Bible Study The Lord's Day?

[Bick]

The Lord's day

Hi SputnikBoy. I agree with noblej6, that "the Lord's Day, is another was of saying "the Day of the Lord", with the emphasis shifted from the character of the day to the time. May I quote from The Concordant Commentary on the New Testament by A.E. Knoch:

"The Hebrew phrase 'the day of the Lord' is changed to 'the Lord's day' in order to shift the emphasis from the character of the day to the time, which is the important point in this passage. This is done in three ways, by changing the grammatical form, the rank, and the order of the words."

When one reads in Revelation of all the terrible woes, plagues etc, that come up on the earth and the people of the earth, and then read some of the descriptions in the OT of the 'day of the Lord', one can see what is revealed in Revelation, up to and including the return of the Lord in power and great glory, is certainly 'the day of the Lord'.

God bless, Bick

 

[SputnikBoy]

Hi Bick. :smt039 Yes, I think you're right about the actual definition of the Lord's Day. Thanks for the post.

Abiyah, yes, I HAVE missed you ...where ya bin? Good to have you back even though I don't agree with one word you wrote! :smt021

 

[Abiyah]

Abiyah, yes, I HAVE missed you ...where ya bin? Good to have you back even though I don't agree with one word you wrote! :smt021

Good Morning Sputnik !

Thank you & you are funny with the little smiley faces, and the one trying to hammer in some sense to the other, because you don't agree with me, I laughed. :wink: Hey.. thanks for that, I ususally don't laugh this early in the morning lol.. lol.. lol ! Everyone have a wonderful day !


Abiyah

 

[Free]

Re: The Lord's day

Hi SputnikBoy. I agree with noblej6, that "the Lord's Day, is another was of saying "the Day of the Lord", with the emphasis shifted from the character of the day to the time.

The problem, as has been pointed out, is this:

Revelation 1:9,10, "9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet"

John is writing in past tense. So if one equates "the Lord's Day" with "the Day of the Lord," then one must believe that it has already happened and happened prior to John's writing of Revelation. But this clearly is not the case.

The most correct understanding of "the Lord's Day" is Sunday, the first day of the week. Scripture, history and tradition all back this up.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Re: The Lord's day

Hi SputnikBoy. I agree with noblej6, that "the Lord's Day, is another was of saying "the Day of the Lord", with the emphasis shifted from the character of the day to the time.

The problem, as has been pointed out, is this:

Revelation 1:9,10, "9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet"

John is writing in past tense. So if one equates "the Lord's Day" with "the Day of the Lord," then one must believe that it has already happened and happened prior to John's writing of Revelation. But this clearly is not the case.

Sputnik: So, what you're saying is that John SHOULD have written, "I AM in the Spirit on the Lord's Day ..."??? I don't think so, Free. A 'past tense' reference for a happening event is not out of place in this text. But, if we're to go along with the idea that 'the Lord's Day' WASN'T referring to the day of the Lord after all, then we're back to the 7th-day Sabbath.

Revelation 1:10 would have to be referring to one or the other. And, Sunday, sad to say, isn't even in the equation. The first day of the week was NEVER referred to as 'the Lord's Day' in the Bible ...nor even HINTED at. In Isaiah 58:13, however, we have a VERY clear reference to 'the Lord's Day' being the Sabbath. If one needs to get 'the Lord's Day' from scripture to make the pieces fit their cherished beliefs, then why not address fairly Isaiah's ACTUALLY CALLING the Sabbath 'the Lord's Day'?

Free: The most correct understanding of "the Lord's Day" is Sunday, the first day of the week. Scripture, history and tradition all back this up.

