JCISGD

Being a slow learner perhaps, i have posted topics of other mens great deeds and theology thinking it might encourage others as it did me. It did not occur to me that others might see it so vastly different, and i have unintentionally ended up trying to defend them without the benefit of their intellect, wisdom or era. I want to admit here that i have spoken rashly at times and clutched at straws even in attempt to prove my position. I have also not read replies carefully enough and stretched myself too thin, and drank to many coffees. What i regret most is that i believe i have muddied other mens theology by my remarks. In reguard to my latest folly re the "early church fathers", i concede that i was ill researched and am not convinced of either side of the arguement. In my defence, when i find something i think is good i want to share it with everyone, perhaps thats the evangelist in me. In future i hope to be more careful to research, and less prone to cause offense. Your brother in Christ, Arthur.

My point is that beccause there is possible biblical support for both, the actual early church history clears this up. These are not men distanced by the Apostles too far. I think it was Iraneous? who was a disciple of John, and others learnt of his teachiings and so on. Of course Jesus kept the sabbbath, He had not yet been crucified and risen to bring in the new covenant. He also worked on the sabbath as do the Priests who minister in the synagogues. It is not denied that Paul preached in the synagogues, but its clear that he was often thrown out, and when he was recieved it was to the unsaved that he was preaching as they asked him back to expound more on these new things? In the churches i know communion is breaking bread, and its seen as kept for intimate fellowship between believers. It would not be possible to hold intimate christian fellowship in public synagogues where some might be incensed by the claims of the gospel. I was very intentional when choosing the tittle of this topic as i know both sides have their supposed biblical proof, and around and around we go. What im looking for is historical records that refute the historical records i have provided. God bless.

Dear Nebula, what can i say? i take no pleasure in angering anyone or offending them. Are you not aware of how angry the Jews were towards Christ? shouting over and over "crucify Him"? would you have Him retract His words too? I make can no retraction based on another persons anger, that is pure manipulation imo, and you have allowed others to intimidate you i think. Here in New Zealand, the Maori people who were here before european settlers, killed and ate and exterminated the even earlier polyonesian people, and even canabilized other tribes of themselves. Now if i mention this as fact, there are none offended as they admit to it. I am descended from the barbaric Vikings, should i take offense if someone charges my ancestors with rape and slaughter of women and children, and other barbaric acts? I do not. I am baffled that christians can think it is ok to take offense when Jesus says we must turn the other cheek. I am baffled that you do not admit the Jews were far from God, and still are untill they repent. I am not anti-semitic, and do not endorse hatred towards anyone. If i am wrong about child sacrifice i will repent very quickly and thoroughly before all here. I do remember instances of it in the OT, but admit it may have not Israel, but that was not my recollection. Im leaving this now to do a indepth study. I have a right to opinion as much as any here.

Fishermans tales and Chinese whispers come about because we do not get them from the horses mouth, so also are we wisely told to go to any brother who (we think?) sins against us. Words in brackets my opinion. What was the context he said it in? As Dave has pointed out, it couldve been on the cross when He bore all our imfirmities? wether He did actually take every sickness into His body is a seperate question perhaps?

I found the link to be mostly opinion and linking Hitler to all church fathers via Luther who i do not hold in esteem. The burden is not on me to search links for quotes, if you have specific quotes as the one above i will be glad to reply to them Paul also added words to Christs, and as long as we do not ascribe them to Christ we are not adding in the context it was meant. I cannot see where JMs added words have any different spirit to anything our Lord has said. If i went by your reasoning, no one should say anything other than absolute quotes of the bible? JMs writings are not a pet understanding as they are entirely new to me and have smashed my previous thinking that i assimulated by being part of 20th century churches. The early church fathers did have the NT via distribution of the gospels and epistles from church to church, but they also used the OT liberally to prove their assertions. I may yet see what your saying, but for now i dont.

Continued- Nebula #55 If the Jews had been obedient there might have been no need for a physical sign as they would have been a light to the nations by their love. Paul said the law was a schoolmaster to lead to Christ, If they were obedient why would they need the law? #56 You asked why the Romans were not judged the same for killing christians etc, i replied that they did not have the same amount light. I wasnt saying Paul was worse because he was a Jew, i was using it as an example of hypocrisy to be offended at the words of one but not the other. There are two choices, follow God in faith or follow have the law to keep. Which is freedom and which is discipline? If any are stiff necked they need to repent. I think you are mistaking occassional sin or errors with that of stiff neckedness. #58 I have never heard of unbelievers going through painful torture joyfully, nor have i known of true martyrs who were not at the top of their game so to speak. When i read JMs writings i see a gulf between the modern church leaders understanding and dilligence in holiness. God said David was a man after His own heart, David was not stiff necked but only faiilable. On the other hand God called rebelling Israel "stiff necked" and worse. They are cannot be compared imo. I meant the worldly rulers were more noble because they had very little light, not because they did better things. #59 Theres just too many different arguements here, if you can be bothered, re post them seperatly one at a time. I find that controversial topics attract so much critique they get bogged down in myriad of thoughts. Im going to restrict myself to smaller replies aimed at one question at a time. Sorry if this is frustrating to others. I will answer your last statement here. I am ok that you have a problem with covenant/punishment thought, im not totally convinced either. But the more i answer objections the more i see a defence for it. I now hold 3 beliefs that fly in the face of the majority of todays church, 2 of which i am as certain of as possible, so you can see im not phased by being a minority. I have enjoyed your thoughts and arguements. Grace and peace to you.

