quality time with Him for almost two days?

What determines when the 7th day is?
Jerusalem? Are we to "look towards Jerusalem"?
Otherwise, what determines when the 7th day is? History based upon Jerusalem?

I suppose one could consider that Jerusalem's 7th day was based upon the post flood's 7th day? Is that able to be proved?

Interested in hearing what you have to say. Considering James' suggestion, I'm sure this is going to be a important answer to come up with or many will be lost on it.

God has not asked people to remember two days a week for Sabbath observance. Everyone is asked to "remember to keep holy" the 24 hours from sunset to sunset as the Sabbath reaches them. But yes, it does take THE Sabbath two days to give all the inhabitants of the earth 24 hours of Sabbath blessedness.

We are now advancing the conversation into the "dateline" debates again.

When does a day begin?

A day is measured by one rotation of the earth on it's axis.

We know each day circles the earth, as the point on earth where you live moves into the shadow and darkness and then rotates on its axis around to face the sun.

No matter where one is in the world, they will experience 24 hours of Sunday, 24 hours of Monday, 24 hours of Tuesday, 24 hours of Wednesday, 24 hours of Thursday, 24 hours of Friday and 24 hours Sabbath as the earth's rotation brings each day to them.

But where does it begin? Where does it end? A ball has no real "beginning and ending".

It's back to the "dateline" question.

On earth's globe -- one point is regarded as the "center" point. (The center of civilization in a sense)

Right now that "center point" is acknowledged as Greenwich, England. Determined at a time in history when the "sun never set on British Empire". Though at creation the center point of civilization would have been the Garden of Eden. The "day line" or "dateline", the place where the day begins (and ends) is on the opposite side of the globe from the "center of civilization" point.

I personally believe (and I don't expect you to agree) but from the Genesis one account, I believe the earth had just one huge continent at the end of the third day of creation. Science seems to confirm that once there was only one huge land mass. The
Americas were attached to Europe and Africa.
Genesis says the water was gathered in one place, the dry land appeared. Eden was planted "eastward" possibly somewhat east of the center of that huge continent.

The day began at the outer eastern edge, or eastern coast, of the huge continent and moved westward (as it does today) until it reached the western edge or coast. The "day line" was in ocean, as it is in the Pacific Ocean today.

Since originally civilization spread out from Eden, moving both east and west, they probably didn't even know there was such a thing as a "day line", they measured time by the sun, and days by the cycle of dark and light.

During the flood the land mass was broken up into continents, but the same general principle applies. People radiated out from the point where the ark landed -- the day line is on the opposite side of the globe -- somewhere in the Pacific. Until Magellan sailed around the world, no one was even aware that there was a dateline. They measured the days by the sun.

We have Biblical confirmation as to which day is the seventh day in the middle east. That same day stretched east and west from the middle east without any controversy as "which day it was" as it was governed by the setting sun -- the same as it is today.

After the dispersion, the Jews didn't have any trouble knowing what day was the Sabbath, even though some lived hundreds of miles east or west of the original homeland. The day is defined by a period of darkness and light.




It is only as one crosses the Pacific Ocean that one discovers that indeed there is a dateline. It's when Magellan sailed around the world that it was discovered that the day began on the east "coast" of earth's original land mass, before the day ended on the west coast, but it didn't change what day it was on the main land.

There still is no controversy as to what day it is on the continents of earth -- it's only the tiny Islands in the Pacific; as we don't know where exactly in the Pacific the dateline resides.

All of the above when all the 4th commandment is asking is that the last day of the week be a day of rest; and that SDA should behave themselves properly and not spend the day ridiculing those who worship God on Wednesdays.

But SDA have truly fallen into the trap of congratulating themselves for accurately "tithing celery and ground onions".

///

Who is ridiculing people worshipping God on Wednesdays? (or any other day) We need to be walking with God every day, every day should find us worshipping God. Also you can take off work on any day to rest, if you need rest. Nothing wrong with that. But we, human beings, can't transfer the solemnity God placed on the Sabbath, from THE Seventh day, to any day of our choosing.

But Wednesday is NOT the last day of the Biblical week. It is the 4th day of the Biblical week.

The above post, written by me, which you quoted, was NOT answering your post, it was answering Kland's question (sorry for not making that clear)
Kland originally asked -- when, or where, do you think a day begins?
Which he actually first asked you -- but received no answer.

We were talking about the SABBATH of scripture -- the day God blessed and sanctified and set apart for us to come apart and rest in Him, and delight ourselves in Him in a special way!
That day isn't just any day of the week. It's a special day -- a blessed day, for scripture tells us God specially blessed and sanctified it, and asked us to remember it to keep it holy.

A day when we do NOT rely on our works, either for our living or our salvation, but spend the day KNOWING it is God that loves us, cares for us, and sanctifies us.

It seems to me you, James, have only seen the 7th day Sabbath as a burden, not a blessing -- maybe it stands in the way of your job -- I don't know.


But I do know that the more I walk with Christ, the more I realize what a blessing the Sabbath is on a very personal level. God is good -- we need to trust in Him to take care of us.

The Sabbath hours are now approaching in this part of the world -- some are already in the Sabbath hours --
May you all have a blessed Sabbath day!!! God bless.

You have it all upside down.

• The commandment does NOT say, "Remember Saturday because it is holy ..." as if Saturday were inherently holy in and of itself and therefore given authority over people to bring them into judgment over whether they approached the day looking solemn or not.
   
• Rather, the commandment says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy ...." meaning that the day derives its state from the (un)holiness of people's actions during its stateless hours, hours that are as stateless as any other during the week.

There are NO holy hours separate and apart from unholy hours! But there are holy actions of people which imbue the time of their days with holiness; or unholy actions with unholiness. As you rightly said said in your reply to kland, everybody has their own Sabbath day on a round earth.


And so the 4th commandment asks that you rest from work on the last day of your week, but that in your rest, you do not get up and dance in forgetfulness of who gave you rest. That's all. Saturdays are NOT holy and Wednesdays unholy. Instead Sundays are as holy as Tuesdays, so long as the days are spent in holiness.

To see it even more clearly:

• Consider the Day of Atonement that God said, "It shall be to you a sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the [seventh] month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath." (Lev. 23:32)
   
• Whatever happened to "the holiness" of that day? To Christians such as we are, the tenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish religious calendar is NOT holy at all! We walk all over the day in utter forgetfulness in spite of the clear command of God in Lev. 23:30-31, "any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. You shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings."

///

Every command has as much authority as the one commanding. The holiness of the Sabbath is derived from He who gave it.

Is the holiness of the day and the blessing of God so flimsy that humans can declare it to be unholy through choosing another day? This would bring God too low. Are humans holy that we can sanctify another day as holy? This would assume us to be too high.

We honor the Sabbath set by God not simply because it is a law, or because there's wages associated with the breaking of it, but because we are honoring God who blessed not only the Sabbath, but in giving it to us also blessed us.

So then, why do you dishonour God by bluntly refusing to keep HIS Day of Atonement?

"Any person who does any work on that same day (i.e. THE Day of Atonement), that person I will destroy from among his people. You shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute FOREVER throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be to you a sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath." (Lev. 23:30-32)

///

I see you misunderstand what I have been saying.
Of course Saturday is not inherently holy in and of itself,
Of course Saturday does not have authority to bring anyone into judgment.

First -- the name "Saturday" is just a name in the English language that happened to be given to the 7th day.
It's true the Bible does not speak of a Monday, Tuesday -- etc.
It speaks of the 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day, 5th day, 6th or preparation day, and THE 7th day Sabbath.

The 7th day Sabbath by whatever name a language or culture gives it,
Sabti, Sobota, Sabado, Saptu, Savvato, Sabet, or Saturday etc, is still the 7th day Sabbath of scripture.
Interesting how many languages call the day after Friday by a name meaning "rest" -- or "Sabbath".

SECOND --
The 7th day is holy BECAUSE God made it holy. He blessed and sanctified it. The holiness of the Sabbath is not inherently in and of itself, nor do we bring any holiness to it. It's holiness is God's blessing and sanctification. (See Gen 2:1-3) Only God can make holy.

Remember Ezekiel 20:12 The Sabbath is a sign that we KNOW that it is that God makes us holy, He is the One Who sanctifies us.

THIRDLY
No day has "authority to bring anyone into judgment" the only One Who is Judge is Christ. "All judgment is given unto Him" (John 5:22)
And Christ says: "If you love Me, you will keep my commandments"
In Isaiah 56 He says: "They that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keeps the sabbath from polluting it, and takes hold of my covenant" will be part of the joyful restitution.

The Psalmist says; 119:126 It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law.


While Paul makes it clear that our works do not save us
however, he warns
"Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

"Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. Romans 6:1-2 We know what sin is because God's law defines what sin is. (see Romans 7:7)

The judgment determines if we have accepted Christ and are following Him, or if we have made self our god and follow our own desires.





Do you have biblical proof for that?
Do we have the power to make "hours" holy by being especially good during those hours?

I don't think so.

Genesis 2 tells me that God made the 7th day holy. He blessed and sanctified it.
"Holiness" is not something that is relative in degrees from unholiness. People don't MAKE anything holy.
People come to Christ to be made holy. The God Who made the Sabbath hours holy can make us holy. It is His presence, His blessing, His sanctification -- when we submit to Him, He imparts to us holiness.



Now you are really misunderstanding what I wrote. The 7th day Sabbath is a specific DAY of the week that travels around the globe, and everyone on earth can observe THAT definite day as it arrives in their part of the world, it's not "their own Sabbath", it's the 7th day of the Biblical week.

It's a specific day that began in the east and travelled westward around the globe till every country has experienced that day.

As to the "day of atonement"

First -- it is not one of God's ten commandments written in stone which are to be engraved upon our hearts and minds. The ten commandments are NOT nailed to the cross -- every single one of them outlines our love for God and our love for others, and warns us as to what is sin.

Second -- the temple services had many holy things to teach the people of the ministry, mission and atonement of Jesus Christ. It was an "object lesson" teaching the plan of salvation. The temple services ceased when the veil was torn from top to bottom at Christ's death on the cross.

Thirdly -- if you feel convicted to observe the day of atonement, (that is, set apart the time to reflect on its meaning, not replicate the ceremonies done on the day of atonement) by all means do so. It would do us all good to set apart time to study the "object lessons" and contemplate more fully the plan of salvation in Jesus Christ.

No, I wasn't getting into that.

But you did answer my question here. If we have the Bible as infallible, and assuming we can trace THE seventh day from Biblical times to today, then we would know for sure that it matches the Word of God. There would be the implication as to if there were a dateline somewhere then, but not really sure that would be relevant.

Which kind of still leaves the question, should we look for Jerusalem for the Sabbath or our locale but which would conflict with sunset at our locale.

Interesting you'd recommend that. When would you say the day of atonement begins on a round world...?

The tablet of stones, written with God's finger, were put in the ark. The laws written by Moses on parchment, were put in the side of the ark.

If it cannot be shown workable for a round world, it would be further evidence, besides what Paul wrote and had conflict with the Judaizers, that they are not valid today.

Ask 10 neo-Jews when the day of atonement begins and you get 15 different answers.

James, could you show the commandment does not mean to say "THE" seventh day, as in a specific day, but "A" seventh day?

How does that fit in with your idea that each should have their own "A" seventh day?

Since you speak of stoning, how would one know when one's "A" seventh was to be able to enforce this?

Seems that there is "A" seventh day of LORD thy God, that we are to remember and honor.

I did answer that last part as well.
Here
About 2/3 down.

We can know what day is the Sabbath -- but anyone matching "sunset time" to Jerusalem doesn't understand how the day on a round world operates. And I know you know answer.

No -- I didn't say we needed to keep the day of atonement.
My first two points show why we don't keep it.

But if James is convicted that it should be kept -- by all means he should keep it.

According to these letters from the US Naval Observatory and the Royal Observatory in Greenwich the weekly cycle has continued without change "since long before the Christian era."

The Bible never indicates that the cycle for the sabbath ever changed between Moses and the Christian era. Because God identified the sabbath that Moses kept as the same that was blessed at creation, we can be confident that the day we call sabbath now has continued in an unbroken line since creation.



As for whether to look to Jerusalem or anywhere else for the beginning of Sabbath, there would be a problem in ancient times, or even just a few centuries ago, with knowing what time it was while far away.

The ancient Greeks recognized that local time varied by location and tried to work out how to calculate this, but that wasn't until after the Jews had already been to Babylon and back. The calculation, or even knowing that there was a difference, required observing things like solar eclipses in different places and then later comparing notes on what time of day they happened.

So, the Jews in Babylon before those Greek mathematicians couldn't have known the time in Jerusalem, but yet they were able to keep the Sabbath from even to even by local time wherever they happened to be.




Notice that in the calendars given in the first link October 4 of 1582 then skips to October 15 for Spain, Portugal, and Italy, but the day of the week is unaffected. The same happens in the 1752 calendar for English speaking countries with September 2 jumping to September 14.

Do you believe there was a vast body of water at the Creation?

Do you believe that the world before the flood (on the side of Creation) has any resemblance to the world after the flood?

Yes and no.

First the "no". The beautiful Eden like landscapes were gone, the earth was much more rugged and rocky. The temperature changed. The land mass was broken into continents.

Now the "yes" It was the same earth, even though it was ravished by a major catastrophy and flood.

The earth's tectonic plates were broken, thus breaking the land masses into continents. We find the bones of pre-flood animals scattered over all earth's continents.

It was the land that was "vast" as in very large.

And there is evidence that there was a large body of water separating the east coast from the west coast (an early phase of the Pacific Ocean) a place where the whales and other large sea life lived. How "vast" the water was I don't know, I do NOT believe it was even remotely close to the "vastness" as it is today. Their whole water cycle was different back then (it didn't rain, the earth was watered by dew) so I highly doubt that there was a vast ocean like it is today -- but there was a "sea" I do believe it was much bigger than what we now call "a sea" today.

Those are all questions I hope to find the answers to in eternity, when we study true history as it really was.


The important part -- is the fact that the Sabbath begins in the furthest point east on habitable land.
Something marks that eastern point, and that is WATER.--

So whether continents moved around or not is not relevant to the ocean area? But yet, less in the past?

It appears James has lost interest.

Actually the topic was more on "why Sunday". In the opening post Rick looked at the "first day" texts in the scripture and could find no scriptural command to keep Sunday.

Now I realize many who challenge the 7th day, say they do not promote Sunday either. They go on the "everyday" is alike and a time to rest in Christ.

But there are plenty of Christians who DO believe Sunday should be kept holy. And we find powerful religious organizations pushing for Sunday legislature.
The push for a national Sunday "rest" is not just some figment of the imagination.

European Sunday Alliance


Poland to Phase Out Sunday Shopping by 2020


Polish President Andrzej Duda on Tuesday, Feb. 22,1018, signed into law this bill which largely limits trade on Sundays.

Of course the clergy pushing for Sunday rest, are careful to base their argument on quality of life rather than religious grounds. It's the only way to push the movement forward in a largely secular society. But don't be fooled -- once the behemoth has his foot in the door, he will push himself in and squelch religious liberty.


POPE FRANCIS Moving Steadily to PROMOTE SUNDAY REST

I think we all know that he wrote an encyclical called "Laudato So" calling for measures to halt climate change. But few realize that SUNDAY is part of that program.

He is urging the world to unite to save the "earth" with based on a secular "climate change" platform, but he is skillfully weaving in the idea that this same "united global effort" needs Sunday rest for the earth to be "renewed".

Excepts from Pope Francis' Laudato Si:



Those who can be shaken from the realization that God blessed and set apart the seventh-day Saturday, will, by default honor Sunday as society slowly casts the lariat rope (first as a "secular rest" day, then tightens it as the mark of restoration and reconciliation to God.


But God says -- the seventh day (which in our language is called Saturday) is the sign that LORD is our God, that He is the One that sanctifies us.

Sunday was never set apart and blessed as the special rest day, by God.

I know few who challenge the 7th day and not promote Sunday. They say every day is alike and since Sunday is when most people go to church, that's as good as a day as any.

As far as saving the earth or taking a break from technology, why not Tuesday or Wednesday? Ah, but they want it to be specifically Sunday, and their real intent has nothing to do with warming, technology, nor family.

Well, Adventists in the South Pacific Islands have made Sunday the day of worship, in spite of EGW's warning that Satan would use the day line as a trap to get Adventists to worship on Sunday!




The reference to "past 55 years" in this case were 1845 - 1900 --the years the Adventist church discovered the prophetic truth about the Sabbath.

Have any of you read the material from the following Canadian Lord's Day Association's web site???:

http://clda.ca/magazines.php

Very interesting material there from the 19th Century.

They were correct theologically in just about everything to do with the Sabbath, except for the changing of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day.

I worked on the Wikipedia page on this issue, and I couldn't come up with a good answer. So do they continue with the day the missionaries gave them....

What did they hold as the reasoning for the change?

Those same texts that others use that they think shows that they started observing the first day immediately after Christ's resurrection, whereas they were hiding in fear behind a locked door on the day of Christ's resurrection.

Then there is the text regarding the collection of the Saints by Paul on the first day of the week that they assume was a worship service of some sort.

And the list goes on.

The early 19th century.
The "puritan" concept of Sabbath was rather standard amongst American Christians at that time. For them Sunday was the Sabbath.

Puritans were very serious about living the Christian life, as well as believing in Christ our Savior.
They held the ten commandments in high esteem as being God's law.