Sputnik: Not so, not from the scriptures anyway. The rest is true, however ...hence the present day 'Sunday Sabbath' as kept so fervantly by mainstream Christians. As mentioned above, Sunday, the first day of the week, is not even in the race. Mainstream Christians are merely riding on the coat-tails of the RCC. Check out their catechism and you'll see how they almost boast about this fact.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Re: The Lord's day

Revelation 1:10 would have to be referring to one or the other. And, Sunday, sad to say, isn't even in the equation. The first day of the week was NEVER referred to as 'the Lord's Day' in the Bible ...nor even HINTED at. In Isaiah 58:13, however, we have a VERY clear reference to 'the Lord's Day' being the Sabbath. If one needs to get 'the Lord's Day' from scripture to make the pieces fit their cherished beliefs, then why not address fairly Isaiah's ACTUALLY CALLING the Sabbath 'the Lord's Day'?[/color]

Free: The most correct understanding of "the Lord's Day" is Sunday, the first day of the week. Scripture, history and tradition all back this up.

Sputnik: Not so, not from the scriptures anyway. The rest is true, however ...hence the present day 'Sunday Sabbath' as kept so fervantly by mainstream Christians. As mentioned above, Sunday, the first day of the week, is not even in the race. Mainstream Christians are merely riding on the coat-tails of the RCC. Check out their catechism and you'll see how they almost boast about this fact.

There are a great many factual problems here. First, it was not the "Roman Catholic Church" who determined that we ought to worship on the First Day.
Second, you appeal to Isaiah, 7th century BC, to determine use of the term Lord's Day, and ignore the use of this term by Ignatius and in the Didache- both with New Covenant sensibility, both within 30 years of the writing of Revelation. I covered this before

Peter the Apostle referred to the times we are in as 'the Last Days.' The Day of the Lord is yet to come upon us.

Your premise is self-defeating, for the notion that the 'Lord's day' to which John refers as some generic reference to post-resurrection must mean, if one accepts it, that no one calendar day is superior to another, and Sabbatarians are therefore wrong.

however

Within 20 years of the writing of the Apocalypse, we see Ignatius using the term 'Lord's Day' to refer specifically to the first day of the week. Shortly thereafter, ca 125 AD, the Didache does so also.

Thirdly, rising from your false premises, you claim that there is no scriptural reference to 'the Lord's Day,' when in fact John does refer to just that. As I've demonstrated, John's contemporaries unquestionably used the term to mean Sunday.

Case closed.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Re: The Lord's day

O.C.

Thirdly, rising from your false premises, you claim that there is no scriptural reference to 'the Lord's Day,' when in fact John does refer to just that. As I've demonstrated, John's contemporaries unquestionably used the term to mean Sunday.

Case closed.

Sputnik: No, no, OC, the case is NOT closed simply because you say it is. No offense, but I'm not much interested in what those mere mortals of post-scripture had to say about 'the Lord's Day'. If I've learned anything since becoming a Christian, I've learned NOT to put my trust in the words of men. If it were possible for one to read the scriptures - devoid of any preconceived traditional beliefs - they would NEVER get Sunday, the first day, from 'the Lord's Day'. The Bible tells us quite clearly not to privately interpret scripture.

A BIG problem exists today for those who keep Sunday based on that text from Revelation 1:10. I can understand why it must be defended at all costs - or, alternatively, ignored with an air of ignorant bliss. You NEED Revelation 1:10 to say what you want it to say, OC. While you DO acknowledge the seventh-day Sabbath as 'the Sabbath', you also remain obedient to Sunday ...'the Lord's Day' as you call it.

The Catholic Catechism refers to the term - 'the Lord's Day' - many times and equates it to 'Sunday' every time. It also credits itself for having had the authority to 'change' the solemnity of the 7th-day Sabbath to the first day, Sunday. It gives itself the authority to change or to initiate a holy day as it sees fit. Anyone, feel free to go check the RCC Catechism on the appropriate site to find out where your 'Sunday Sabbath' OFFICIALLY came from.

While I usually remain silent on issues surrounding the RCC on these forums, others get really hot under the collar when debating catholicism. And yet, the MAJORITY of these posters, albeit unwittingly, 'obey a commandment' that the RCC BELIEVES (anyway) that IT gave!! And, they (the RCC) even boast of the influence they've had on mainstream Christianity in regard to the changing of the Sabbath from the 7th-day to the first-day!

While people getting together on ANY day to worship God is great - obviously - you, OC, are still giving the APPEARANCE to mainstream Christians that Sunday observance is in fact a command of God. And, THAT is the issue as I see it, NOT the fact that you get together to worship God on Sunday. It seems as if your Church prefers to 'play both sides of the fence'. Perhaps SDAs might be more readily accepted by mainline evangelicals if they were to 'play it safe' also. I might bring that idea of 'compromise' up at our next board meeting. Saturday AND Sunday worship ...hmmm.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Re: The Lord's day

O.C.

Thirdly, rising from your false premises, you claim that there is no scriptural reference to 'the Lord's Day,' when in fact John does refer to just that. As I've demonstrated, John's contemporaries unquestionably used the term to mean Sunday.

Case closed.

Sputnik: No, no, OC, the case is NOT closed simply because you say it is. No offense, but I'm not much interested in what those mere mortals of post-scripture had to say about 'the Lord's Day'.

Post-scripture, as you say, by 15 years, in the case of Ignatius. And we are to believe that use of the term 'Lord's Day changed from either a reference to the Sabbath to reference to ther First Day in 15 years? Completely illogical.

If I've learned anything since becoming a Christian, I've learned NOT to put my trust in the words of men. If it were possible for one to read the scriptures - devoid of any preconceived traditional beliefs - they would NEVER get Sunday, the first day, from 'the Lord's Day'. The Bible tells us quite clearly not to privately interpret scripture.

Interesting comment. If we are not to 'privately' interpret scripture, what then are you suggesting as our option?

A BIG problem exists today for those who keep Sunday based on that text from Revelation 1:10. I can understand why it must be defended at all costs - or, alternatively, ignored with an air of ignorant bliss. You NEED Revelation 1:10 to say what you want it to say, OC. While you DO acknowledge the seventh-day Sabbath as 'the Sabbath', you also remain obedient to Sunday ...'the Lord's Day' as you call it.

No, I really don't need to have Revelation corroborate the Sunday Lord's Day. Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, first and second century Christians celebrated Lord's Day on Sunday AND kept Sabbath, just as we do to this day.

The Catholic Catechism refers to the term - 'the Lord's Day' - many times and equates it to 'Sunday' every time. It also credits itself for having had the authority to 'change' the solemnity of the 7th-day Sabbath to the first day, Sunday. It gives itself the authority to change or to initiate a holy day as it sees fit. Anyone, feel free to go check the RCC Catechism on the appropriate site to find out where your 'Sunday Sabbath' OFFICIALLY came from.

The Catholic apologetic is not my concern here.

While I usually remain silent on issues surrounding the RCC on these forums, others get really hot under the collar when debating catholicism. And yet, the MAJORITY of these posters, albeit unwittingly, 'obey a commandment' that the RCC BELIEVES (anyway) that IT gave!! And, they (the RCC) even boast of the influence they've had on mainstream Christianity in regard to the changing of the Sabbath from the 7th-day to the first-day!

Protestants are also not my concern. We have no authority over them, and take no responsibility for them.

While people getting together on ANY day to worship God is great - obviously - you, OC, are still giving the APPEARANCE to mainstream Christians that Sunday observance is in fact a command of God.

Good, because it IS a command of God, because the Church says so. Moses gave the commands of God to Israel, and it was so. The Apostles gave their commands to the Church, and it is so.

And, THAT is the issue as I see it, NOT the fact that you get together to worship God on Sunday. It seems as if your Church prefers to 'play both sides of the fence'. Perhaps SDAs might be more readily accepted by mainline evangelicals if they were to 'play it safe' also. I might bring that idea of 'compromise' up at our next board meeting. Saturday AND Sunday worship ...hmmm.