While Catholics called Sunday the "Lord's Day" and generally admitted that the Sabbath of scripture was Saturday but it was mainly for the Jews; the Puritans, on the other hand believed and taught that Sunday WAS the Sabbath and needed to be strictly kept as one of the commandments.

Read any 19th century Puritan writings and you find the word "Sabbath" mentioned often, yet they were referring to Sunday.

This was also a problem in the Tongan Islands back then in the early years. The Tongan constitution had a law that everyone needed to regard the Sabbath. However, by Sabbath they understood Sunday, the English missionaries (who came from a Puritan background which freely interchanged the words Sabbath and Sunday) had the word "Sabbath" used in the constitution.

This made it easy for Adventist missionaries to keep the "Sabbath" along with the Sunday keepers, and even today some argue that they are all keeping the "Sabbath" even though the calendar says its Sunday.

Not sure why you think "the day the missionaries gave them" has any relevance to what the truth is. Could missionaries be wrong? What if they were Sunday keeping missionaries, should the people continue keeping the day Sunday keeping missionaries gave them even if they later came to know the 7th day Sabbath is the truth?

They WERE Sunday keeping missionaries from England who helped King George Tupou frame the Tongan constitution back in 1875. For them the "Sabbath" was the day after Saturday, and the day BEFORE Monday. It is not the Biblical Sabbath, it is Sunday. It establishes a Sabbath day on Sunday during which no trade or professional or commercial undertakings are to be pursued. The Constitutional law of Tonga has a Sunday law, and the Adventists decided to make the nautical dateline (for ships at sea) their own private international dateline, and ignored the fact that Tonga remained on the same side of the dateline as new Zealand and Australia. This allowed them to call Sunday (which all the other denominations regarded) as their Sabbath as well.

Of course back in 1900 their was a lot of foreign pressure on the Islands to switch to the western hemisphere, Samoa did switch, but has now gone back to eastern hemisphere time.


Though there was a lot of talk of lining things up with the nautical date line back around 1900, it is not the same as the IDL, and never has been.

And yes, Adventist continue keeping Sunday in the Tongan Islands, ignoring the IDL and deifying the 180th meridian, to this day.

And now it has spread to Samoa, and a couple other Island countries in the South Pacific as well.


EGW wrote concerning the arguments over the day line:



That seems plain enough to me --
To use the arguments over the date line to get Adventists to keep Sunday, she says is "a snare of satan" and that it's impossible (for Adventists) to claim the other churches are right in keeping Sunday and those keeping Saturday are wrong. To do so would make the whole Adventist message a mockery.

Pretty serious statement.

180th meridian? Have you ever looked at the IDL? Who sets the Date Line? International agreement, right? Did you also know that the International Standard ISO 8601 the week starts on Monday, making Sunday the 7th day? How about the Arctic or Antarctic regions? Do you believe that those Samoa are trying to go against God, or are they honestly trying to follow their Lord? Why condemn them?

The "day line theory" that EGW was talking about is not the IDL.

You are right, the "day line theory" EGW was talking about is not the IDL. She's talking about any "theory" about the day line that disregards the accepted IDL and causes Adventists to worship on Sunday thinking that is the right day, while those who worship on the day BEFORE Sunday are treated as being all wrong.

As far as "condemning", it is the "Saturday Adventist" in Samoa that were condemned, shunned, and harassed by their former brethren and church leaders.

Personally, (and I'm not alone) I see what took place in Samoa as a foretaste of what Saturday Sabbitarians will face in the future.

If there is anyone who thinks there is a divine vertical meridian, they do not really understand the issue. The thought is you go 180 degrees from somewhere and that is the divine end of day? If so, and if the day ends and begins with sunset, and if visibility of sunset is similar to visibility of the new moon, then consider the following:
https://moonsighting.com/visibility.html

It is not vertical but parabolic!

While some Adventists over there may indeed be honest, and some may be honestly ignorant of the issue, I believe the majority are either intentionally ignorant refusing to research the issue themselves, or are justifying escaping "Sabbath keeping hardship".

Who sets the Date Line?

Adventists who wish to keep Sunday?

The majority Sunday keeping Adventists receive favorably the arguments the church leadership tells them to believe. Respect for "men of the cloth" is still very high in their culture. When the decision to make Sunday holy, comes down from the division leaders, through to the mission leaders and they come and present their reasoning to prepare the people to chose Sunday, -- well -- most feel it is God leading.

But is it?

The issue in Samoa may have been sent to awaken the Adventists in Tonga to return and finally stop worshipping on Sunday and embrace the true Seventh-day Sabbath which begins at Sunset Friday and ends at sunset Saturday everywhere in the world.

In the first place I would say "Let the Samoans worry about what the Samoans do."

Second, I have come to realize what an enormous distraction the Saturday/Sunday "issue" is. While at one time I stanchly defended Saturday keeping, I have come to realize that it is really a non-issue. Additionally, Saturday keepers are unable to articulate the reasons people keep Sunday. They are content to claim "It's not in the Bible" and leave it at that. So they don't actually KNOW why others keep Sunday.

There is actually more support for Sunday worship than for the IJ, or Trinity doctrine. You just don't know what it is and refuse to examine the issue from the point of view of sincere, Spirit-led Christians.

True that Sunday keepers have build a huge maze of "reasons" for keeping Sunday. Until you study the context of their "support" passages, it can sound quite convincing. But the fact remains, there is NO Biblical support for Sunday to replace the 7th day Sabbath.

And therein lies your first error, Ulrich. You continue to view the issue from YOUR point of view, rather than trying to understand how THEY view it.

When you take the time and effort to learn THEIR "world view" you will be far more successful in addressing the underpinnings of THEIR theological positions and begin to make serious inroads in legitimate dialog.

But you wont do that, because YOU'RE RIGHT, and YOU HAVE THE TRUTH.

Show me (and I'm not Ulrich) from scripture where there is a COMMAND to replace Sunday for the 7th day Sabbath.

I've been through all the supposed REASONS, but have never seen a Biblical command, or evidence that God sanctified and blessed and rested on the 1st day Sunday.

People will get rid of the ten commandments and nail them to the cross, --- yet why would any Christian do that?
The commandments define sin -- it is sin that needs to go, not God's commandments.

But consider -- aren't a lot of Sunday keeping Christians eager to have the commandments placed in public places? Haven't they even instituted "ten commandment day" "a day when Christians can come together and celebrate God's eternal law"? They have a "commission" to make the ten commandments official in America!

Most will still acknowledge 90% of the Decalogue But the push is on to make SUNDAY the official rest day in America --

However, they want to unite state and church -- and that is NOT where the ten commandments are to be applied. The ten commandments DEFINE SIN, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit to lead us out of sin, not the work of the state.

Reasons often given for Sunday???

Any close reading of Colossians 2 reveals it is the SINS which Jesus took to the cross, it's our sins that spell our death, and Jesus took those upon himself when He went to the cross. He did not nail the law that defines sin to the cross.

Romans 14 says nothing about God's law, but talks a lot about eating or not eating. History shows there was considerable disagreement concerning fast days between Christians and Jews. To say Paul is talking about the Sabbath as being optional is pure assumption.

Sunday keepers sometimes argue that Christ appeared to the disciples only on the first day of the week after His resurrection. But that is easily shown to be false. Yes, He appeared to the women and to two men on the road to Emmaus on that Sunday BUT It was already after dark when Christ appeared in the midst of the disciples after His resurrection -- thus Sunday was already passed. Eight days later Christ appeared to them again -- but eight days later is not another Sunday, it is Monday, or even Tuesday.
On one occasion when Christ appeared to them, the disciples were busy fishing, and Jesus miraculously filled their nets. Again not very convincing that Jesus is instituting a new Sabbath.

Paul asking the people to do their business accounting on the 1st day of the week, so they won't have to do it when he met with them, hardly supports Sunday worship.

Strangely when Paul met with the Jews on Sabbath, Gentiles after the service asked Paul to come and teach THE NEXT SABBATH. A wonderful opportunity for Paul to tell them -- let's meet tomorrow it's the new Lord's Day Sabbath" but no, Paul agrees to meet with them THE NEXT SABBATH when the practically the whole city meet together to hear him. (Acts 13:43-44)

Probably the chief argument Sunday people use is that it is a celebration of the resurrection. Sort of the idea that Saturday Sabbath was a memorial of Creation and Sunday is the memorial of REcreation through Christ. But again, that is not founded on scripture, but on human reasoning.

The 7th day Sabbath already carries the truths of creation and it is the sign and acknowledgment that it is God that SANCTIFIES (transforms and makes holy)us.

Historically one of the biggest reasons Sunday crept in was because Christians did not want to be associated with the Jews who had fallen into major disgrace with the Romans. But that is definitely NOT a Biblical endorsement of the change.

And the list goes on --
Yes, Sunday keepers have had to try and convince themselves that Sunday is "the Lord's Day" over the last 1600 or more years -- they've amassed quite a mountain of reasons. But the fact remains -- there is NO Biblical command that replaces the 7th day Sabbath with Sunday.

I know.

You still missed the point. All the reasons you listed below are seventh-day keepers responses to Sunday keeping. In other words they are straw-man arguments. (Invent an argument and refute IT rather than your opponents ACTUAL argument.) Nowhere do you mention the main and driving reasons Sunday is accepted by Christians.

You are STILL viewing it from your point of view. You have neither mentioned nor addressed the main support (or "support," if you prefer) and the implications of this (ie their) world view. Until you do that you will never understand why people keep Sunday, all "Biblical" "rationales" not withstanding.

No, they are not "strawmen" those arguments were NOT made up and invented by Sabbath keepers.
They were reasons given by people who call Sunday "the Lord's Day" the "new Christian Sabbath".

Just a few weeks ago I tuned in to a religious radio station (NOT SDA) and surprisingly a preacher was talking about the Sabbath. The first few minutes were good as he talked about the importance of the Sabbath. But then he launched into why Christians keep Sunday and that "old Jewish Sabbath" was replaced.

No -- you can't convince me Sunday keepers don't hurl those arguments against Sabbath keepers in order to promote their Sunday.

Maybe you see a different reason why some keep Sunday.

As far as the average Sunday Church goer --
many have never even had serious thought about it, for in their minds Sunday is simply the day when Christians go to church. It's basic tradition-- that's when their church meets and so that's when they go to worship.
They have not actually rejected the Sabbath, they simply don't understand the issues.

But pleading ignorance is not good enough for me.
What does God say about His holy day?

One convicted of a DUI had reasons for drinking and driving. They also will have reasons for driving with a suspended license. But just because one believes they have very good reasons for believing something does not mean it is right.

JAK, The Bible speaks of the saints keeping the commandments of God. Do you believe keeping the 7th day Sabbath is one of the commandments of God?

What similarities do you see in the following verses?

Rev 14:7 And he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.”

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

What I'm saying is that no one has yet articulated the ACTUAL reason Sunday keepers keep Sunday; you are all hedging around the bush.

dedication, it's not that the Sunday keepers DON'T use these texts, but that the texts are peripheral to the real reason. And there ARE texts that support the real reason. You insist on addressing the texts without addressing the argument. I'm actually surprised you don't know what it is.

kland, my personal beliefs on God's commandments are not germane to the discussion. In typical Adventist fashion you seem to think that just because I know the reasons I therefore believe it. One of the marks of a thinking person is that they can accurately understand and articulate their opponent's position, without at the same time "believing" it. Both you and dedication fail to do this.

And it is not enough to say "Well, I know the truth so I don't have to know what you think." One cannot offer a valid rebuttal if you don't know the argument.

The first text (Rev. 14:7) is not about the Sabbath at all. In linking the verse to the Exodus Sabbath commandment simply by word association, without due respect for context, has caused you to walk the well-worn SDA path of dubious exegesis.

In Revelation 13-14, first the Image of the beast demands worship on pain of death. His demand must be viewed in opposition to the One who deserves worship: the Lamb, the Image and Glory of the Invisible God. Further, it is the Image of God who "made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water," NOT the Image of the beast.

Rev. 14:7 therefore is urging that people do not behave like dogs who, forsaking the natural use of the bitch, hump the fire hydrant instead. As Paul says (2 Cor. 6:14-18 MSG):

• Don’t become partners with those who reject God. How can you make a partnership out of right and wrong? That’s not partnership; that’s war. Is light best friends with dark? Does Christ go strolling with the Devil? Do trust and mistrust hold hands? Who would think of setting up pagan idols in God’s holy Temple? But that is exactly what we are, each of us a temple in whom God lives. God himself put it this way:
   
• "I’ll live in them, move into them;
  I’ll be their God and they’ll be my people.
  So leave the corruption and compromise;
  leave it for good," says God.
  "Don’t link up with those who will pollute you.
  I want you all for myself.
  I’ll be a Father to you;
  you’ll be sons and daughters to me."

///

So in a jury trial of the driver killing someone, should the jury articulate the actual reason he both drank and drove?

I actually had asked what similarities do you see in the verses. Nothing about the Sabbath.

So according to Rev 14:7, besides the hour of His judgment, why should we worship God, why does He deserve it?

Focusing on this single aspect of the Saturday/Sunday question is akin to rejecting the Trinity doctrine because the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. Most (I would say all) doctrines are derived from many references, texts, and understandings, and rightly so; one should look at the whole picture when forming doctrine.

At the same time you hold strongly to the Investigative Judgement doctrine even though there is no Bible text that mentions it, and, by SDA scholars own admission: "Supporting evidence for the I.J. is often hard to understand, convoluted, contradictory, very technical, highly debatable, inaccessible, or nonexistent. In other words, it is hardly the model of a secure and reasonable biblical doctrine." (Spectrum, 6 December 2013 | Harold A. McGregor Jr.)

There is also "NO Biblical command" for all GENTILES to keep the Sabbath; only (at best) implied suggestions.

So if you want to offer a legitimate argument to keep Saturday Sabbath, start looking at the whole picture...

It sounds like you just said, we should either reject both the trinity doctrine and the replacement of the 7th day Sabbath with Sunday or accept them both.

Once again you have (unsurprisingly) demonstrated a typically Adventist inability to grasp the salient points of the argument.

But there is a direct command to keep the seventh day which God blessed and sanctified at Creation. (Gen. 2:1-3, Ex. 20)
I noticed you completely side-stepped that issue when Kland questioned you on that point.

If you think that command does not apply to Gentiles -- that would imply a belief that the ten commandments as a whole do not apply to Gentiles.

How one views God's ten commandments does have a huge bearing on the issue. Revelation 14 ties worshipping God BECAUSE he is the creator, with "here is the patience of the saints who keep GOD'S COMMANDMENTs and have the faith of Jesus.

Does faith in Jesus, somehow free one from keeping God's commandments? Revelation links the two together. Romans 6 points out that we belong to the one whom we obey.
Faith in God includes obedience, because faith trusts that God is our leader and guide and we FOLLOW HIM because we trust Him. Following and living in Him means we walk in obedience with Him.

You keep pounding on the thought --that we must know the reason they keep Sunday --
Sunday keepers don't build on one common REASON why they believe Sunday replaced the 7th day Sabbath, as if with one mind they think one thought. They have their reasons, each their own. Some believe Christ and the apostles "changed" the day, though there is no indication that they did so in scripture. Some think any day is just fine, it doesn't matter which day that is. Others attend church on Sunday merely for social reasons, other's because it's what they've been taught is the right thing to do, some think historical writings prove Sunday was always kept by Gentile Christians, (a very selective view on history by the way) and still others have developed highly theological and pious sounding reasons, generally built on the resurrection and "new life" in Christ concepts, while others base the change on a rather gnostic concept of God.

Gnosticism makes a distinction between the God of the Old Testament and Christ -- One supposedly a God of law, the other a God of grace. (That's not part of the belief of the One unified Godhead) Yet, the dispensational doctrines have their origins in those gnostic concepts calling the OT the dispensation of law, and the NT the dispensation of grace. According to that line of thinking, Jews had to keep the law, while Christians no longer have to keep the law since they are "under grace" and to prove they are "under grace" they disregard the Biblical Sabbath -- as a sign that they are disregarding God's law.
But grace does not do away with God's law. Resting in Christ, is demonstrated in the Sabbath when we cease from all our OWN works, and rest in Him. While Sunday keeping is looking to our OWN works and ideas and rejecting Christ's rest. Grace offers forgiveness, and empowers one to live for Christ and walk with Him in the paths of righteousness. (not lawlessness which is sin) Resting in Christ is not choosing our own ideas of "rest" in the place of the special time God blessed and sanctified in which we put aside all our own work and know and acknowledge that it is God that sanctifies us. (Ez. 20:12,20)

Yeah...broke my own rule there...
Rule #57: "Never respond to kland. He has no idea what anyone is talking about."


Well...they don't. Or to anyone else either.

I know you're never going to believe this, but here goes....

The cross was more than mere salvation and atonement for sin.

EVERYTHING CHANGED.

The cross brought an end to the Old Covenant of rules, regulations, ceremonies and ordinances. (Loose paraphrase of Paul in Gal/Eph)
It brought in the New Covenant in Christ's blood. (Luke 22:20)
With the New Covenant came a new commandment. (John 13:34)
End of Commandments.

BEFORE THE CROSS, when the Rich Young Ruler asked Jesus "What must I do to be saved?" Jesus answered in terms of the Law and commandment keeping. "You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, and honor your father and mother.’" (Mark 10:17-21, also in Matthew 19:16-30; Luke 18:18-30) He did NOT say believe in God, or Me, or Abraham, or indeed ANYTHING about belief.