We're not playing at anything, nor are we in the least influenced by the heterodox West. We continue as we have since Apostolic times. We are a continuation of Israel, not a replacement. As such, we worship in the manner handed down to us by the Holy Mothers and Fathers, who inturn received from the Apostles, they from Christ.

So that you know it, from our perspective, we play inside the fence, and the Sabbatarians do not describe for us where the fence is, nor do the Sunday Protestants. They deny the authority of the Church, as do you- from where we stand, you're two sides of the same counterfeit coin- even if well-intended, sincere, and devoted.

Our so-called compromise is the fulfillment and expression of both covenants, old and new, as understood within the framework of the New.

 

[Free]

A BIG problem exists today for those who keep Sunday based on that text from Revelation 1:10. I can understand why it must be defended at all costs - or, alternatively, ignored with an air of ignorant bliss. You NEED Revelation 1:10 to say what you want it to say, OC. While you DO acknowledge the seventh-day Sabbath as 'the Sabbath', you also remain obedient to Sunday ...'the Lord's Day' as you call it.

The same thing can be said for Christian Sabbatarians as well. Rev. 1:10 says what it says. A plain reading of Scripture shows that the only logical understanding of "the Lord's day" in Rev. 1:10 means Sunday. It cannot mean "the Day of the Lord" as that makes no sense. Do you or do you not believe that the writers said what they intended to say? John wrote in the past tense which means that he very much was in the Spirit on the now past, "Lord's day". This day had already occurred.

On the other hand, all you have is taking an OT phrase and trying to equate it with this phrase. You do not have Scripture or history or tradition to back up this position. It really is "case closed" as OC has stated.

If I've learned anything since becoming a Christian, I've learned NOT to put my trust in the words of men. If it were possible for one to read the scriptures - devoid of any preconceived traditional beliefs - they would NEVER get Sunday, the first day, from 'the Lord's Day'. The Bible tells us quite clearly not to privately interpret scripture.

But yet you are either 1. putting trust in the words of men (or Ellen White), or 2. trusting in your own private interpretation. Are you suggesting that we let the Church interpret the Bible for us? That is the only other option, yet you disagree with their interpretation.

 

[Lewis]

It was changed to Sunday by the Pope. it is called the Sunday Law Edict of March 7, 321 A.D. And they had no right to do this.

 

[guibox]

Re: The Lord's day

Post-scripture, as you say, by 15 years, in the case of Ignatius. And we are to believe that use of the term 'Lord's Day changed from either a reference to the Sabbath to reference to ther First Day in 15 years? Completely illogical.

I would like to know your sources on post apostolic usage of "Lord's Day", OC. My research has come to this conclusion as Dr. Bacchiocchi says:


"Sunday. The prevailing interpretation equates the expression "Lord’s day" with Sunday.

This equation is based not on internal evidences of the book of Revelation but on three second-century patristic testimonies, namely, Didache 14:1, Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1 and the Gospel of Peter 35 and 50. Of these, only in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, which is dated in the latter half of the second century, is Sunday unmistakably designated by the technical term "Lord’sâ€â€kuriake."

The designation of Sunday as "Lord’s day" which unmistakably appears before the end of the second century cannot necessarily be read back into Revelation 1:10. A major reason is that if Sunday had already received the new appellation "Lord’s day" by the end of the first century, when both the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written, we would expect this new name for Sunday to be used consistently in both works, especially since they were apparently produced by the same author at approximately the same time and in the same geographical area.

If a new term prevails and is more readily understood, a writer does not confuse his readers with archaic time designations. Moreover, if the new designation "Lord’s day" already existed and expressed the meaning and nature of Christian worship, the Gospel writers would hardly have had reasons to use the Jewish phrase "first day of the week." Therefore, the fact that the expression "Lord’s day" occurs in John’s apocalyptic book but not in his Gospelâ€â€where the first day is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the resurrection (John 20:1) and the appearances of Jesus (John 20:19, 26)â€â€suggests that the "Lord’s day" of Revelation 1:10 can hardly refer to Sunday."