AFTER THE CROSS, when the jailer asked Paul and Silas the exact same question, "They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:25-34) They did not answer in terms of keeping the Law, but in terms of belief in Christ.

When I realized this point, I put my faith and trust in Christ and left Adventism with its system of man-made rules about what day to worship on and what food to eat and what music to listen to and what forms of entertainment are acceptable and what substances to avoid and ad infinitum.

I HAVE NEVER LOOKED BACK. NOTHING WILL SEPARATE ME FROM THE LOVE OF CHRIST OR CONVINCE ME TO RETURN TO MY FORMER SLAVERY.

Your right -- I don't believe
your overview of the great change in God's dealing with mankind

First, I don't believe the cross brought in a new plan of salvation.


Secondly, I don't believe that God, realizing He couldn't get humans to obey His law, then totally placed the concepts of "right and wrong" into the subjective realm of the human definition of "love".

God's law should have ingrained the principles of love in people's hearts from all time. {Deut. 11:13.22; Lev. 19:18)
See also Matt. 22:37-39 1 John 5:2-3

Thirdly, I don't believe anyone was EVER saved by law, not in the NT or the OT, everyone who is saved is saved by grace. The law has NEVER saved anyone. The function of the law is to point out sin and their need for a Savior. (Romans 3:20)

Fourthly, people in the OT were lost because of their unbelief. (Hebrews 3:18-19) The only difference was prior to the cross the belief was in a coming Redeemer Messiah, after the cross it is belief in the Redeemer, Messiah that DID come.

The whole Jewish economy was pointing to Christ. Isaiah beautifully pointed this out to them. But most didn't believe. Instead they (not God) turned it into an end in itself, that is why Paul writes the end point of it all is Christ, it is not an end in itself.

And lastly --
the ten commandments still point out sin. See Romans 7:7
And those who truly believe in Christ do not continue their sinful ways.

And I don't believe you.

No one answered Biblically the OP question "Was the first day of the week of Sunday ever made a day of worship?". Even Rich H never answered it but just reverted in quoting all he could to validate a 7th day worship. He failed to quote any of the Biblical laws that supports the first day of the week.

The Bible offer grounds of observing as a "holy convocation" day BOTH the 1st day and the 7th day of the week. "And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you."(Ex 12:16)

The 7th day Sabbath law given in the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 was only a summary of the whole law. There were more to come but the Israelites weren't able to hear more...so they begged Moses to tell God to stop speaking to them directly and that Moses would go on the Mountain to hear the rest.

The 7th day weekly Sabbath was the basic model for the other remaining Sabbaths by which gave more information what was the Sabbath rest all about. Since Adventist doesn't study the law and thinks like most other denominations that the OT law is abolish -- nailed to the cross; they are unaware of God's reason why the 7th day Sabbath and the 1st day(== 8th day) Sabbaths laws are given.

Actually there's more laws about the 1st day of the week than the 7th. Both are important and points to different function in the plan of salvation.

A quick overview why the 7th day Sabbath is given :

1. Ex 20:9-11 -- God created the world in 6th day and rested on the 7th : This is the one we, Adventist, focus all our arguments on. But the weekly 7 day cycle only lay down the basic model for all other Sabbath laws which is always based on a 7 day or year, or 7x7 day or year cycle.

The reason given, is He "hallowed" the Sabbath (or time cycle) meaning to set us apart so to sanctify us. This is the basic purpose of the 7 day cycle -- it is a sanctification time process.

2. Deut 5:15 -- "to remember you were a slave in Egypt and that God brought you out with a mightily hand; therefore God commanded you to keep the Sabbath" [My paraphrase]. Here God gives a second reason that is actually the same as the first.

First, we need to remember that we were slaves "in Egypt". We were not all slaves in Egypt physically; but spiritually Egypt represents any form of slavery -- mainly slavery to sin which was all our starting point. God bringing us OUT of the slavery of sin takes a lot of time. Some more than others. That is many 7 days time cycle by which are set aside to sanctify us.

Passover was the time God brought Israel out of Egypt which symbolizes the time of our spiritual conception when Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us. The imputation of Christ's righteousness did not make us righteous right away in the physical dimension. We know clearly that the Israelites were still full of blemishes when they were pulled out of Egypt. However Christ righteousness imputed to us was declared in the heavenly court. So this declaration is a legal matter and not a physical matter right away.

So Passover which is the justification process, is not sufficient to entirely pull us out of sin[Egypt]. There's two other process that is part of God's plan. It also takes Pentecost which is a leavened offering (Lev 23:17) that represents the sanctification process to bring us, who are still full of leavened (sin), in obedience to Christ laws. And also the Tabernacle glorification process to fully write Christ laws into our heart so that our body Temple can reflects the glory of God.

So the first reason in Ex 20 and second reason in Deut 5 both points to the Sabbath law that represent a 7 days-years or a 7x7 day,year, time cycle processes that God put aside in sanctifying us by writing His laws into our heart(Jer 31:33) so to make us His people -- a Holy Priesthood(Deut 29).


A quick overview of the Laws about the 1st(or 8th) day of the week :

1. Circumcision : 7 days to stay with mom, and the 8th day to be circumcised and presented to God.
-Gen 17:12(God gives 8th day law of circumcision to Abraham);
-Ex 22:29,30(General law :" The first-born of your sons you shall give to Me. 30...It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.");
-Luk 2:21 (Jesus circumcised & presented to temple on 8th day). Also to make an important note, on that day two persons saw Jesus and recognized He was the promised Messiah.

The first born represents a first-fruit type of a law. I won't expand the law on the first fruits; but at the 3 Feasts harvest represented the offering of different first fruits harvest: (1. Passover = Barley == the 144k, the overcomers; 2. Pentecost = Wheat == the Church; 3. Tabernacle = Grape == the world). These 3 harvests points to 3 different groups of people that God's prepares (sanctifies) at different times.

2. Consecration of Priests : 7 days to stay in Temple and be purified (Ex 29; Lev 8:33)...and "Now it came about on the eighth day" (1st day of week) to come out before the people to offer sacrifices for them ...."for today the LORD SHALL appear to you". Lev 9:1-4

The main purpose of the week purification process of the priesthood is to get them fit to offer an acceptable "unblemish" sacrifices for the people that God requires so His glory can be manifested to them when God "consume" the sacrifice with "fire" as it was in the OT type-time of Moses.

This reason is given as we continue reading in Lev 9:6 & 7 :

6 And Moses said, "This is the thing which the LORD has commanded you to do, that the glory of the LORD may appear to you. 7 Moses then said to Aaron, "Come near to the altar and offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, that you may make atonement for yourself and for the people; then make the offering for the people, that you may make atonement for them, just as the LORD has commanded."

The glory of God will only appear when the priesthood can offer a "sin offering and burnt offering" [not literally, but spiritually] that is fully acceptable to God. This is why Malachi 3:1-4 says that He will come as a refiner's fire to purify the "sons of Levi." This in the NT covenant mindset applies to the Melchisedec priesthood who I believe are the 144k -- the overcomers, who will offer to God on the 8th day [of Tabernacle] an acceptable offering to God for the people.

Take note that Jesus, the Hi-Priest of the Melchizedek order, resurrected on the 8th day (1st day of the week) also following this Priesthood pattern that we will follow also.


3. Pentecost : 7 x 7 weeks cycle + 1st day = 50th day. Is also based on the 8 days (7 days + 1) circumcision law model. Pentecost was fulfilled on the first day of the Week when the Fire of the Holy Spirit(glory of God) was manifested on 120 believers. They went out of the upper room to show this glory to the people fulfilling the Priesthood ordination pattern law mentioned above.


4. Tabernacle Feast : 1st day and the 8th day to be a Holy convocation & Sabbath day. Here the 1st day and the 8th day both represents the 1st day of the week -- no 7th day. The Tabernacle Feast also follow the "presentation of the first born" to the Lord law which is also a priesthood ordination type that takes place for 7 days in form of a wedding feast, and on the 8th day(1st day) a manifestation of the glory of God is manifested to the people. This is yet to be fulfilled.


5. Jubilee : 7 x 7 Weeks-year cycle + 1st day-year = 50. Is also patterned on the 8 days circumcision law model. At the end of the Jubilee (on the 50th year) all debts are cancelled and everyone goes back to their original inheritance.


Summary of the 5 laws :

These 5 laws that follows the 8th day circumcision pattern -- all points to the same fundamental law of 7 days(or 7x7 days or years) purifying cycle + on the 8th day(1st day) a presenting to the Lord and manifestation of God's glory to the people.

Both 7th day and 8th day(1st day) laws represents different appointed time and functions. The 7th day Sabbath law represents the purifying-sanctification process & cycles time; whereas the 8th(1st) day law represents the time of the presentation to God and the manifestation of God's glory to the people.

None of those 8th day "reasons" support Sunday as the Sabbath.

Circumcision is on the eighth day AFTER BIRTH when a babies blood clotting substances reach full strength -- during the first days of a newborn’s life, the amount of blood clotting material is limited, so that even a small cut is liable to cause serious danger for a newborn. So let a full week go by before circumcising a newborn. If a baby is born on a Tuesday, then Tuesday is their first day, and the next Tuesday is their 8th day of life.

Priests consecration.
You assume it began on a Sabbath? Yet that is pure assumption. Yet even if it did and they stay in the temple for a full week, it does not make their "coming out" a new Sabbath -- it would again be Saturday.

There are several other week long "cleansing" ceremonies, the seven day cleansing can begin on any day. They undergo this ritual immediately after contamination. If a priest is "contaminated" he can't serve till he undergoes a week long cleansing. It may begin on a Monday, (day one) and end the next Monday (day eight)

Feast of Tabernacles
took place from the 15th to the 22nd of Tishri, it lasted a full week, but it was not tied to the weekly cycle --

There's NOTHING here to make Sunday the "new day of worship"

any more than those who point to John 20:20

Following His resurrection on Sunday, Jesus had appeared to the disciples in the upper room, AFTER SUNSET. (By Jewish reckoning this was already Monday)
Eight days later they were again in the upper room and Jesus again appears to them.
Ah look... says the Sunday defender, Jesus appears to them every Sunday. No -- according to other supposed "proofs" eight days later doesn't count the beginning day as #1 and is considered a full week plus one day, following that formula, Jesus second appearance would be after sundown on a Monday (or the first hours of Tuesday) but here they say, Jesus appeared to them on the first day, and eight days later is again Sunday. (Though more likely it was Monday )


Eight days from SABBATH does not take us to Sunday, it takes us to the next Saturday Sabbath.

If the first day of the feast began on Saturday --
Day 1 is Sabbath, Day 2 Sunday, 3. Monday, 4 Tuesday, 5 Wednesday, 6 Thursday, 7 Friday, 8 Saturday.
The next Saturday is the eighth day, it's not Sunday.

To make the "eighth" day of a feast Sunday, one has to begin the first day of the feast on a Sunday.
Day one 1. Sunday, Day 2, Monday 3 Tues, 4 Wednesday, 5 Thursday, 6 Friday 7. Saturday, 8 Sunday.

The reasoning that the 8th day after Sabbath is an additional day to the week, is like claiming one has 11 toes by giving each toe a number --
Proof, 1,2,3,4,5, toes plus 10,9,8,7,6, toes 5+6 = 11 toes.



Illusions--

Is there a possibility that you had a wrong concept of God's commands?

Do you disbelieve this point --



Was the Sabbath only an outward set of rules and regulation in your mind, by which to earn justification?

Was God ever pleased with mere outward or grudging compliance, while the heart and mind were devoted to something else, or does He offer us the Holy Spirit to impress His character upon our lives and change us from the inside out, so that we love to give honor and obedience to the God who redeemed us, and we delight in the law of God because IT IS GOOD!


By the way, some things did end at the cross -- the whole sacrificial rituals and ceremonies that were to teach them about the "LAMB OF GOD", but that whole system was turned into in "mere forms and rituals" while their meaning and significance was largely lost.

But God's moral law remains and continues to point out sin.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

The truth of the cross has made it easier and more meaningful to live a life in compliance with God's laws which become living attributes of a loving and good character in those who are "alive in Christ".

That is indeed a possibility, and this fact lies at the root of all theological or doctrinal discussions.


We disagree.
None of the 4 or 5 points in your rebuttal (post #186849) even remotely approach my position. But then, I have never had the strong impression that you have any desire to understand my position.

I can only go by what you share, of course I don't understand what you don't share.

So far you've shared --



That sounds very much like you believe that the "old covenant" was a covenant by which people were saved by their law keeping.

And now you say you disagree with me when I stated:


If you disagree with me on that point, then I can only conclude that you actually do think the people in the old testament obtained salvation by law keeping, not by faith in the promise of the coming Redeemer/Messiah to whom the sacrificial offerings pointed.


I did agree that the cross brought an end to the sacrificial ceremonies and rituals.

Lest this thread be de-railed, one should start another conversation.

If you would like to delve deeper into the study of the covenant, then yes, it would be good to start a new thread on that subject.

Right now the subject is still on the sanctity of the 7th day, and why people have forsaken the 7th day and made Sunday the "Christian Sabbath".

On whose authority was this change made?

And yes, it seems we are looking at an important point in our present discussion.

What I've picked up so far -- (and please clarify if this is not so) but what I've picked up so far is a general idea that the Israelites were given the commandments as a means of salvation, that somehow they were saved by keeping the law -- the ten commandments -- and observing Saturday.

The idea then seemed to be implied that now the commandments are no longer the means of salvation, since Christ died to save us, thus no more commandments and no more sanctified 7th "Saturday" Sabbath.


But let's get down to the foundation of that argument -- I do not believe the Sabbath is the means of salvation for anyone. Keeping the Sabbath isn't going to wipe out a single sin, it didn't back in the OT, and it doesn't now. The saving aspect is IN CHRIST who not only forgives, but also leads those of faith into newness of life, on paths of righteousness.

The commandments pointed out sin in the OT, and they still point out sin. It's our transgression that put both them and us in desperate need for a Savior.

But sin is still sin -- and the NT tells us the commandments point out sin. (Romans 3:20, 7:7,
Paul is pretty strong on telling his readers that God's awesome grace does NOT give license to continue in sin. (Romans 6:1=2)

The issue here is -- by whose authority was Sunday established as the "high day" for worship?

It's an important question, for upon it rests WHO we are following.

For myself and most Adventists, God is the authority, and He made it quite plain which day He blessed and sanctified and asked His people to remember -- at creation (Gen. 2:1-3, in His commandments which He spoke and wrote, (Ex. 20).

These are NOT "reasons". These are 5 important LAWS that are the core of the plan of salvation because they all point to the path of Sonship.

Plus my goal is not to support Sunday as the "new" Sabbath so to establish a new worship day. I said very clearly in my first post that BOTH the Sabbath Law and the 8th day laws are important and have different function in the plan of salvation.


Wow. This reasoning is with an old covenant mindset.

The circumcision law on the eight day is not about how we can benefit of the optimal time of blood clotting. God's purpose and His fulfillment of this law is NOT about doing the circumcision physically at all (as Paul talked about extensively). God ask the Israelites to do it physically because they were not mature enough as a Church to understand spiritual matters. So God taught them spiritual things with physical-literal-natural things with the laws. The law is a teaching tool (see Gal 4). Paul tells us the law[Torah=Pentateuch] is spiritual and Jesus told us that they are prophetic (Mat 5:18; Mat 11:13).

Some say that circumcision has health benefits (it is debatable) and yes if you believe this and are going to do it to a newborn, then better to do it on the eight day.

However don't you know what the Bible teach about what is the new covenant meaning of circumcision? Moses made it clear 40 years later before the new generation of Israelites entered the promised land what was the circumcision law really about -- it was about the circumcision of the heart...NOT about snipping the foreskin off.

Deut 30:6 "Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God will all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live."

Man with his Old covenant vows could only circumcise their flesh physically; but Moses understood the law (the Torah==Pentateuch) and what it pointed to with the New Covenant mindset.

The circumcision of the heart is something only God can do in us. No man can circumcise his own heart. Only God can do this work which is the stamp of the New Covenant. Jer 31:33 says it in this way...God will write His laws in our heart. Is this part of the circumcision of the heart? I think so. Can we write God's law in our hearts...No. It is 100% dependable on God's doing and His work -- His 7 day works... not ours.


It doesn't matter if it falls on any day of the week as people are born on any day of the week; this basic law is the foundation law upon the Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacle, the dedication of Priests, and the Jubilee lies upon. This law tells us that God will perform this unseen work of circumcision of the heart in a cycle model of 7 days. Then on the 8th day, the son(with a fully circumcised heart) is presented to Him.


??? I don't know why you think I would assume it began on a Sabbath. A week typically begins on a Sunday and I would believe that God would follow His own weekly creation law to fulfill the consecration of the Priesthood in Moses time and at the coming Tabernacle 8 day Feast when the 144k -- the overcomers who will be consecrated as the body of Priests under Christ.

Whatever day the consecration of Aaron & his sons started and was done is not the point. This law is another 8 days law following the circumcision law and time pattern of 7 days + 1.


The 8 days of consecration law is not the same as the 7 days of cleansing law. The cleansing law could represents the first part of the 7 days of the priesthood consecration law. But it doesn't represent the second part-- the 8th day.

Again these 8 days laws are establish on the 7 + 1 cycle model. Most doesn't stress the exactitude of which days of the week it begins or ends. Despite Passover and other Feast days could fall on any day of the week; what is important to note is when God fulfilled the resurrection day for Jesus and Pentecost for the Church -- He made both events fall on the first day of the week.

It is the way God fulfilled these laws that counts and which day He makes then fall on.

I expect God will fulfilled the Fall Feasts
-the 1st day of 7th Month==Feast of Trumpets == resurrection day;
-the 15th day==1st day of Tabernacle; and
-the 22nd day==8th day of Tabernacle)
in the same manner of the spring feast -- on the first day of the week.

Do note that these 3 declared Feast days are said in scripture to be a Sabbath ( not do any work and have a holy convocation). There are 4 other Feast days that are declared as Sabbath days too (The first day of unleavened bread, the 7th day of unleavened bread, The wave-sheave, and Pentecost).


If you count between the 15th and 22nd there's 8 days, not 7 days. If you read the law about the Feast of Tabernacle, it is pattern after the 7days + 1 day pattern also as the circumcision and Priesthood consecration law.

These laws including the 7th day sabbath law is not about a "new day of worship". You are completely missing the point and purpose of these laws like you did with the circumcision law. You only can see the letter of the law. You need to think outside the Old covenant mindset and way of reading or keeping the law(the Torah).

The 7 day Sabbath law, which is the first part of the five 8th day laws that I've listed, is about the cycle time of sanctification. To put it in another word -- it is the time that God takes to "circumcise" the heart -- whether it be in 7 "days", or 7 x 7 "days" (Pentecost), or 7 x 7 "years" (Jubilee). These are all time cycle TYPES-- these do not represents exactitude of time it actually takes for God to sanctify or purify or circumcise any man's heart.

The second part, the 8th day -- is about presenting the [sanctified] son to God and having His glory manifested to the world.

However, the fulfillment of these 8th day laws, I suspect will all end on the first day of the week, like it did at the time of the fulfillment of the Spring Feasts.


Dedication, it is sad to see you continually twist scriptures in any way possible to support your pre-conceived ideas. It's been years I've have known you and you have persisted in this path so numerous time.

If you had done any little digging before posting to really find out what scripture really means; you would know that "evening" also means in scriptures when the sun starts going down at noon time. For examples, the Passover lamb, according to the law, needed to be sacrifice between evenings. There are two evenings: the first being when the sun starts to go down after noon, and the second being when the sun goes down from the horizon.

I don't know if there's many Greek word for evening but the BlueBible has defined opsios G3798 -- evening as :
A.either from three to six o'clock p.m.
B. from six o'clock p.m. to the beginning of night

Elle, the fact that dedication twists Scripture is not so much of a problem in itself; because no one has a perfect understanding of God's word we all twist Scripture as we struggle to know what God wants, etc. We often don't recognize our twisting, but sometimes it is intentional.

My issue with dedication is her insistence on twisting my position to suit some far-fetched interpretation and then attacking that interpretation, which is nowhere near what I was trying to say. This is the thing that wears me out and is discouraging to the point that I eventually loose interest in constantly fighting her wrong views and outlandish interpretations of what I was trying to say. She has absolutely no interest in discussion other than proving that she is right and you are wrong.

If your goal is not to show if Sunday was made a day of worship or not, then you are off topic and should start a new thread.


My whole point (which you call twisting the scriptures) was to show that "the eighth day" after a given day falls on the same day a week later. If something begins on Tuesday, Tuesday is the FIRST day of that sequence, and the next Tuesday is the eighth day.

I wasn't "TWISTING" -- the 8th day argument is one often encountered by those who promote Sunday, which is the topic of this thread.

You have NEVER even tried to explain "your position", except with a couple comments that the cross changed everything and the ten commandments are no more.

That seemed like plain English to me, how did I twist those comments?
- how can I discuss except with what seems obvious. I answered with WHAT I BELIEVE, and asked you to explain how your thoughts differ or agree, but you won't meet me on what I believe or see, and treat it as "the stupidity of Adventism" or worse.

No wonder we can't discuss anything.

JAK,

I just want you to know that God's promises are for you. They are for everyone, even for non-Christians who are asking for God's help for the first time without having any prior experience with Him. God cares deeply for everyone, whether Adventist or not, and, though I am an Adventist, being an Adventist is not of itself a ticket to Heaven, nor the only passage there.

That said, I also feel the need to apologize, on behalf of the insensitive Adventists posting here, for their blindness. James, every chapter of the book, applies to them. Several posters here seem to have as their favorite activity that of proving others wrong. In virtually every post they make, they seek to show how their own ideas, opinions, interpretations, values, ethics, etc. are somehow better. Please forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Having taken a long hiatus from this forum and coming back to it, my eyes have been opened in counter-culture-shock style. This forum is no longer, if it ever was, a place of Bible study for seekers. It is a place for sword-fighting. God says to us that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and that we should not judge others lest we be judged in like manner. It is sobering to see how few take that to heart.

Please know that the most dedicated and humble Adventists will often, themselves, feel out of place on a forum like this, and those remaining are of the more opinionated and vocal sort. God is not in the wrangling. This is my primary reason for losing interest in participating here. If the Adventists you know best are those of this forum, I'm sorry. Please reach out to others who may not be involved in online debates. I believe they will receive you more warmly and with genuine consideration for your questions and needs.

May God bless,

Green Cochoa.

Green: No soul is ever finally deserted of God, given up to his own ways, so long as there is any hope of his salvation. "Man turns from God, not God from him." Our heavenly Father follows us with appeals and warnings and assurances of compassion, until further opportunities and privileges would be wholly in vain. The responsibility rests with the sinner. By resisting the Spirit of God today, he prepares the way for a second resistance of light when it comes with mightier power. Thus he passes on from one stage of resistance to another, until at last the light will fail to impress, and he will cease to respond in any measure to the Spirit of God. Then even "the light that is in thee" has become darkness. The very truth we do know has become so perverted as to increase the blindness of the soul. {MB 93.1}

Green, you HAVE been gone for a long time; almost a year. It's nice to hear from you again. And you are right about the changes at the forum. Where are the Biblical scholars? Johann, Rosangela, Mark Shipowick, Mountain Man and others who could disagree with one's position but maintain Christian love and manners. They're all gone.

It's no longer about learning and exploring scripture. As you just said--now it's only about fighting.

After more than 30 years working for the (SDA) church in such varied places as Asia, Africa, Polynesia, and Central America, I realized that the church and church leadership (especially the leadership) is steeped in the attitude of "we're right/you're wrong," the exact same attitude that now permeates this forum.

I have been gone from Adventism for a little over a year now, driven out by the self-serving, old-boys club attitudes of the leadership and the sanctimonious judgements of the members. I did not, however, leave God or his real church. I must say that life is better and happier WITHOUT the church than it ever was IN the church.

As someone recently commented to me: "I used to drink the Kool-Aid. Now I drink beer and I'm much happier."

What love. That's just hurtful. And cannot be true. Remember logic class? "No idea, anyone." Words that usually are never true.

Or could it be, you made a mistake in argument and I pointed it out to you, and you didn't like it?

I agree with you that we all don't have the perfect or full understanding and there's no wrong in that. Even Paul admitted this about himself..."For we know in part, and we prophesy in part." 1Cor 13:9

However that's not the case most of the time with dedication.


Yes, that's another problem.

It's too bad that there's this "dedication" to protect the Church positions or teachings instead of a dedication to know what God truly is saying in scriptures and try to come to know His positions and teachings more clearly.

I don't see the point of defending the Church teachings when there's only true valuable gain in finding out what is God's true teachings.

If God's teachings is contrary to the Church's position...we should be rejoicing to know that we are coming closer to know the Lord as He is. I don't see the reason to leave the Church or criticize it. It should be understandable amongst all the members that we should expect that we don't know all the truth and that we have some doctrines wrong or needs some fine tunings.

There's so much fear in the Church in admitting or coming to find out that they don't have all the truth -- that it is critical. It is this fear that we are often dealing with on the Adventist forums.

It's too bad that this fear is promoted by the Church leaders ... stressing that we have all the truth and abasing any other denomination who believe differently.

If any member disagree with the doctrines, especially their pet Sabbath doctrine by which it is a complete obsession of the Church....then their is this categorizing these members as "dissenters".

Well, Kland -- that is their tactic --
Instead of dealing with the questions they attack the person.
Notice what has happened in the last several posts.

I question their positions (their interpretations) and the whole volley of enmity fell on attacking my person,

Thus they completely derailed the subject and try to make Adventism seem a joke.


Yes, -- such great love!

I believe that I'm in the right thread and not off topic at all. Wasn't I answering directly the title of this thread?

"Was the first day of the week or Sunday ever made a day of worship?"

My answer was YES. I provided Biblical text saying the first day of the week or the 8th day was said to be a "holy convocation" -- a Sabbath.

I did not say that it replaces the 7th day Sabbath laws. I don't believe that we need to be either in one camp or the other to be in this discussion. I'm in BOTH camp for I see that BOTH the 7th day law and the 8th day laws are Biblical.

I'm not saying that these laws says we are to keep every 8th day of the week as a "holy convocation"...nor am I saying that we are to keep the 7th day of the week as a "holy convocation" by doing no work (the priesthood worked more on the Sabbath then other days of the week) as we Adventist think.

I believe that scriptures support strongly that both the 7th day and the 8th day laws are TYPES and needs to be understood with the New Covenant mindset for us to know how we should keep them the way the Lord intended us to keep them today.

Nor Am I saying that I know all the answers how to keep these with the new covenant mindset. That's why I'm engaging in this study ... hoping for some enlightenment on the matter.

I'm agreeing with JAK that most Adventist don't understand the reason why Sunday keepers keep Sunday; despite most Sunday keepers don't have their understanding based from the law or other scriptures. Why it stems from the 8th day laws and how these were fulfilled in the New Covenant way in the NT.

It is the same with Adventist who keeps the Sabbath law with an Old Covenant mindset; they have no understanding how this law should be kept with a New Covenant mindset; what's God's real purpose to institute it; how it fits in the plan of salvation; why some of the Feasts days are called Sabbaths also; and how these 8th day Feasts days are associated with the 7th day Sabbath.

So I did my best to share my understanding of both the 7th day law and the 8th day Laws and how they relate.


The Wave Sheaf

In my first post, I have listed the 5 Laws that says to observe the 1st day and the 8th day (==1st day) as a holy convocation--a Sabbath day.

Actually I had forgotten to mention one other law -- the wave-sheave offering law which is waved the day after the Sabbath(on a Sunday) and starts the countdown of the 50 days (7x7 days + 1) that leads to Pentecost. So it is a type of 1st day in the 8 days Feast of Tabernacle.

However to my surprise and with questions the wave sheaf is NOT kept as a "holy convocation" -- a Sabbath day. Here is an argument for those who are like the Judaizers still in the Old covenant way of keeping the Sabbath law.


The Wave Sheaf & Pentecost: Always on Sunday

These 2 Feasts days (wave-sheave and Pentecost), pattern on those 8 days laws, ALWAYS fall on the 1st day of the week even in the OT unlike the other 8th day feast Sabbath days that can fall on any day of the week.

However, like in any subject, this interpretation is debated. I think it was the Sadducees who interpreted that the meaning of "Sabbath" in Lev 23:11 meant the day after the first day of unleavened bread as that day was declared to be kept as a Sabbath day; whereas the Pharisees interpreted it as the 7th day Sabbath for you need to count 7 Sabbaths after that. I view the Pharisees position is more Biblical than the Sadducees as you come to a problem in the number when counting 7 Sabbaths if your starting point is not on a Sunday -- unless you make any day of the week a Sabbath and count 7 Sabbaths that way.


Early History of Sunday observance based on Wave Sheaf & Pentecost understanding got lost

Based on the law and the New Covenant fulfillment of these laws, these two Feasts (wave-sheave and Pentecost) ceremony fulfillment on Sunday is why the early Church (which was originally mostly composed of Jews with an understanding of the law) started to observe Sunday also as a worship day. According to some historians, many of them kept also the Sabbath day.

However this understanding of the law got lost through time because the majority of Christians shifted to being Greeks and they didn't have a Jewish background or understanding of the law anymore.


The False Notion that the Law was abolish in the Early Church

Also what came to play is after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD; the false notion that the law was abolish and was done away crept into the Christian understanding so to separate themselves from the Jews in the fear to have problems with the Romans who at that time still had dominion over the land. There were other reasons like the Greeks view the Jewish law observance was rigid and the Judaizers with their lack of understanding the new covenant did create serious problems also. All these factors plus the lack of having the scriptures on hand brought a gradual shift to an interpretation that the law was abolish.

This long standing argument that the law is abolish, Adventist also uses it whenever it is convenient for them to reject a section of the law they don't want to uphold. But most Christian denomination including Adventist don't have any problem to uphold the tithing law despite their interpretation of it is seriously not biblical and can be easily challenged.


The Wave Sheaf is NOT a Biblical Sabbath observance versus Pentecost is

Both the wave-sheave(==Christ resurrection) and Pentecost(==the Church who are the loaves baked with leavened) are "first fruits" ceremonies.

It is interesting to note that the wave-sheaf is NOT declared as a Sabbath; whereas Pentecost is. Most Christians today validates Sunday observing relating to Christ resurrection when in the law the wave sheaf was not declared as a holy convocation or Sabbath day. However, the resurrection day in the Fall Feast (the Feast of Trumpet) is declared as a Sabbath day.

So after some pondering,the thoughts that came to me is that it shows that God is putting some emphasis of the fulfillment of the "first Fruits" on the Church and not on Christ. This made sense to me when pondering on the meaning of the Sabbath given in Ex 20:11 is to "hollowed[qadesh] it". qadesh means "to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate" Christ doesn't need to be sanctify. He always been without sin. He's the ONE who sanctify US.

So that could be why the declared Sabbath days in the 8th day laws are focus when the fulfillment is on the Church members like Pentecost and the day of Trumpet (which is when the 1st resurrection happens) and not on Jesus resurrection day on the wave-sheaf. We see this also for the day of Passover when the unblemished lamb is killed -- Passover is NOT a Sabbath day; whereas the 1st day of unleavened bread and the 7th day of unleavened bread are Sabbaths that focus on US when we are to eat bread without leavened by following Jesus' lead whose life was always without leavened (sin).

Below is the main text about the wave-sheave. Notice that day is NOT said to be kept as a Sabbath day :

Lev 23:10 "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

As most understand the New Covenant fulfillment was the resurrection day of Christ by which He represents the first fruit that the priest "waved" up and down to symbolize the resurrection. The Wave-Sheave was fulfilled on the first day of the week (Sunday) but was NOT said to be a Sabbath.

Here's the main texts about Pentecost. Notice that it is a LEAVENED Feast that represents us and is to be kept as a holy convocation day :

Lev 23:15 " ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD. 17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD. ... 21 And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations."

Num 28:26 "Also in the day of the firstfruits, when ye bring a new meat offering unto the LORD, after your weeks be out, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work:"

Despite you were doing as you said above; however I was referring specifically that you were twisting the word "evening" in John 20:20 to say that Jesus appeared at His resurrection to the disciples after sunset -- on a Monday and not on Sunday.



You fail to acknowledge the word "evening" can also mean after noon time when the sun from its highest point starts to go down. So your argument doesn't stand here.

If you were a young believer and not aware of much scriptures; I wouldn't of made that comment and given you that you had yet much to learn. But you are not a young believer and the global moderator of this forum.

If you were just repeating a counter argument that you've read somewhere; you are responsible to check if the counter argument is Biblical before using it. This can be easily done in only 5 minutes by a simple click of a mouse on the strong code for "evening" of John 20:20 and you would of been informed that it had two time either after noon time when the Sun start to go down or at sunset.

Besides you should know at least the basic law given in the OT of the passover lamb (Ex 12:6) and the daily evening sacrifice (Ex 29:38-41) that it was to be offered between the two evenings.

So I cannot give you the excuse of "ignorance" when it can be verified in 5 minutes, with your years of being in the Church, and being the global moderator of this forum.

A day is from evening to evening in scripture.

When Jesus appeared to the disciples in the upper room, it wasn't just at dusk -- it was after sunset.

Read the story again --
Jesus walks with two disciples to Emmaus.
They arrive in Emmaus when "it is toward evening, and the day is far spent".

But that is NOT the time Jesus appeared to the disciples in the upper room. He went in to have supper with the two in Emmaus.
When they sit down to eat, they recognize him, Jesus disappears, and the two jump up and hurry back to Jerusalem.

How long do you think it took them to get back to Jerusalem? It's 60 furlongs or about 12 kilometers -- and they didn't have any cars only their own feet to take them back to Jerusalem.

Those two arrive in Jerusalem and tell the disciples their whole experience, and the disciples are amazed.

Now calculate the time.

It was already evening, or beginning of dusk, when they arrived in Emmaus.
They prepare supper --
Recognize Jesus at supper.
Hurry 12 kilometers back to Jerusalem.
Tell the disciples the whole story of everything they had experienced "in the way".

You are looking at about two hours at least AFTER evening is first mentioned. And only then does Jesus appear to the twelve in the upper room.

So no -- your harsh and judgmental accusations are ill founded. Jesus did appear to the 11 disciples in the upper room AFTER sundown.

And no, nothing in your feast day explanations made Sunday a new day of worship. I'm sure some of the "feast Sabbaths" sometimes fell on a Sunday, as some did on a Monday, or a Tuesday, etc.
Yet, no sanctity is given to a weekly Sunday, in any of them.

And that in reality was the purpose of the question in the OP.