_______________________________
This is not saying that "Lord's Day" is referring to the 7th day Sabbath, but that it is not referring to Sunday.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Re: The Lord's day

Post-scripture, as you say, by 15 years, in the case of Ignatius. And we are to believe that use of the term 'Lord's Day changed from either a reference to the Sabbath to reference to ther First Day in 15 years? Completely illogical.

I would like to know your sources on post apostolic usage of "Lord's Day", OC. My research has come to this conclusion as Dr. Bacchiocchi says:

I've already mentioned the sources, they're widely known as easily accessible:
1. Ignatius, epistle to Magnesians, ca 105 AD

We have seen how former adherents of the ancient customs have since attained to a new hope; so that they have given up keeping the Sabbath, and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead - the Day when life first dawned for us, thanks to Him (Jesus) and His death. [Epistle to the Magnesians 9

2. Didache, ca 125 AD

Assemble on the Lord's Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. [The Didache 14:1]

3. Epistle of Barnabas, ca 100 AD

And we too rejoice in celebrating the eighth day; because that was when Jesus rose from the dead... [Epistle of Barnabas 15]

As I have stated, the notion that this designate of the Lord's Day only became called such in the 15 years post- John's Apocalypse- this is illogical in the extreme.
Speaking of illogical in the extreme, let's read what Dr B has to offer:


"Sunday. The prevailing interpretation equates the expression "Lord’s day" with Sunday.

This equation is based not on internal evidences of the book of Revelation but on three second-century patristic testimonies, namely, Didache 14:1, Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1 and the Gospel of Peter 35 and 50. Of these, only in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, which is dated in the latter half of the second century, is Sunday unmistakably designated by the technical term "Lord’sâ€â€kuriake."
Stop there- note the use of the term "second century." This is like the product on sale for 19.99- the number is distorted purposefully. In truth, the letters were early second century, less than 20 years past the writing of John's apocalypse. We continue....

The designation of Sunday as "Lord’s day" which unmistakably appears before the end of the second century cannot necessarily be read back into Revelation 1:10.
Stop again- this is further distortion. Ok, let's call it what it is- fraud. He has now pushed back the Lord's Day term 100 years past Apocalypse. Keep your eye on the shell with the ball under it....

A major reason is that if Sunday had already received the new appellation "Lord’s day" by the end of the first century, when both the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written, we would expect this new name for Sunday to be used consistently in both works, especially since they were apparently produced by the same author at approximately the same time and in the same geographical area.
Would we? And why, Dr B? Because you say so? I mean, we see the term 'Lord's Day used once in Ignatius' writings, once in the Didache. But John should be using the term consistently, Dr B says.

Never mind that- we see the term used in three different writings within 30 years of the writing of Apocalypse, and in each it means Sunday, not Sabbath, not the Last Days, or even the Day of the Lord.


If a new term prevails and is more readily understood, a writer does not confuse his readers with archaic time designations. Moreover, if the new designation "Lord’s day" already existed and expressed the meaning and nature of Christian worship, the Gospel writers would hardly have had reasons to use the Jewish phrase "first day of the week."
Now we've expanded the search back in time to gospel writers, plural. Can we not stay on topic, Dr B?