If it was after sunset as you are assuming, then John being Jewish wouldn't of said in John 20:19 "Then the same day at evening [G3798], being the first day of the week,". He would of said "Then the same day at evening, being the second day of the week".

As I said G3798 opios has two types of "evening" meaning and the way John expressed it; it is most likely to be the one between Noon and Sunset (around 6:20pm in Jerusalem in the month of April).


60 furlongs = 7 miles x 20 minutes per mile(walking pace) =2 hrs 20 min.

So it took them 2.5 hrs to get to Emmaus. Plenty of time to get there even before noon time considering sunrise is also around 6ish. But I would assume they probably left Jerusalem after lunch. So let's say they left at 1pm they would arrive to Emmaus at 3:30 pm.


I hate to say this but "liar liar pants on fire."

Luk 24:29 "But they urged Him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, G2073 and the day [fn]is now nearly over.” So He went in to stay with them."

You got to be more careful dedication and check the scriptures before posting anything to save you some embarrassment. You can count that I will check the scriptures and even the Greek and Hebrew words and not take the English translation at face value either.

Here the word evening is different than in John 20:19. From the little time I had to view it, I would say this word means sunset.

But Luk 24:29 says it was "getting towards evening[sunset]...the day nearly over". Now in those days how much time or hours before sunset would people use this expression? Again, we can only speculate because the Bible doesn't say what time it was exactly. It could be sometimes after 3ish, 4ish, or 5ish. We don't know. Let's suppose it was 3ish -- already 9 hrs of the 12 hrs of daylight has past...maybe in those days they considered having 3 hrs before sunset that this is considered "getting towards evening" having "the day nearly over".

Is it again....liar, liar pants on fire? There's no mention of that is there? I couldn't find any other account of this story besides Luke and Luke doesn't mention whose house they went to. But considering the timing of the story, (the day Jesus resurrected) and most of the disciples stayed in Jerusalem... I would assume they were going to someone's house (maybe they were expected???) to tell them what had happened(?) and traditionally the women of the house prepared the meal.


Again you are speculating. We don't know what time exactly they got to Emmaus nor the time they left.

But Luke 24:30-31 says that when Jesus broke the bread (at the beginning of the meal) and disappeared... that's when the two disciples recognized Jesus and at once they went back to Jerusalem. The way Luke said it; I would speculate that they probably ran back to Jerusalem.

If they ran, the calculation would be different : 7 miles x 8:32 min/mile(running time) = 58.24 minutes (about 1 hr).

So let us suppose they arrive at Emmaus let's say at 4pm. Sat down at the table....let's give them a good hour before their eyes were open ... So they could of started running back towards Jerusalem at 5pm ...get there at 6 or possibly a little before as it all depends on the time of their arrival in Emmaus and all. So it is in the realm of possibilities that they got to the upper room sometime before Sunset.

This would validate the way John 20:19 was written where "evening" opsios can mean sometime between noon and sunset. Sunset in Jerusalem in April was around 6:20pm. So the possibility is there for them to arrive before sundown.

Again, if it was well after sunset as you assume, then John, being Jewish, I would think to be more accurate would of written it "So when it was evening on that day, the second day of the week" and not the first.


Look above how you've twisted the scriptures at least twice again with the texts in Luk 29. I've seen you do this too many time dedication. It's ok to speculate when the information is not provided. If you do so then you have to write in a way to make clear that it is a speculation. You don't do that but treat it as if that's what the Bible says.

Actually it is a very common habit in our church. So I cannot put all the blame on you. I was doing the same quite often myself until someone brought it to my attention. It was a very hard habit to break; however it helped me to always check myself and how I remembered scriptures by checking the source instead of relying on what I was taught or on my memory.


However let us suppose that it was after sunset and it was the second day of the week when Jesus appeared to the 11 disciples in Jerusalem; it still doesn't matter as Jesus still fulfill the law of the wave sheaf and has risen on the first day of the week(Sunday).

I have said and stressed that the wave sheaf law doesn't say that it is to be kept as a "holy convocation". Then I even quoted scriptures saying to note that scriptures does NOT tells us that it is a "holy convocation" or Sabbath day. Maybe you have missed that.

I also explained that the day of resurrection(wave sheaf fulfillment) does NOT fall on the 8th day but on the first day of an 8th days law. In this case it was the first day of the count down to Pentecost (7 x 7 day + 1=50 days). Pentecost is an 8th day type where that day is declared a holy convocation Sabbath day -- NOT the wave sheaf despite it still falls on the 1st day of the week.

So your argument has no weight and all the 8 days laws still stand that I have noted.

For those Sunday keepers who doesn't understand the law, nor check the Greek words.... this argument (based on a assumption) that Jesus appeared to the 11 disciples on a Monday ... would falsely prove their limited understanding wrong. As it is not a valid argument in the face of scriptures.

I don't know where you got that argument; but they probably also didn't study the law or had a very shallow Judaizer(Old Covenant) type of understanding; showing that their minds is still closed to the New Covenant understanding of the law. They're focus was probably only to prove that the Sunday keeping was wrong that they didn't see anything else and probably twisted the scriptures too to prove their point instead of being objectionable and seeking to understand what God was really saying and fulfilling.

Again! That's not true and I even have quoted many texts that says some of these 8th days laws-feast are to be kept as a "holy(quadesh) convocation ...Sabbath day.... not to do any civil work." Same wording are used as the 7th Sabbath day observance.

Check your Bible... read Lev 23 and Num 29. Then do a search with "holy convocation".

Someone far more inspired than elle, fully supports Dedication, so it is not surprising to see so much venom from elle.

If you are going to talk about "the 7th day law and the 8th day laws", then why did you exclude from your statement, "1st day laws"? Isn't that unbalanced to do that?

Again, You can't even support when the year [of the "actual" feast dates] starts. Relevant here, is the 7th day Sabbath is based upon what verses "your" 1st/8th day laws are based upon what? A clue would be, what would 10th day laws be based upon?

No, it's not a 1st day law. If I were so keen to prove Sunday; I guess I could of give it a spin by calling it a 1st day law but then I would of been mis-representing God's word. We need to be careful not to do that because that is in essence being a false prophet.

I named these the 8 days laws because it comprise both -- the 7 days law + the 1st day. So I called it the way the Bible defines it.

Some of the laws, like the wave-sheaf and the 1st day of Tabernacle both fall on a 1st day of the 8 days cycle. The 1st day of Tabernacle is said to be kept as a "holy convocation", a "Sabbath" by doing "no civil work". As noted, it is not the same with the wave-sheaf--Jesus' resurrection day despite it always falls on a Sunday like Pentecost.

The Feast of Trumpet is model after the wave-sheaf; so it is a 1st day type as both are resurrection days and are a first fruit type.

The Feast of Trumpet is said to be kept as a "holy convocation" a "Sabbath" in doing "no civil work"; as oppose to the wave-sheaf is not. In Post Post # 186871 I said the following :


So the Trumpet Feast is also a first fruit ceremony because it is the resurrection of the 144k who are the first fruits of man and the Leaders called to rule with Christ (Rev 20:5-6).

Check 1Thes 4:16 and 1Cor 15:52 and notice "trumpet" is in singular form. The law explains this. God told Moses to make 2 trumpets. The sound of ONE trumpet was to call only the Leaders(Num 10:4); the sound of both trumpets called the whole congregation(Num 10:3). These are the types of the two resurrections : the one before the Millennium and the one after it.


Like dedication's argument & focus which is with an old covenant mindset... you are looking for a specific day to start the Feasts from year to year, or time to start the 7th day Sabbath every week. What the Israelites kept in the past or even today...were meant to be understood as models -- patterns -- Types -- by which their prophetic fulfillment of these is based upon Christ's purpose for these laws with an New covenant understanding. We are to move forward to apply these with a new covenant understanding.

So some of these models like circumcision, the keeping of the Feast of Tabernacle, Day of Trumpet does not always fall on an actual 8th day(Sunday) from year to year. But these are meant to be models, patterns, TYPES that points to a future fulfillment.

We have seen in the Spring Feasts that the TYPES were fulfilled on the actual -- 8th day of the Week (Wave sheaf and Pentecost). I would expect that the fulfillment of the Fall Feast TYPES (Feast of Trumpet, 1st & 8th day of Tabernacle) will also fall on the actual 8th day (Sunday). It is the purpose of God's laws and how these TYPES are fulfill that are important versus on what exact day or time the old covenant form are to be kept.

The five 8th days laws are : circumcision, consecration of Priesthood, Pentecost, 8 days Feast of Tabernacle, and Jubilee. These are all 8 days laws and are very Biblical and all points to a New Covenant prophetic fulfillment of the presentation of the sanctified son. The same for the 7th day law -- it is a TYPE and a model that contribute to the first part of the FIVE 8th day laws listed above.

Paul gave us as an example that a physical circumcision is no longer needed because it comes out of an Old Covenant mindset. Circumcision was only an example of ONE law that was kept literally and physically. What he said about circumcision is to be applied to all other laws that are kept with an old covenant understanding -- like we, Adventist, do with the Sabbath day.

In Heb 7:12, Paul talks about a CHANGE (transfer) of the priesthood and in the law.

"For the priesthood being changed[G3346, metatithemi], there is made of necessity a change[G3331,metathesis] also of the law." Heb 7:12.

The proper definition of metatithemi is transfer. The English translation of "change" meaning is not "abolish" or "dispose" like some people like to spin it. Alchemy brings both G3346 (metatithemi) and G3331(metathesis) in Post#179416. And then in Post#179501,
Post#179525, and Post#179648 we have further comments about this change-transfer specifically in the Priesthood. Actually reading the whole discussion from page 2 and 3
is quite interesting.

Heb 7:12 is a key text showing us that the law was not abolish but there were a change -- a transfer of the law from the old covenant to the new covenant. The transfer of the law from the old to the new covenant is what we need to seek to understand about any law given in the Torah.


10th day law??? I wouldn't label it in such manner; but yes these events on the 10th day is also a law like any other events that happens in the Torah on any day (or with no days mentioned) which are all prophetic in nature and are considered as law.

But I wouldn't categorize these events that happened on the 10th day as the same as the 8th day laws. These 5 laws all points to the presentation of the sanctified son which is the ultimate goal of the whole plan of salvation. The 8th days law describes the top of the goal of the plan of salvation whereas anything below (like the events that happened on the 10th days) describe one item on the way to get there.

Below is getting a little off-topic, but two (#2 & #3 below) of 10th day events does have a relation with the Jubilee law which is one of the 8th day laws.

What happened in the Law on the 10th Day and its connection with the Jubilee Law that is another 8th day law

1. Selection of the Passover lamb : The 10th day on the first month of Abib is the selection of the lamb. It is not declared as a day of a "holy convocation" or a Sabbath.

2. Crossing the Jordan to the Promise Land : Then after 40 years of wondering in the desert, God did make Israel crossed over the Jordan to enter the promised land on the 10th day of the 1st month not on the 7th month as initially instructed 38 years before.

3. Day of Jubilee or Day of Atonement : As I briefly mentioned, the spring Feast days (1st month) can be seen as a model of the Fall Feast days (7th month). We see the 1st, 10th, 15th, and 22nd day repeated in both the Spring Feast and Fall feast.

So we also have a 10th day on the 7th Month that we know by "the day of atonement". But in actuality that day can be EITHER a day of mourning and repenting OR a day of Jubilee where the Jubilee Trumpet is sounded (Lev 25:9). It's been a day of mourning and repenting since it was first instituted because the Israelites been in a time of unbelief.

The Israelites when they dis-belief the good report of Caleb and Joshua before entering the promised land on the 1st appointed time(after 50 Jubilee cycle from Adam); they were to sound the Jubilee Trumpet on the 10th day of the 7th month because it is actually an announcement of the liberation of all the slaves at the end of Jubilee. So because of their lack of faith they turned the first 10th day of the 7th month into a day of atonement.

There's a connection between #2 (the crossing in the promised land) and #3 (the Jubilee Trumpet) and the end of the Jubilee cycle (which is one of 8th day law).

But Israel entered the promised land on the 1st month after 40 years being in the desert. This show they didn't enter at the appointed time on the 7th month. So their crossing was not a full fulfillment but only a Type.

Here it shows that TYPES are models of time and not to be taken as exactitude of time.

However, God still made them enter on the 10th day but on the 1st month and not on the 7th month -- BECAUSE their fathers didn't have faith to enter at the appointed time (on the 7th month) 38 years before. That whole generation died in the desert and God let the next generation enter but not on the appointed time since the next generation didn't have the faith required nor did they had the sword of the Spirit.

Faith comes by hearing the utterance(rhema) of God (Rom 10:17). They refuse to hear God voice after being afraid of hearing only the introduction of the law in Exo 19 & 20. You need to be able to hear God's voice to be able to conduct proper spiritual warfare with the spiritual sword. So they entered with a physical sword on a small portion of land laying down the TYPE physically. Good thing God allow them to enter on a small portion of land so to not cause too much destruction.

Israel failure still pointed to a future time when the Church equipped with the spiritual sword would go thru the same events and enter on the appointed time; but would NOT FAIL this time because they got the proper tool. They would wage war with Mystery Babylon; not on a small portion of land, but in the whole world in the goal to liberate all the people from the captivity to Babylon. That's where we are today.

I don't know if we will have the Jubilee Trumpet sounded on this coming 7th month Feast. That would be wonderful if this is fulfilled this year.

Elle: My answer was YES. I provided Biblical text saying the first day of the week or the 8th day was said to be a "holy convocation" -- a Sabbath.

(Notice you mentioned here, "first day". And you said, "Biblical text")

Elle: I'm in BOTH camp for I see that BOTH the 7th day law and the 8th day laws are Biblical.

(Notice you ONLY mentioned here, 7th day law and the 8th day laws)

kland: If you are going to talk about "the 7th day law and the 8th day laws", then why did you exclude from your statement, "1st day laws"? Isn't that unbalanced to do that?

Elle: No, it's not a 1st day law. If I were so keen to prove Sunday; I guess I could of give it a spin by calling it a 1st day law but then I would of been mis-representing God's word. We need to be careful not to do that because that is in essence being a false prophet.

Exactly where are you talking about in scripture? You said above, 1st day and 8th day. You included 1st day as Biblical. So 1st day is not "mis-representing God's word".

Elle: I named these the 8 days laws because it comprise both -- the 7 days law + the 1st day. So I called it the way the Bible defines it.

Notice, you said, "1st day".


Elle: Some of the laws, like the wave-sheaf and the 1st day of Tabernacle both fall on a 1st day of the 8 days cycle. The 1st day of Tabernacle is said to be kept as a "holy convocation",

So again, why did you exclude from your statement, "1st day laws"? Isn't that unbalanced to do that? Why did you pick-and-choose "8th day" over the other days mentioned? What guidelines do you use to pick one and avoid the other?

Are you trying to only confuse things kland? Mixing different quotes from different post that has different context does confuse things further.

In the case you are sincerely confused because you don't know about the details of these basic laws; I'll answer below each things you brought.


The above quote was when I answered dedication, who said I didn't provide any Biblical support, with an opening brief concise summary of all that I've said covering multiple scriptures in the previous posts. After that statement I did provided some more details, if I recall correctly, about the wave sheaf, Pentecost and the Feast of Trumpet; but I didn't repeat all that I've said in those long previous posts.


But when you look at all the 8th days laws and the Feasts you will find the following:

-there are some Feasts days like the 1st day of the 8 days of Tabernacle and the 1st day of unleavened bread that are both Holy convocation Sabbaths celebrated on the 1st day of a cycle.

-Then there's other Feasts that are Holy convocation Sabbaths that fall on the 8th day of the 8 days type cycle like Pentecost, Feast of Tabernacle and the Jubilee(that's an 8th day law and not a Feast but yet the 50th year which is the first year of the next Jubilee cycle is to be kept as a Sabbath year. The Jubilee has Pentecost as a model. Both are 7x7 + 1 = 50).

-Then we have the wave sheaf(resurrection of Christ) that fall on the 1st day of the Pentecost cycle that is NOT a Holy convocation Sabbath.

-Then we have the Feast of Trumpet that is also a resurrection day model from the wave-sheaf that falls on a 1st day of the 7th month that is declared as a Holy convocation Sabbath.

So we have all of these different entities in the law that are entertwine with each other -- some are on the 1st day of a cycle, others on the 8th day of a cycle, some are declared Holy convocation Sabbaths, and some are not. So that basic summary concise statement above is taking all of the above in that short statement.

Yes, so ???? Read the context of that statement. That statement is clear within the context. Here the 7th day law meaning the 7th day Sabbath law that is based on a 7 days cycle and 8th day laws meaning the FIVE 8th days laws that I've listed in the first post by which is based on a 8 days cycle (7 days cycle + 1 day).



Above I was referring to the 8th day laws that is not called a 1st day law in the Bible. Again I see nothing wrong with that statement taking the context.


I explained at the top of this post that some feast are celebrated as a Holy convocation Sabbath on the 1st day of a cycle, other on the 8th day of a cycle.

You should know these basic Biblical Feast knowledge and I shouldn't have to re-explains all of this certainly after making 3 super long posts that I had already explained the details of these. So I'm puzzled that you seem to still not understand.


Here I probably should of written "the 7 days cycle + 1 day". But in the context I had just referred to the 7 days law which was the 7 days weekly cycle and the next day is the 1st day.

I have a hard time to believe you couldn't understand this statement.

The 8 days laws are the circumcision(7days + 1), the dedication of priests(7days + 1), Pentecost(7x7weeks + 1), the 8 days of Tabernacle(7days + 1), and the Jubilee(7x7weeks of years + 1) which all have the 7 days weekly model + 1 day = 8 days.


??? The Feast of Tabernacle is not a 1st day law...it is a 8 days law because it is a 8 days long Feast where BOTH the 1st day and the 8th day are declared as a Holy Convocation Sabbath.

I couldn't see nothing wrong with that statement above either. The words were chosen carefully.

Actually the "circumcision" command, as observed by the Jews is seven full days plus 12 hours. In other words, if a baby was born on Monday at three a.m. then Monday was counted as the "first day" and Monday a week later at 3 p.m. the baby could be circumcised. If the baby boy was born at 3 p.m. Monday, then it could not be circumcised until Tuesday the following week.

Interesting that Elle considers God's concern for the well being of the infant, as "old covenant", even though science confirms God's wisdom for delaying the operation till the infant's blood reaches maximum coagulation properties. That reveals God's concern and wisdom, not some mystical interpretation that it takes God eight days to circumcise a believers heart! The heart needs circumcision on a daily bases as the Holy Spirit works to mold our characters to represent Christ.

There is absolutely nothing in there that makes the weekly Sunday a holy day. Never any mention in all of scripture.

Nor is there anything in the consecration of the priest service that makes the weekly Sunday a holy Day.

Seven days the new priests were to offer special sacrifices and engage in other "purifying" rituals. When those seven days were ended, they started their regular work as priests.

Penticost and the Jubilee are not "eight day laws" they are 50 day, or 50 year laws.

And even the feast of Tabernacles does not consecrate a weekly Sunday Sabbath, it simply says there were 2 feast Sabbaths during Tabernacles EACH YEAR, which may or may not have fallen on a Sunday or any other day of the week.

Feast Sabbaths are not part of the Decalogue, but the seventh day Sabbath is. Feast Sabbaths occur yearly, not weekly and do not sanction a weekly "8th day" or '1st day" Sabbath.


The whole attempt to tie any "eighth day" reference to a recurring weekly Sabbath/Sunday has it's roots in the apostasy of the Christian church centuries ago -- but it is still based solely on speculation. NONE of the things cited make the weekly Sunday a holy day.


I agree with Kland -- why zero in on references to the "8th day" as somehow evidence that there is a law making the weekly Sunday a day of worship?
Why not zero in on references to the "3rd day" or the "10th day" and make them the law for a new day of worship?

God says, "Remember the seventh day to keep it holy".

Ummm, Elle, it came from your one post right above it. What are you confused about?

Yes, long posts which had nothing to do with my question. Which you proceed to do in the current post.

Why avoid answering the question?

Remember the question? Why do you go on (and on) about your 8th day laws when 1st day is mentioned in your same supposed supporting text?

I think you are confused in thinking I'm asking you to explain why you believe there's 8th day laws. That is not the question.

Again, the question is: why did you exclude from your statement, "1st day laws"? Isn't that unbalanced to do that? Why did you pick-and-choose "8th day" over the other days mentioned? What guidelines do you use to pick one and avoid the other?

When your audience is questioning why you are picking and choosing, it does no good to continue to ignore the question and go on (and on) about supporting your picked-and-chosen.

Talk about confusing things. Do you realize that 8 days law would be different than 8th day law? Is that where you're mangling things? Elle, Something 8 days long is different than the 8th day of it.

Notice how when faced with scripture, they go silent? In more than one thread. Of course, that didn't convince them of any thing....

Yes, I did notice that.

I also noticed the way they demand that their questions be answered without bothering to answer the question under discussion, and how they cut-and-paste stuff they don't like to another thread and then give it a misleading name.

Oh damn. Broke my own rule again...

Do you mean by "they" everyone but not you or dedication?


Below is 3 Biblical points and 1 early Church application (way before Constantine came in the picture) all pointing to a SUNDAY observance.

The first 2(#1 & #2) I have already given these in past posts. The last 2 (#3 & #4) are new.

#1. The FIVE 8 days laws types from the law of Moses :


Christ's resurrection (fulfillment of Wave sheaf in Lev 23:10) and Pentecost -- BOTH fell on a SUNDAY. According to Lev 23:15-21 and Num 28:26 Pentecost is to be kept as a Holy convocation and a Sabbath day.

Lev 23:15 " ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD. 17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD. ... 21 And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations."

Num 28:26 "Also in the day of the firstfruits, when ye bring a new meat offering unto the LORD, after your weeks be out, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work:"

The Wave-Sheaf and Pentecost were BOTH fulfilled on a Sunday.
1. the Wave sheaf [of Barley] (Day 1 of the 7x7days +1 countdown) : which the ANTITYPE represented [the resurrection of] Jesus who was UNLEAVENED (without sin).

and 2. Pentecost (Day 50 of the 7x7days +1 countdown) : which was an offering of two BAKED loaves [of Wheat] baked with LEAVENED which the ANTITYPE represented the 120 disciples who were in the upper room who received [were baked by] the fire of the Holy Spirit. Note: The law forbade leavened to be in any offering. However, the Pentecost main offering was two leavened loaves that needed to be BAKED. The fire during the baking process kills the leavened action. The fire symbolize the Holy Spirit in stopping the progress of Leaven (sin) that is in our heart. So despite we are still with sin, the fire action of the Holy Spirit is what makes us an acceptable sacrifice to be presented to the Father.

These were BOTH FirstFruits offering which were BOTH presented to God :

1. Christ (the wave sheaf firstfruit) and

2. the 120 disciples (the two loaves of Baked leavened Bread).



#2. Heb 7:12 tells us that there's a "change" (transfer) on the keeping of the law from the Old covenant to the New Covenant. This change-transfer is to be applied in all the Sabbaths laws -- 1. the 7 days cycle law and 2. the Five 8 days cycle laws.

We saw this Heb 7:12 transfer of the law applied in the Passover, the Wave Sheaf, and the Pentecost fulfillment.

However, the Adventist Church still keeps the 7th day Sabbath law like it was in the old covenant. They haven't done any transfer required as God told us in Heb 7:12.

I'm not saying that this transfer of the 7days law is to be kept on Sunday. No! What I see that is kept on Sundays is the fulfillment of the 8days laws listed above. I'm still unsure if these 8days laws needs to be kept on every Sunday. But concerning the application of the 7days laws in the New Covenant still needs to be revealed.

Here's some study reference posts of Heb 7:12 :



Here's the two other points that I haven't given yet.


#3.Jesus appear a second time the following SUNDAY. Jesus appeared two consecutive Sundays. The first at His resurrection day, then the second time on the following Sunday.

John 20:26 "26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”"

This 8 days is to be counted according to Jewish ways from the resurrection of Christ on the 1st day of the week--SUNDAY.

The 3rd time Jesus appeared to them was not in the upper room but at the sea of Galilee. The Bible doesn't tell us which day it was (John 21:13-14). Some Sunday keepers speculates it was also on a Sunday. They could be right or they could be wrong. We just don't know.

Steven Jones in his study of the 4th commandment (link here) says that Jesus set a pattern in appearing on SUNDAYS (on the first two Sunday and potentially on His 3rd appearance). So he speculates that He did so for 5 weeks in a row in appearing every Sunday before His ascension. So in this, that Jesus set up the new pattern of Sabbath keeping to Sunday.

Well I will agree that the first two appearance were on Sunday. I'm not convince that this was enough to set up a new pattern and then I see that Stephen uses the Pentecost law in Lev 23:10-15 (quoted above) not correctly.

He said that Lev 23:10-15 can be read (with the Heb 7:12 transfer in mind) to say that the 7 sabbaths cycles could to counted as 7 Sundays towards Pentecost. To me this line of thinking doesn't work because it would change the pattern of the 8 days law. His suggestion would mean that the counting starts with 8 days + 6x7days. This is the only way you can make the Sabbath counting on a Sunday instead of Sathurday. That's not the pattern set by all the FIVE 8 days laws. All these laws starts with a 7days pattern cycle whether it be 7days, or 7x7days, or 7x7years that represents the prophetic time cycle at 3 levels for the sanctification process. Then all these TYPES--patterns finish with a 1 day (or 1 year) which represents a presentation of the sanctified son (or priesthood).

So I cannot come to agree with this as his ways of counting would break up the set pattern of the 8 days laws. The way I understand Heb 7:12 change (tranfer) of any law shouldn't break the original pattern. The change-transfer is at the level of application of what the ANTI-TYPES (the fulfillment at the spiritual level) becomes and should not change the TYPE (set pattern).

However Steven brings many other valid points in his 4th commandments study that I do agree with; but these relates to the 7 days Sabbath cycle that should be discussed in another discussion.


#4. The early church writings after Jesus' death the believers were keeping Sunday as their Sabbath day and NOT Saturday.

In these early writings, they don't say why the change was done but only mention it as it was well understood among the early Church believers. Do note that these early writings dates way BEFORE Constantine time.



So the early Church understood something that they stopped meeting on Saturday and started to keep Sunday instead. The fact that the early writings doesn't explain and the reason has been kept silenced by God's Sovereignty, tells me that they might not necessarily understood it properly and it is yet to be reveal to the generation of the Messianic Age (the Millennium we're about to enter). So to me the Lord is giving us a wide open pondering & studying invitation.

Elle, let me point out why these points you made are only half-truths. They do not originate with you --they have been used to defend the unscriptural Sunday for many generations.

POINT #1 Eight day laws.
They do not sanctify a weekly "8th" day. There is no such thing as an eight day week. At creation God established a seven day week, and many things in scripture unfold in a weekly pattern. Just like our camp meetings. They last eight days. Two Sabbaths and the whole week in between.

Christ rested from His work of creating humans, on the seventh day. Christ rested from His work of redeeming humans, on the seventh day. Yes, the first day is the beginning of a new week, and yes, Christ rose on the first day, yet that does not make the first day into some kind of "8th day" of the week. The week is still just seven days. Scripture does not place any special sanctity on the weekly first day "or imaginary 8th day" of the week.

Revelation is full of "seven" --
The first half depicts the things of God in "sevens".
Seven stars or angels, seven churches, seven eyes, seven horns on the lamb, seven spirits, seven candlesticks, seven lamps, etc.
Second half of Revelation shows the counterfeit powers trying to duplicate the "sevens" with their "seven heads" which are full of blasphemy. What is interesting is that in Revelation 17 an "eighth" appears, and clearly this eighth is NOT good, but the culmination of the evil of the counterfeits and goes into perdition.

POINT #2. Heb 7:12 tells us that there's a "change" (transfer) on the keeping of the law.

Yes, there was a change, but PLEASE go back and read what that change was! What does it say?
Christ is now our high priest.
Because there is a change in the priesthood, it necessitates a change of law. Why?
The law does not allow someone from the tribe of Judah to attend to the altar.
But Christ is after the pattern of Melchisedec, made a priest not according to the carnal law, but based on His endless life.

Yes, Hebrews is all about the change from the symbolic temple services, to the reality of Christ -- the better sacrifice, the better blood, the better priesthood. But it does NOT do away with God's moral law. The ten commandments written by God's own finger are not a "shadow" or ceremonial commands.
Hebrews 4 tells us that Sabbath observance (sabbatismos) remains. (sabbatismos) means Sabbath observance, which is part of the resting in Christ, or (katapausis)of believing in Christ.
It points to Christ's rest after His perfect work of Creation, and also to His rest following the perfect work of His human life, which is the basis for the confidence we can have. This reminds us, of Christ's cry, "It is finished" (John 19:30) when the work He had come to earth to do, was done, and He rested on the seventh day.

Yes, on the first day, He rose and began the work of applying salvation, but on the seventh day, He rested.
Later, Luke, the Gentile would write of Christ's followers, that they too, rested on the Sabbath, according to the Commandment.
God's moral law did not change. The seventh day is embedded in the heart of the moral law. The ceremonial laws have changed, but they are not part of the Decalogue.


POINT #3. Jesus appeared two consecutive Sundays. The first at His resurrection day, then the second time on the following Sunday.

John 20:26 "26 After eight days His disciples.

We already discussed that point as well. As we discussed earlier, Christ's first appearance to the disciples, when Thomas was absent, was already SUNDAY EVENING, well after supper time. (And an inspired writer that is far more reliable than Stephen Jones, confirms this)

Yes, they had not yet gone to bed, so in a sense John wanted the continuity that it was still in the same 24 hours as the resurrection -- but none the less, it was Sunday EVENING after sundown-- by Jewish reckoning it was already Monday.

Eight days later would NOT be a Sunday.
You seem to hold that the eighth day after Sabbath is Sunday.
Then even if it still was before sundown Sunday when Jesus first appeared, then the eighth day for His second appearance would still be a Monday. Though I think it was probably a Tuesday.

And the idea that Jesus appeared to them every Sunday after His resurrection is NOTHING BUT SPECULATION. I see you also question that idea and don't agree with Jones.


POINT #4
The early church writings

You quote Stephen Jones.
However, the "evidence" he gives is HIGHLY slanted.
Some of it is outright wrong. Many have probably never bothered to read these quotations in the original sources.

Now it's true that SOME Christians started celebrating Sunday fairly early on. It wasn't a "replacement" at first, but rather an "addition" to Sabbath observance. .

I'll just deal with the very first of Jones' quotes.



We can't automatically assume that the phrase "Lord's day" meant then what it means now, or even what it would mean in the following centuries. I don't believe John meant Sunday when he said he was in the spirit on the Lord's day, either.

We only know that the title was transferred to Sunday a couple hundred years later, yet even then the Christians were still keeping Saturday as their Sabbath!

The writings do NOT show Christians replacing Sabbath observance for Sunday after the resurrection, rather that replacement was a gradual thing that came about over hundreds of years.

I don't have time to show all the evidence now -- but will give a start.



There is a lot of evidence that the early Christians kept Saturday as their Sabbath for several centuries after Christ's resurrection. Yes, they also celebrated Sunday, rejoicing in Christ's resurrection, but even that at first was in contention as to whether it was to be on Sunday or according to the Passover calendar. Victor I bishop of Rome (189-199) demanded the churches celebrate on Sunday.

As to the epistle of Barnabas--
the Epistle of Barnabas was a pseudo epistle, written long after the Biblical Barnabas was dead. Many think it was written around 140 AD. The author was basically a Gnostic Christian, pushing gnostic ideas onto the church.
That epistle, according to the historian, Schaff, “actually seems to deny the literal historical sense” of the Old Testament, asserting, for example, that God never willed the sacrifice and fasting, or the Sabbath observance and temple worship of the Jews”.

Basically, according to pseudo-Barnabas, we are too wicked at present to keep the Sabbath, and will not be able to keep it until we are sanctified when Christ returns. Because we are too wicked to keep the Sabbath now, we must keep Sunday???

The epistle of Barnabas was NOT recognized as an authentic gospel by the early church.

I do appreciate that you are detailed in laying out your reasoning and arguments.


dedication all your arguments above are very childish and has no bearing against that God has established FIVE 8days LAWS. What are you trying to do?... Do away what God has instituted as laws? Say they don't exist? These laws exist and all points to the sanctification process of man to become Sons of God. Once the 7day cycle course(=sanctification) is over then the sanctified son is presented to God. Sonship is the ultimate goal of the plan of salvation. This is what these Five 8days laws represents and points forward.

Your arguments that these 8th day laws doesn't fall on a literal Sunday all the time, that there's no 8 days in a week, that there's lots of sevens in the Bible, imaginary 8th day, and etc... are lame arguments nor does it negates or touch in the importance of these FIVE 8days Laws that are found in the Laws of Moses. Two has been fulfilled in Christ and in the Church during the spring feast & Pentecost, and the others are still to be fulfilled during Tabernacle at Jesus 2nd coming, after the Millennium and at the end of the Great Jubilee.

You are so blinded from elevating and defending the literal 7th day Sabbath that you say anything possible and cannot see that in each of these FIVE 8days laws the 7days law is inside of it and is key to symbolize its purpose in sanctifying man.

Also by your arguments, you show yourself having no concept of what a TYPE or Pattern is. These FIVE 8days laws and the 7days law are both prophetic TYPES--shadows--patterns of things to come. By combining them God further illustrate and reveal the dept of the spiritual application and meanings of these laws.


You contradict yourself. First you say that Heb 7:12 necessitates a change in the law to validate a different bloodline as if that the Priesthood was the only "necessary" portion that is changed[transferred] in the law. Then you say there were also a change in the sacrificial service law (by which there were many) and the sacrifice. The book of Hebrew also talk of a better temple, a better covenant, and etc... Paul wrote extensively on the change in the law of circumcision as that was a big issue in those days with the Judaisers. The Priesthood touched everything in the law from the tithes, firstfruits offerings, judicial matters, medical matters, economic matters, etc... because they were the mediator of the convenant between the people and God. What part of the Mosaic law that the Levitical house didn't have any involvement in some way? Very few.

Also something to point out, the order of Melchizedek was already in the law-Torah before the Leviticus order was established. So was it really changed or just reverting to its original intend? Even Solomon completely changed the Phinehas line to the Zadok line foreshadowing what was to come in Christ. The Phinehas line was said to be establish "forever". Actually the Hebrew word olam for "forever" doesn't necessarily means forever but more accurately means for an unknown time.

Heb 7:12 says "For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also." Not only the priesthood bloodline is changed[transfer] but the whole law also was changed because the Levitical priesthood was the mediator of the law the old covenant. However under the New covenant under the Melchizedek order...the old covenant way of keeping the law was done away at Christ death; His resurrection invoked the new covenant and this required a change[transfer] of the whole law from the old to the NEW covenant. It was not only the order of the Priesthood that was changed.