Therefore, the fact that the expression "Lord’s day" occurs in John’s apocalyptic book but not in his Gospelâ€â€where the first day is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the resurrection (John 20:1) and the appearances of Jesus (John 20:19, 26)â€â€suggests that the "Lord’s day" of Revelation 1:10 can hardly refer to Sunday."
"Suggests" to whom? To this day, the Lord's Day is known by several different designations, each interchangeable. First Day, Eighth Day, Sunday, Kyriaki, Resurrection Day...
:roll:
And this brings us back to the central point: The Lord, which means the Lord Jesus, rose from the dead on the first day of the week. His resurrection is the most significant event in history, for those who believe in Him. It is right, and meet, and sensible, and just to refer to the eighth day as the Lord's Day, as did John the Revelator, as did Ignatius, as did Barnabas, as did Justin Martyr, as does the Church. That Sabbatarians brush off His resurrection as irrelvant in comparison with the Mosaic Law boggles the mind.

Unfortunately for Dr B, he doesn't boggle mine.

ereni pasi
Iakovos

 

[SputnikBoy]

Hmmm ...interesting, OC. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, as long as your name happens to be Ignatius, Didache, or Barnabas, (any others?) then you're allowed to 'play God' and install your own 'Sabbath'? And the 'Sabbath' IS what 'the Lord's Day' (Sunday as you/they say) has become to mainstream Christianity. That, OC, is about the extent that I'm getting from your posts. You're merely quoting MEN. No offense ...your posts ARE otherwise well written.

Oh, by the way, I'd always thought previously that one had to wear the official crown of the 'Vicar of God' before one had the divinity to initiate 'holy days'?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Hmmm ...interesting, OC. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, as long as your name happens to be Ignatius, Didache, or Barnabas, (any others?) then you're allowed to 'play God' and install your own 'Sabbath'?

Actually, that's just your original opinion superimposed over some different names.
John was one of Twelve. He used the phrase 'Lord's Day.' Within 15 years a prominent Church leader was using the phrase to refer to what we call Sunday. It is illogical to insist that usage of this phrase had changed in the interim.

Did John and the Twelve have the authority to order and structure worship in the Church? Without question.

And the 'Sabbath' IS what 'the Lord's Day' (Sunday as you/they say) has become to mainstream Christianity.

You cannot defend your heresy by pointing out what you presume to be heresy on their part. You both have departed from the worship tradition of the Church.

That, OC, is about the extent that I'm getting from your posts. You're merely quoting MEN. No offense ...your posts ARE otherwise well written

.
No offense taken. I believe Dr B to be a man, also, one who lives 20 centuries after the facts. I am quoting men in their usage of a biblical term within just a few years of the Apostles. Proximity is a powerful argument.

Oh, by the way, I'd always thought previously that one had to wear the official crown of the 'Vicar of God' before one had the divinity to initiate 'holy days'?[/color]

No, that semi-literate schlep and Catholic-hater EB White initiated a Resurrectional worship on the day He laid in the grave, so unless she was wearing a crown, she might want to slip on a cone-shaped hat.

No offense intended.

 

[SputnikBoy]

All serious truth-seekers of the scriptures should by now realize that 'the Lord's Day'=Sunday is a doctrine that was initiated by M A N. No one has managed to present their 'Sunday' argument based solely on the scriptures.

As mentioned, my first choice for 'the Lord's Day' would be the day of the Lord. If incorrect, my second choice would be the 7th-day Sabbath. As far as I'm concerned, there is no third choice.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

All serious truth-seekers of the scriptures should by now realize that 'the Lord's Day'=Sunday is a doctrine that was initiated by M A N. No one has managed to present their 'Sunday' argument based solely on the scriptures.
As mentioned, my first choice for 'the Lord's Day' would be the day of the Lord. If incorrect, my second choice would be the 7th-day Sabbath. As far as I'm concerned, there is no third choice.

Though reason would dictate otherwise, as I have roundly demonstrated. Your argument is not 'from scripture' either, but is based upon a presupposition that Lord's Day is a term not used to refer to Sunday at the time. I have demonstrated that to be fallacious. Your second extra biblical source, the august scholar Dr Samuel Bacchiolli, made a laughable argument to undermine what he clearly confirms is early post-apostolic use of the phrase to refer to Sunday. We dispatched with that expeditiously, also.

The argument against Sunday worship was initiated by M A N, a man by the name of Miller, followed by the cracked pot Mrs EG White. Sunday worship, a tradition which can be proved back to 15 years after the death of the last Apostle, and arguably to Revelation, and without question to the Resurrection itself, completely trumps the innovations initiated by pseudo-Jewish children of the burned-over distrrict in New York State.

Please do me a favor: prove Saturday corporate worship from scripture.

 

[SputnikBoy]

All serious truth-seekers of the scriptures should by now realize that 'the Lord's Day'=Sunday is a doctrine that was initiated by M A N. No one has managed to present their 'Sunday' argument based solely on the scriptures.
As mentioned, my first choice for 'the Lord's Day' would be the day of the Lord. If incorrect, my second choice would be the 7th-day Sabbath. As far as I'm concerned, there is no third choice.

OC: Though reason would dictate otherwise, as I have roundly demonstrated. Your argument is not 'from scripture' either, but is based upon a presupposition that Lord's Day is a term not used to refer to Sunday at the time. I have demonstrated that to be fallacious.

Sputnik: Not from the scriptures you haven't. What you have done is to introduce us to an early 'church father' who seems to have taken it on himself to create a 'holy day'. While 'the Lord's Day' IS open to speculation ...i.e. was John referring to 'the day of the Lord' or the 7th-day Sabbath? (Revelation 1:10), there is no reason WHATEVER to equate 'the Lord's Day' with Sunday. IF the 7th-day Sabbath, the Bible DOES make a case for 'the Lord's Day' equating to the Sabbath and scriptures HAVE been presented demonstrating this.

OC: Your second extra biblical source, the august scholar Dr Samuel Bacchiolli, made a laughable argument to undermine what he clearly confirms is early post-apostolic use of the phrase to refer to Sunday. We dispatched with that expeditiously, also.

Sputnik: It was guibox, not I, who presented Dr Samuel Bacchiolli to the topic. And 'we' didn't dispatch with Bacchiolli's argument expeditiously at all ...YOU did. While this issue can and has been argued quite satisfactorily with the scriptures alone, I find Dr Bacchiolli to be most competent in his field of theology. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss him simply because he makes you feel uncomfortable. I also have a lot of respect for guibox who presents his arguments in a sound and academic manner.

OC: The argument against Sunday worship was initiated by M A N, a man by the name of Miller, followed by the cracked pot Mrs EG White.

Sputnik: Y'know, I make a point of never alluding to Ellen White at all in my posts. The truth of the matter is that I know so little about what she had to say about ANY issue that I couldn't get her to 'back me up' even if I wanted to. Whether EGW was inspired by God or not, I trust that the sarcasm and insults that you continually aim in her direction are duly noted by those who participate and browse on boards such as this. Your mocking tone won't win too many 'serious' seekers of scriptural truths to your way of thinking.

Oh, and by the way, if the argument against Sunday worship WAS initiated by M A N, a man by the name of Miller, followed by the cracked pot Mrs EG White, then they both obviously got it right on this one at least. Good for them!

OC: Sunday worship, a tradition . . .

Sputnik: a 'tradition' ...exactly! One created by M A N.

OC: . . .which can be proved back to 15 years after the death of the last Apostle, . . .

Sputnik: ...without authority from God. My argument is NOT that Sunday was initiated after the last apostle ...we all know that's what happened! My argument is that GOD - remember Him? - had nothing to do with it.

OC: . . .and arguably to Revelation, . . .

Sputnik: No, no ...STILL man ...God is still missing from the equation.

OC: . . .and without question to the Resurrection itself, . . .

Sputnik: A nice reason for one 'keeping' Sunday, perhaps, but certainly NOT a good enough reason to make a 'new Sabbath' out of it; nor as a replacement for the Sabbath GOD gave.

OC: . . .completely trumps the innovations initiated by pseudo-Jewish children of the burned-over district in New York State.