Actually Paul wrote the book of Hebrew to help the Jews & Judaizers understand the transition of the law between the Old covenant to the new covenant.


#1. Heb 4 is not talking about "the rest" of the 7th day Sabbath. It's talking about "the rest" of entering the promise land at the Jubilee Sabbath rest that occur at the 50th year (7x7 years + 1). This is made clear what Paul is exactly referring about just the paragraph before Heb 4:1

Heb 3:16 "For who were the ones who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was God angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would never enter His rest? Was it not to those who disobeyed? 19 So we see that it was because of their unbelief that they were unable to enter.…

This is when the Israelites refused to believe the good report of Caleb & Joshua when God instructed them to enter the promise land. They sent 12 spies and 10 of them gave a bad report. So everyone believe the 10 bad report instead. That angered God and He swore none of them would enter the promise land and they stayed in the wilderness for 40 years until they all died. Caleb and Joshua are the only one that entered the "rest" (promised land).


#2. The Greek word Katapausis for rest (meaning reposing down) is used 7 times in Heb 4 and 2 times in Heb 3; whereas Sabbatismos only once in Heb 4:9. Even if Sabbatismos would of been used more than once ...the Jubilee Sabbath year is the greatest of all the Sabbath rest which points to our ultimate final destination of this great plan of salvation when all debts are cancelled and all can find the ultimate rest [from slavery incurred by poverty or by sin] by returning to our inheritance.

There's 3 levels of rest in the law:

1. weekly 7th day Sabbath rest for man and beast that represents the Passover level of spiritual growth. This is also the elemental Type-pattern for all other Sabbaths is based upon.

2. The 7th year Sabbath rest for the land to release those in slavery for a full year every 7th year. This spiritually represents the Pentecost level of spiritual growth where we start to hear-learn the law from the Holy Spirit and gradually releases us from the sin slavery.

3. The 50th year Jubilee Sabbath rest is when we reach full debt cancellation. At that level we basically reach the Tabernacle level of spiritual growth and reached the full likeness of Christ and become full sons. This has not occur yet in its fullness. This is the greatest rest of all as we have fully ceased from all our own work and from saying our own words like Christ.

So at the first level we start by having a weekly physical rest and study His word. At the second level we start to experiment desisting from our own works and words as we learn to hear His voice more and more. This level can only be reached by hearing His voice. But the full Sabbath rest of ceasing from all of our own works is defined in Is 58:13 as "desisting from your own ways, from seeking your own pleasure, and speaking your own word,". Christ said at many places that He only spoke the words He heard from His Father and did what He sees Him doing. He did this not only on the literal 7th day Sabbath; but on everyday continually. This is the Tabernacle level of rest that God is working in us to bring us to.


Yes, we discussed John 20:19 where you lied or more nicely said mis-represent scriptures 3 times by saying scripture said this when it didn't... when you tried to prove that Jesus appeared to the disciples after Sundown Sunday. You didn't prove anything with those mis-representation of scriptures or your say. Here's the discussion so to refresh your memory.




If you read the commentaries of John 20:26, the eight days has to be counted from Sunday inclusively like the Jews ways of counting. From Sunday to Sunday is 8 days.

Well the first two Sundays is said in the Bible and then the 7th Sunday is Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down. To say that Jesus appeared during the remaining Sundays (the 3rd, 4th, and 5th) before He ascended to Heaven -- is speculative like I have said. There's no scriptures that validates that.


Stephen Jones is way less slanted than you dedication. He can be at times and we all do because we all have our own heart idols that is hidden from us and do not understand all truths. However I am as critical if not more when reading Stephen's stuff and do check if he misrepresents scriptures. Over the years I found he is very rarely slanted as he deligently repeats what scriptures actually says. Whenever he speculates, he calls it as such. There's room for some speculations as scriptures doesn't give all the details. But if you keep the integrity of what scriptures says while bringing all other scriptures dealing with the subject; then the speculative section being called speculation needs to be confirmed by the Lord somehow in your life experience. For sure his spiritual outlook of scriptures is something someone not accustom to look at scriptures in the new covenant way seems way out there. But scriptures does tells us the spiritual equivalence of what is written. It's just we SDAs(and other denominations) are not accustom to it. We are accustom to read scriptures literally and with our carnal mind that reading someone that speaks from his spiritual mind is uncomprehensible to us like 1Co 2:14 says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

When you present scriptures dedication, there's so much correction to be brought by just pointing out what the scriptures actually says. I had to do this over and over again with you over the years and you still are very slanterous with scriptures when you post. As I said it's not entirely your fault as the Church as a whole is very notorious in doing that. You often just repeat the Church interpretation without really looking at scriptures carefully yourself.

Back to the subject...You can't prove (nor can I) what John actually meant in Rev 1. He could of meant Sunday as many were already observing Sunday from the early Church. There's many early writings among the early believers that shows that the "Lord's day" referred to Sunday and not Saturday. So it was already a common saying early on after the Pentecost experience.


Look at the above underlined and bolded text that prove that in those days "the Lord's day" referred to Sunday.


You mean the Judaizers who stayed in the old covenant ways that Paul constantly rebuked in his writtings that they needed to transit from the Old covenant to the new. Of course, the Judaizers kept on observing the 7th day Sabbath. This doesn't prove they were right. It only shows that they couldn't do the transition. The followers of Christ that the quotes came from observed Sunday -- they did the transition.

We don't know what revelation the early Church received (besides the writings of Paul on other subjects of the law) to validate that as it was not included in their writings. But the keeping of the Sunday was what they did and seemed everyone understood why and needed no explanation. Since this information was not shared as I said in my other post, I see it that it was God sovereignty behind it and His invitation for our generation to discover it.


Just because Barnabas writings did not make the Bible (as many other early Church members) it doesn't mean his writing is invalid historical account of what the early Church members believed. Any writing from the early believers in the early first 200 years is an historical account.


The Judaizers was still around (even today) and RCC did what was necessary to bring peace in the land. That's what that text prove to me.

Elle, a thinking person once asked me "Why do you waste your time on this forum with close-minded Adventists who insist on twisting scripture to suit their view?"

I see --
The Roman Catholic Church is right. Even in outlawing Sabbath observance?? And instituting Sunday? (to bring peace in the land) WOW??
To obey God's commandments, His moral law, is "Judaizing".
And the Gnostic Pseudo Barnabas (not Paul's companion at all) is a valid source of what the early church believed.

Well -- you've shown where you stand -- and I DO NOT AGREE!!!!! Indeed it makes me very sad. But it does confirm prophecy -- what has been will be again, and the last crises will be upon us.

Yes, there were GNOSTIC Christians in the second century -- but their writings were NOT what the "early church" as a whole believed. They were a real "thorn" in the church.
They were the "allegorizers" and great at "changing the meaning of words" and thinking they had reached beyond the "childish" understanding of scripture.

And yes, -- gnostic ideas are coming back ==
It is not a good thing.

And yes, by the 3rd century the Sunday movement had adopted the phrase "Lord's Day", but that is absolutely no proof that it had that meaning in the first century -- it didn't.




IF I am wrong and you are right -- it really makes no difference in the end -- as in your opinion all are saved no matter, so it really doesn't matter what one believes.

BUT if I am right and you are wrong, I can only feel very, very sad for you, and pray for you.



In many ways this is not really an Adventist friendly forum anymore, so won't be spending as much time here anymore. So you won't have any pesky Adventist trying to share their convictions and what is plain to them in scripture.

BUT Remember --
Today is the day of salvation.
It is in this life when we choose WHOM we will serve.

Jesus is our Savior -- and He is calling TODAY.

How is that relevant to the 4th commandment which categorically states, "... six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD, your God"?

You are like a man who, wanting to have sex with a woman not his wife, cites Roe vs. Wade in defence: "a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment [is to be] extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion ...", claiming THAT right to privacy for his clandestine affair.

It's clever for sure; but truth has a way of shining through the bitter consequences of acts justified by tangential reasons and wrong arguments. Won't it be best for that man to say, "No. I will NOT commit adultery"?

///

I never said RCC was right. Nor I don't think they outlaw observing the Sabbath like you say ... the quotes you brought forth (3rd & 4th century) contradict that. Even today the RCC conducts masses on Saturday to satisfied those that wants Saturday. The RCC always been this way. Like a Italian friend told me that read many RCC news in her country....they are like a mirror to all religion so to pull all other religious group in.

I had said the above comments in reference to the quotes of the Apostolic constitution that observed both sabbath and the "Lord's Day" (Sunday) which wikipedia says is a document at 3rd and 4th century which is Constantine time when the RCC was forming.


You demonstrated yourself not understanding God's law. The little you know is very superficial and from an old covenant view.

Yes it is "Judaizing" when God instituted a change[transfer] in the law after His death and the followers refutes the changes and stays in the old covenant way of keeping the law.


I never studied much about Barnabas but for sure from scriptures he was Paul close companion and worked with him for a time. I did some little google search to see if his teaching was gnostic as you propose ....and no from what I read from wikipedia and elsewhere his teaching were more Islamic than Gnostic.

Barnabas was a Jew. He was more incline and prone to be a Judaizer then a Gnostic. The Gnostic duality of spirit and flesh came from the Greeks culture who viewed matter as being evil. Jews had no inclination of being Gnostic because the Hebrew writings and language had no such view. The material matter that God created was said as being good from creation.

So I don't believe the split between Paul and Barnabas was due to Gnostic believes but moreso because of Judaizer conflicts as Barnabas was siding with Peter concerning the circumcision issue. Of course the Lord reveal to Peter that Paul was right. Peter and many others changed their view; however scriptures doesn't say that Barnabas accepted that revelation.

Whatever caused the split between Barnabas and Paul, it doesn't negate the fact that Barnabas being Jew and keen to keep the Sabbath according to former ways, his quote showed that he switched to observed Sunday like other Jews in the early Church. So here Barnabas did agree in that area.


I don't seek for you or anyone to agree with me... you should definetely check scriptures for yourself, study with prayers and give the time needed for the Holy Spirit to show you what is truth.

However, the places I have corrected you from mis-representing scriptures (like John 20; Heb 4 you saying it talks about the 7th day rest and etc...) by showing what scriptures actually say ...that you should believe what scriptures says.


Their were two main challenges to the Gospel message :
1. the Judaizers that came from the Jews that wanted to maintain the old covenant way of the law but with Jesus in the message. Today the Messianic Jews are a prominent example. But really all the denominations reverted back to interpret the law with the old covenant mindset and keeping some preferred cherry picked laws. So the Judaizer mindset is well alive today in all denominations.

2. the Gnostic theories that came from the Greeks. As the early church numbers increasingly became more Greek and less Jewish then these did creep in a lot.

Barnabas was a Jew and not a Greek.


That's not true. Most of the quotes I've brought talking about the "Lord's day"came on the 1st and some in the 2nd. You are the one that quoted some from the 3rd.


It does matters what you believe because it can disqualify you from being in the first harvest and end up gashing your teeth....and put you in the 2nd harvest after the Millennium (1Cor 3:15; Luk 12:46-49) or even some believers will reap their inheritance in the 3rd harvest with the unbelievers(Luk 12:46).


I'm sorry you view this forum as not "Adventist friendly" because some of us, Adventist or ex-Adventist, come here to study and check what we have been taught is really biblical. Actually, I personally view that this is the best place for any serious Adventist or ex-Adventist to come to do serious Biblical studies to check what they have been taught all their live stands on scriptures.

It's too bad that those in the Church that are so dedicated to the Church or EGW interpretation don't want us here and get personally offended when their erroneous views are being pointed out by plain scriptures while the discussion maintain a cordial & civil disposition.

Actually --
I see many of your views as highly erroneous, a spiritualizing away of plain utterances of scripture.



Your so called "corrections" were not totally correct, they were YOUR INTERPRETATIONS, your opinion of what scripture says.

One example especially the "evening" issue.

John 24:31 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

You call me a liar -- and then with many assumptions you presented your interpretation of the text in an attempt to prove it. I really don't see that as cordial dialogue.

The text says they arrived in Emmaus when the day was "far spent". We see the two urging Jesus not to go any further, it was too late to do that, but rather to stay with them.

You suggest a whole family awaiting them with food ready -- (still fairly early in the afternoon) none of that is even hinted at in the text. No hint that anyone else was present. No hint that there were still several hours before dark. Rather we sense an urgency that it was too late to do any more traveling.
The text suggests a "tarrying time" from when they entered the house, till "it came to pass" that they sat down for a simple meal.
What meal did people eat "when the day was far spent"?

The text fits MUCH BETTER to the account I shared, then to your interpretation.
I also see EGW's comments are in harmony with the scripture.

Hebrews three and four.
Somehow it appears you did not really read what I was saying, but assumed I said the whole issue of "rest" in those chapters was a narrow legalistic view of the Sabbath.

However, I compared the two words used -- the rest, as well as it's relationship with the Sabbath.
I've done quite a bit of study on those chapters, they are rich with meaning.




Yes, the account of Israel being turned back into the wilderness and not being allowed to enter Canaan is a vital part in the chapter. Their disobedience and unbelief resulted in being turned back into the wilderness. They were on the borders of Canaan, eagerly anticipating a rest from their wilderness wanderings. But they had no faith.

Yet-- the rest spoken of -- was NOT really the entry into the land of Canaan. For Israel DID enter Canaan under Joshua, but did not find the rest. Why? Because of unbelief.
Heb. 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

In his farewell address (Joshua 23) he warns the Israelites that their rest was totally dependent upon "cleaving to the Lord" and living according to His will. Thus the sad history shows, that even though this rest was experienced by individual men and women of faith, the true rest for the nation eluded them because of unbelief and rebellion.

The rest we have in Christ comes only when we yield ourselves to Christ. That gospel is being preached to us. But it was ALSO preached to Israel way back then.

Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].

The Israelites didn't enter that rest because, even though their whole sanctuary services were to teach them of a coming Savior from sin, they lacked faith. They were constantly bucking against God and His will for them.

Yet that rest was available to them, just as much as it is available to us today. This "rest" comes when the life is submitted to God.

The appeal is made through KING DAVID,
The Psalms is actually the original from which the author of Hebrews quotes:

"Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts" Ps. 95:7-11 (like those in the wilderness who did not enter God's rest)

If God's rest becomes available only when the so called "Jewish Sabbath" "faded away" or was "transferred" to the "Lord's Day" why would God appeal to the Israelites through their king to have this rest experience back THEN, many years BEFORE Christ's incarnation? People throughout the Old Testament who believed and had faith experienced that "rest".

NOTE: Scripture calls the 7th day Sabbath God's holy day, He is Lord of the Sabbath, it's never called the "Jewish Sabbath" in scripture.


When God offered "rest" to the children of Israel, He offered His holy Sabbath with it. And if BOTH WERE OFFERED TO ISRAEL AT THE SAME TIME, then one can't be a shadow of the other. It is no different today, Christ is still offering His rest, as well as His Sabbath! One is not a shadow of the other.


Yes, the Sabbath rest is the physical experience, which the author of Hebrews draws upon to illustrate the spiritual rest a person in Christ experiences as they find salvation in Him.
Today -- harden not your heart. Today, come to Christ to find that rest.

If the Christian community, on reading Hebrews three and four, would have been thinking of the Sabbath as bondage, something to get rid of, they would of lost the whole point of the discussion, for how could something burdensome be the prime example of resting in Christ.
No-- the Sabbath rest is a delightful physical reality of resting with our God and Savior, and it's fullness is totally dependent upon the spiritual reality of resting in Christ.

That rest comes from a vibrant FAITH and heartfelt obedience to God. Yet I agree, it also points forward to a time when faith becomes sight and the fullness of this rest will be realized when we reach that place where God will wipe away all tears from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. Rev. 21:4


However, what you seemed to be trying to do in your "correction" was to try to do away with the text that specifically states that "Sabbath observance remains".
It is no "correction" to try to sweep it away as if Hebrews didn't use the word that specifically means "Sabbath observance" (sabbatismos) remains.

The Sabbath remains. The verb "remains" is "(apoleipetai) which literally means "has been left."

The Greek word translated "rest" in every other passage throughout Hebrews 3 and 4 is "katapausis." which is "rest" or "place of rest". Yet "katapausis" is NOT used in Hebrews 4:9

There the word is (sabbatismos). The term (sabbatismos) is seen in the writings of Plutarch, Justin, Epiphanius, and others, and each time the term denotes the observance of the Sabbath. Therefore the text is saying, that Sabbath observance remains for the people of God. Later the author tells us what has been abolished BUT FIRST he confirms the SABBATH REST remains behind for the people of God.

Therefore a Sabbath Rest Remains for the people of God. (Hebs. 4:9)

The call goes out repeatedly in those chapters: Today if you will hear my voice do not harden your heart in rebellion, as in the day of trial in the wilderness.
Hebrews 4:11 "Let us be diligent to enter that rest lest anyone fall in the same way, by disobedience."

That rest is found only in Christ.
And the Sabbath is His DAY of rest given as a blessing to us.

Obviously not as you pooled three different Barnabases into one.