Sputnik: Hmmm ...there you go with your typical prose again. I would say that there was NOTHING 'innovative' about those who chose not to go along with the commandments of M E N but instead opted for those as given by G O D. The ACTUAL innovation was introducing Christianity to a new 'Sabbath' and saying that the one God gave doesn't matter any more. You ARE right, however, with your 'trump' analogy, OC. The conterfeit 'Sabbath' as initiated by man has certainly trumped God's 7th-day Sabbath. But then ...Satan WILL appear to have the upper hand for a while at least.

OC: Please do me a favor: prove Saturday [a]corporate worship from scripture.

Sputnik: You can prove both your [a] and yourself, OC. Perhaps you could tell everyone on this board that YOU and YOUR church obey the 7th-day Sabbath command. I'm not sure that others are aware of this. Anyway, [a] corporate worship is the gathering of a number of people who adhere to the 4th-command of God (as opposed to the command of man), and who emulate the customary weekly practice of Jesus and other scriptural luminaries, and the scriptures offer a clear example of '[a]', that one can easily check out for themselves as long as they have the ability to read.

 

[guibox]

I have demonstrated that to be fallacious. Your second extra biblical source, the august scholar Dr Samuel Bacchiolli, made a laughable argument to undermine what he clearly confirms is early post-apostolic use of the phrase to refer to Sunday. We dispatched with that expeditiously, also.

The argument against Sunday worship was initiated by M A N, a man by the name of Miller, followed by the cracked pot Mrs EG White. Sunday worship, a tradition which can be proved back to 15 years after the death of the last Apostle, and arguably to Revelation, and without question to the Resurrection itself, completely trumps the innovations initiated by pseudo-Jewish children of the burned-over distrrict in New York State..

OC, I had more respect for you then what I'm seeing in this post. Such bitter and spiteful rhetoric was always beyond your intelligent and rational posts. I'd expect this gibberish from Free, Scott and servant2000 not yourself of whom I hold your opinions in high regard, even if I don't agree with them.

For one thing, even Dr. B admits there isn't clear linguistic evidence from scripture to equate 'The Lord's Day' of Revelation 1 with the 'Sabbath'.

Secondly, Miller rejected the Sabbath and was always a Sunday keeper. Thirdly, the Sabbath was kept by many early Adventists (long before any Seventh Day Adventists) long before EGW accepted it (she initially rejected it). The early Adventists got it from the Seventh Day Baptists.

Fourthly in comment to your previous post, EGW was far from illiterate. The fact that she wrote as many books that she did with a third grade education (and apparently you haven't read any of her books) is an amazing testament to divine revelation. Her dialogue is FAR from simple but quite complex and college educated in many areas. She was a gifted speaker and I doubt many would even have bothered to listen to her at camp meetings or general conferences, much less ask her to speak in front of so many learned people were she even semi-literate.


I really question your ignorance and foolish dialogue on this matter and I expect better from you, of all people, OC.

Please do me a favor: prove Saturday corporate worship from scripture.

The fact that both Jews and Gentiles met on Sabbath at the synagogue, and even Gentiles alone shows that the Sabbath was a given and that Sunday was never an issue. Paul's writings also bear this out.

The head christian church in Jerusalem was still keeping Sabbath as well into the 4th century. The Sabbath has never been lossed, replaced or forgotten throughout Christian history.


The emergence of Sunday keeping is what was new to Christianity, not Sabbath keeping.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Incidentally, I caught the beginning to the crime series, Cold Case, on the TV last night. The story line took one of the main stars to a church to interview a minister. I was interested at the response of the minister who mildly chided the detective for bothering him on Sunday. He (the minister) said, "Even Jesus rested on Sunday."

This is just a TV show but I'd bet that the average Christian would not have had a problem with the minister's statement. The statement reflects what the majority of mainstream Christianity believes ...that is, that Sunday IS the Sabbath of the 4th-commandment.