1. Biblical Barnabas

He was an active leader in the very early days of the church. A Jewish Levite from Cyprus,(Acts 4:36) who fully believed in the gospel of Christ, preaching and sharing it with others, (Acts 11:24) He teamed up with Paul on their first missionary journey, taking his nephew (cousin?), John Mark along. (Acts 12:24-13:4) John Mark however, found the hardships of mission work too trying, and while they were in Pamphylia, he left and went home.
Why did Paul and Barnabas split up? (Acts 15)

It was over John Mark
.
Barnabas wanted to give his nephew another chance and take him with them on a second missionary trip. Paul was adamant that he did not want John Mark along again.
So Paul chose Silas as his mission partner and Barnabas took John Mark and sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 15:35-40)
From this point, scripture is silent as to what happened to Barnabas. Probably the accounts from the church in Cyprus are the most reliable, which indicate that Barnabas was martyred in 61 A.D. in Salamis, Cyprus.

John Mark grew spiritually under Barnabas' guidance, and later we see John Mark reconciled to Paul, and being prophetable to Paul and his ministry.(2 Tim. 4:11) (But Barnabas is not mentioned again)

2. The Epistle of Barnabas

Next we have the writer of the epistle named "The epistle of Barnabas". This epistle was written after the Biblical Barnabas was dead. It was written sometime after Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, and during a time when it seemed a temple was about to be rebuilt. Some suggest this was around 130 A.D.
The person who wrote it, was NOT the Barnabas from the Bible. He was from the Alexandria area. From both chronological and doctrinal reasons it is now clear to most scholars that the Biblical Barnabas was not the author of the "epistle of Barnabas".
This author had gnostic theology woven into his epistle. He turns much of the OT into allegorical understanding, including God's commands, and disconnects the Jews as ever having been God's covenant people. Israel, he maintains, destroyed that idea with the golden calf.

3. The gospel of Barnabas
This one wasn't written by the Biblical Barnabas either. Nor was it written by the same man who wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. This so called gospel, some say was written about 1000 years later.
There is a Gospel of Barnabas and an Epistle of Barnabas. These are two very different books. The Gospel of Barnabas is the book promoted by Muslims today, for indeed it favors Islamic teachings. While the "Epistle of Barnabas" moves into the gnostic idea of "spiritualizing" realities in scripture into abstract interpretations.

On the other hand the Biblical Paul and Barnabas have a good balance between the realities of salvation and the Christian life, and the more abstract concepts of faith and worship.

I do not see any mention of sanctity being given to a weekly Sunday. Having a "holy convocation" once a year that happens to fall on a Sunday is NOT sanctifying a weekly Sunday.

I am the one that said "by the third century the phrase "Lord's Day" was adopted by the Sunday movement. You did not show any proof it meant Sunday prior to that.

THE FIRST QUOTE from the Didache --

"“On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together and break bread and give thanks, adding confession of your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.”

There is absolutely NO mention of the "first day" or "resurrection day" -- any supposition that the phrase "Lord's Day" is speaking of Sunday observance is pure assumption.

The use of this quotation proves nothing for Sunday worship, even if it does date from 90 AD, a date that is by no means certain. Two points can be made:

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

2. The translation of this verse is disputed in other ways:
The verse just previous (13:7) ends with "Kata ten entolen" (according to the commandment)
The verse itself (14:1)begins with "Kata Kuriaken Kuriou" (According to the Lord's Lord???) The noun or subject is missing. Remember the word "day" was NOT in the original.

It is very possible the author is continuing his reference to the "commandments" "entole" mentioned just previous, thus a more accurate translation may be --

Didache 14:1 According to the Sovereign command of the Lord, gather together and break bread and give thanks, adding confession of your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.”

And no -- I did not make up that translation, it can be found in literature on the Didache.

However, the conclusion is clear -- this quote cannot be used to prove the early Christians were keeping Sunday, or that they were calling Sunday the "Lord's day" -- it just is NOT there.


THE SECOND QUOTE from the "epistle of Barnabas".

The epistle of Barnabas, is highly disputed!!! As I've already pointed out.
First, the supposed "signature" of Barnabas is pure legend. The codexes upon which it was supposedly found were produced centuries later during the time of Constantine. They are not the original apostolic writings.
There is NOTHING in scripture that says Barnabas was the "gospel scribe" How could he be when the gospels other than the gospel of Matthew, were most likely written AFTER Barnabas was martyred in 61 AD.

Yet even the pseudo author of the epistle of Barnabas does not link the phrase "Lord's Day" with Sunday. He doe not mention the phrase "Lord's Day" in that quote. He's into the 8th day stuff. Probably the one that started that line of thought against God's sanctified day.
The author of that epistle is highly anti Semitic, and presenting a lot of gnostic type beliefs.


QUOTE FROM IGNATIUS

At least Ignatius was a real historical figure, a disciple of the apostle John. But what did he REALLY write, that is the big question.

Did he write this?
"no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death….” (ch. IX)"

The quote is said to be from 107 AD and supposedly comes from Ignatius' epistle to the Magnesians.
However there are two epistles claiming to be this epistle to Magnesians. Some think possibly the shorter one could be genuine, but the longer form is generally felt to be a forgery written long after the time of Ignatius.

Regarding the shorter form, its genuineness is by no means certain, and it is highly probable that what we have today does not represent what this student of John, actually believed.


I hardly think we can base our beliefs on such shaky grounds. What is obvious is that at a later time SOMEONE was very eager to manufacture proof to enforce Sunday keeping. Eager enough to manufacture fraudulent documents.


JUSTIN (2nd century)

He does not use the phrase "Lord's Day"
He does talk about "the day of the sun" Sunday. The heathen term.


TERTULLIAN (moving into the 3rd century)

Still no mention of Lord's Day.

Obviously those who "were making Sunday a festival" a "day of rejoicing" were being accused of worshipping the sun. Tertullian writes:
"we devote Sunday to rejoicing, from a far different reason than Sun-worship,"
He maintains that they are no more worshiping the sun, than Saturday observers are worshipping Saturn.

While we do see a movement toward Sunday early on, the "chain of proofs" is very flimsy and suspect that tries to link it back to the apostles.

It really was NOT until the 3rd century that we have any reliable proof that Christians actually began calling Sunday the "Lord's Day".

For years (How many? I've been here 10 years so maybe the 7 latest years we started to exchange?) I was nice by saying something like "no, scripture doesn't say that"... This time I felt I needed to be more direct and gently breaking it by saying "I hate to say this but "liar liar pants on fire"" because you actually lied by saying "It was already evening, or beginning of dusk, when they arrived in Emmaus." when Luke 24:31 clearly doesn't say that.

Again I repeat myself what time of the day the expression it was "getting towards evening[sunset]...the day nearly over" is used by a Jewish population who counted the end of the day at sunset? Unless we have some historical accounts about the expression of those days, without them, we can only speculate based on what we know how they accounted a day. How many hours before sunset would they use that expression. We don't know. Let's suppose it was after 3ish that day -- already 9 hrs of the 12 hrs of daylight or 21 hrs of the day has past...maybe in those days they considered having 3 hrs before sunset that it was considered "getting towards evening" having "the day nearly over". That's within reason.

But this expression definitely doesn't mean "it was already evening or dusk" like you said dedication. That's outside of reason with an agenda in mind to prove EGW interpretation to be right contrary to whatever scriptures says.


This "urging" could be due because the next town on that road was too far away to make it at a descent time before sunset.

I tried to find a good map, the best I could find is this one:
http://www.seetheholyland.net/emmaus/
This map suggest that if this Emmaus was "Abu Gaus" as town names changed ovef the years. Over the years, there was a lot of dispute among scholars which town Luke meant. But most today consent to this "Abu Gaus" that was 11 km(7miles) away from Jerusalem. The next town "Amwas" was another 18.5km(11miles) away from "Abu Gaus". Perhaps it would of been too close to sunset when Jesus would of gotten there. Not that the Father intended for Jesus to go there, but He created this situation so that Jesus would be invited.


Scriptures is silent about a lot of details in this story; so when
I spoke of that family I was clear it was only a speculation -- a probability.

All know the following from scriptures :

#1. John 20:1 Mary Magdelene found the stone rolled away from the door "the first day of the week...when it was yet dark".

#2. John 20:13-17 Jesus appeared and talked to her

#3. Luke 24:13-32 the Story of two disciples going to Emmaus. When they recognized Jesus when he broke the bread and He vanished afterwards, at once they went back to Jerusalem

#4. Luke 24:33 These two disciples were not part of the eleven as when they arrived the 11 was locked in the upper room.

#5. Luke 24:34, 35 suggest that one of these disciples were Simon. I would say that it was not the same person as Peter because of Luke 24:33, but more likely Joseph's, Jesus mother Mary's husband, youngest brother.

The link above with the maps suggest that it was Mary's husband Joseph Brother Cleophas and the younger brother Simon that were the two disciples going to Emmaus. The wife of Cleophas, also named Mary, was mentioned several time in the gospels. Being relatives, these two ladies were very close and I even read somewhere that after Joseph's death(sometime before Jesus' death) that Mary might stayed with Cleophas family. I didn't do any investigation into this so I don't know how true it was. But we know from scriptures that it was "Mary the wife of Cleophas" (John 19:25) that comforted Mary the mother of Jesus at Jesus death on the cross. So it is very plausible that the two brothers, Cleophas and Simon, were going to Emmaus at their home to tell the household of the hot news that Jesus had resurrected that very same day.

#6. John 20:19 "Then the same day at evening[G3798opsios], being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. "

Again, contrary to your interpretation of that text (that it was well after sunset late at night that meant it was the 2nd day of the week) , opsios can mean two things :

1. The evening when the sun goes down from the horizon at dusk. It is not possible to be this "evening" as it was not after the sundown on Saturday night which is when the first day of the week begins. Jesus was not resurrect yet.

2. The evening when the sun goes down from Noon to dusk. This fits better what John meant here with this text. It was the first day of the week sometimes between noon and before sunset. From the events of the story it was more closely to Sunset.

But you dedication, you want to say that John(or scripture) doesn't mean what he(it) said. You said it was AFTER SUNSET on the 2nd day of the week. Are you calling John a liar or saying he was enable to communicate properly what day and time it was? That you know better what time it was because EGW(or one of her writers) said it was very late in the night when they arrive in Jerusalem than what John has communicated?


No Ellen White is not totally in harmony with scriptures and conflicts with John 20:19 and missed out that Cleophas had a wife that was close to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

She added a lot of details that is not in scriptures; but I like that she pointed out that they (Cleophas & another) were returning to their home. What EGW (or whoever did the research and wrote these passages with EGW approval) missed out is that Cleophas was Mary's in law and Mary, the mother of Jesus, was with Cleophas' wife the day before. EGW or the researcher didn't make that link. If they would of, I'm sure the story would of been written differently.

I had a hunch they were going to Emmaus to tell the news of Jesus' resurrection to someone important but I haven't linked Cleophas and Simon to this story until doing further research a few days ago and saw that it was more probable that they went to Cleophas' house who was the in-laws of Jesus that most likely Mary the mother of Jesus was there visiting as she was with Cleophas' wife the day before. So Cleophas was probably anxious to go to home to give the good news to these important ladies.

So yes, my hunch that these "unknown disciples" without knowing who they were yet... were expected somewhere and the ladies of the house already had a meal ready was more plausible than your interpretation dedication that they arrived in some empty house where they had to prepare the meal themselves that costed some additional time on the clock before they sat down to eat.

Again Elle, you are confusing length of time with a specific time. 8 days in length are not the "8th" day. Not sure who you think you can deceive by that.

Try other things like, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day", means morning comes first...?!
You'd be amazed how many would fall for that one.

There's one! Yep. Lots of people would go for that. Justify themselves. Between the evenings. Keep the Sabbath. So at noon, we have a moment of silence and pat ourselves on the back for "keeping" the Sabbath. yeah.

Oh, Elle, I can hardly believe the lengths you will go to, to try to accuse someone relating the simple Biblical story as a lie.

Your repeating your "liar" accusation, does not in the least convince me that those Disciples arrived in Emmaus in the middle of the afternoon, and returned to Jerusalem before dark.

Yes, it was the EVENING of the first day of the week. People in those days usually went to bed when the sun went down, they not having electricity etc. The sun was not yet down when they arrived in Emmaus.
HOWEVER, that evening the disciples back in Jerusalem, didn't go to bed, they would not sleep till they learned for a certainty what had become of the body of their Lord... thus they prolonged their "day" -- and yes, it was after dark, when the messengers from Emmaus arrived back in Jerusalem. Though they had not yet gone to bed, yet, from an actual reckoning of time, Sunday had already slipped into Monday and counting forward eight days, the count would be from Monday to Monday.
The next meeting with Jesus was on a Monday, or even Tuesday.

And of course that is the crux of your whole argument that Christ had to appear to the eleven during the daylight hours of Sunday. == Because Sunday observers have created a non-substantiated theory that Jesus only appeared to people on Sundays after his resurrection. But it is in that theory where the lie really lies.


The rest of your post was steeped in assumptions.
There are plenty of people who try to line up all the names and link them together and write stories that would fall under the term "historical fiction".

The assumptions come from this verse:
John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

1. How many women are mentioned? Some say three, some say four.
Jesus' mother, Jesus' aunt, a second Mary, and a third Mary.
So there is no absolute proof that Jesus' aunt was the same as the "wife" of Cleophas.


2. The word "wife" is supplied, it's not even in the original.
All it says is that there is some connection.
Also, how do you know the second traveler on the road to Emmaus wasn't Cleophas' wife? It would make more sense, really.
Usually husband and wife travelled together to the Passover in Jerusalem.
How do you know she didn't have to prepare the meal when they got home?
Why would she go home just hours before her husband? Women travelling without their menfolk wasn't really all that safe.

So really, what you presented is simply a field of speculation -- The possible variables are pretty large.



One thing from scripture -- Cleopas was NOT going home to Emmaus to tell important ladies the good news of the resurrection!!!
Scripture is pretty clear that he did not believe the news was true -- he didn't really believe the "ladies" who had shared their testimony that morning, and Jesus reprimanded him of being "slow of heart to believe."

If Jesus' mother and aunt were already there in Emmaus I'm pretty sure the Biblical account of Jesus arrival there would have been very different. Very different indeed!!!

No, those ladies were not there, we would have heard about it if they were. EGW's account makes WAY more sense, and fits scripture But your story most certainly adds all kinds of things to the Biblical account --

That was pointing to the Cross.

Unfortunately, there are many who insist that the Ten Commandments that define sin, and are the only words physically written by the finger of God Himself, are equivalent to the rules given to direct our attention to the cross. A closer study of the word "forever" (owlam, Strong’s, H5769) would be helpful.

Exo 21:6
"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him ‘for ever’." (owlam, Strong’s H5769)

Is Mr Peterson suggesting that in heaven, human slaves will serve their human masters "for ever"? Their servitude ended when they died. Just as the seven yearly sabbaths ended at the cross.

It is always fascinating to me, that those who support the Catholic attempt to change God’s definition of sin, focus their efforts on the Sabbath. If the definition of one sin may be changed, then surely all such definitions may be changed? By this logic murder, false witness, adultery, stealing etc. are all acceptable to God...

I need clarification as I don't if I understand correctly what you said above. BTW who is Mr. Peterson? I think we have the same understnding of olam ; but let me bring the root word and 1 text (as there's plenty more like the one you quoted and mine that makes no sense with the english translation of olam as forever. At times it can mean forever; but their is very few application of the word olam means such.

owlam root word is alam (h5956) that means "to conceal, hide, be hidden, be concealed, be secret".

Jonas 2:6 " I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever [olam], But Thou hast brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God."

Jonas was only in the whale for 3 days not forever; but when he entered he had no clue how long he would be there.



??? What did you do about the other Sabbaths the law talks about? Do you live by only a few words God spoke that you select....or seek to understand and live by ALL Gods word?

Yeah, Elle, we already talked about how you "live by ALL Gods word". You suggest others should, but you only follow what you say by your own imaginations. The other sabbaths ended. That was the main message Paul was dealing with all the Judaizers who wanted everyone to keep the law of Moses. They denied Christ's sacrifice.

saying so does not make it true. Show me where what I say is my own imagination. That's the best way to deal with the issue and study. I always address you with the specific where I find you only use one text to proof text. One text cannot give the whole picture.

I don't beleive the Judaizers denied Christ's sacrifice and other rituals; but they applied it in their Old covenant mindset. That's what Paul was commenting about that the laws should be viewed and applied with a New covenant mindset. However, the Jews(not the Judaizers) did denied Christ's sacrifice.

Concerning other sabbaths ended...again that is your say. According to Paul in Hebrew 4, he was talking about entering the Tabernacle-Jubilee rest (not the 7 day rest) that the Israelites refused to enter and all perished in the desert for it. So for Paul he recognized other Sabbaths that still needs to be prophetically fulfilled.

I stand corrected. Insead of "imagination" I should have said, not Biblical.

Dearest Elle,

I shall miss our lively discussions:
your insights over which we would so often contend,
your studious presentations that showed so well, how you loved the Word.
Though, at times we would disagree, the fruit of God’s Spirit was plain to see:
your patience, your gentleness, your kind gift of time, the hours of labor spent to share what you believed and the ache in your heart for each lost soul yet to be found.

For one small moment, sleep in peace. And, you will wake to touch His face:
the One who loves you most. At last, in the Light and Love of His grace,
you and I both shall see, no longer through dark glass. And then, perhaps we’ll laugh
together at how blind we were, and how very much eternity has yet to teach us...

I miss you Marie-Mai,
my Sister, my friend.

Or they change it to allow for idols.

Definitely!

When twists or outright 'private interpretation' comes in, this seems to happen when we'll known and accepted truths are being resisted in some form or another.