link Its not too farfetched to see where we get so many divisions of doctrines, theologies, replacement religions, the law done away with, etc. etc. these 'church fathers' may have gotten some teachings from the apostles but they were also steeped into the politics of the day also. Personally theres not much from these men that I would want to learn if their attitudes are so firmly lodged in the idea that the 'Jews' and any Judaizer were of satan and needed to be ridiculed and even killed. But thats me and my opinion. Apart from the the Chrysostom quote, where are the others you claim? This the post i was replying to. Im not sure what the restoration will be, i do know that we will be neither Jew or Gentile. The bible says NT that "some are prophets". Wether Chrysostom was or not is not the scope of this post. I dont know why christians today claim so much infailabilty, as if they could not be like the Jews and miss the truth altogether. Im not saying these "church fathers" were infailable, im saying i am getting more understanding of OT dealings. I do not find their language hateful in the context and age they lived in. I see more despising among christians who disagree with their pet understandings. Peace to all.

What???!!! You are going to have to give a reference for that one. I cannot believe you just said that.... When you are the author, you can have your audience say or not say whatever you want. When high profile persons make public statements they are under scrutiny. Trypho is a factual historic person and the recorded conversation would not have survived if it was fabrication. The grossest sins are going on in our societies even now, why are you surprised that it was then? Im not saying it was happening in Jerusalem. We are not to look for exhaustive proof of anything or else nothing could be known. We only need sufficent proof beyond reasonable doubt. Essentially this has turned into a "replacement theory" arguement, I think were both convinced of our own minds and although i appreciate your thoughts, and you have raised some concerns for me to consider, you havnt said anything that has changed mine. Replacement theory is a phrase just as is Homophobia, neither proves anything imo. We are to seek truth, and not be influenced by opinions. I will reply to more later.

Anita- early church history shows they all met on the first day, this disproves the charge that Constantine changed it. He did make it an official day of rest, but thats not the same as changing it. Joshua- the bible often uses figurative language and hyperbole. In light of the acccepted fact that we will not keep certain days in heaven, common sense therefore proves that the use of "forever" does not reach into eternity in this usage. This Post is about the historical proof of what the earliest church did, and so far no one has proved otherrwise. Anyone who discounts recorded history has very little proof of anything imo, the bible itself is a historical library of books that is verified by the same methods we verify other historical records.

lol i hadnt even noticed you were not replying to me, my apologies Botz. I am diligently trying to avoid the bifurcations. Imo its stretching it too far to insert the IN the end of the sabbath to say it was still the seventh day. This is obscuring to prove a point. I posted this topic as the habits of the early church proves that Jn 20:19, Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2 are to be taken as proof the disciples and earliest christians began to meet on the first day of the week to celebrate the Lords Day in rememberance of His work of redemption. Christians are following Christ and have the leading of the Holy Spirit. I myself know whom i serve and why. Peace to all.

Differnt time zone here folks im off to bed. Botz- i do appreciate your candor and personality, and im mulling over your reply. God bless all.

Answer to Nebula. I shouldve known not to mess with a woman. So many questions, and all those perogatives. Housekeeping first -JMs writings and veiws are one week new to me, so i dont think weve butted on them before. Apologies for thinking what you thought was implied, as accusation. The Jews seperated by circumcision naturally seperates them from christians who did not circumcise themselves. Gal 5:11 I cant see the problem with Jms words there. Imo JM is not equating circumcision with judgement but with punishment, or a school master. Everytime Israel went after idols God slew them or brought them hardships, is JM saying anything different to this? admittingly it is new understanding of the giving of the law, but 20th century church is no becon of light. We are judged according to the light we have, the Romans had very little light in comparrison to Israel who was brought up from Eygpt by God. Paul said he was the worst sinner, but we are not offended by that. Even so, saying their sins were disciplined by having a law to keep, is not equating them as being worse sinners. Parents ground their children when rebellious, but give them freedom when they behave again, is this not the same with Jews and Christians? the Jews are under law but we are under grace. God raised Israel up as a light to the nations, and when Israel went whoring they caused the nations to blaspheme the Name of the Lord. The Gentiles rejection of God back then was no comparrison to that of Israels. The yoke was only hard because their hearts were hard, there are ample examples of Jews who did joyfully keep all the laws as their hearts were soft. John the Baptist and parents are three i know of off the bat. So it cant be that christians with the Holy Spirit were unable to keep Moses law, more accurate is the word unnescessary. A christian and hard heart are mutually exclusive. Struggles with temptation and tempory unforgiveness are not hardness of heart. The Jews that JM was addressing were still sacrificing their children to idols, as Typhro his lead audience and questioner does not deny these charges. I do not see the giving of circumcision for the purpose of suffering, i am in agreement with you there. But i dont claim to be any teacher nor has the Lord used me such that i am remotley like JM. Remember he was martyred for defending the gospel, and the Lord recieved him by giving supernatural ability to die joyfully. The bible everywhere records the Israelites of being prone to wandering at every turn. Moses went up the mountain but 40 days and they played the harlot, even after knowing great fear of the Lord only a short time earlier and seeing mighty miracles with their very eyes. God wanted to lead them personally, but they demanded human kings of whom most were wicked and the people also. I almost charge you with selective memory Nebula, if mine were not also so frail. Even if i agree that JM does charge them with being worse sinners (which i do not), its not too far fetched considering they alone had Gods special helps, but yet strayed continually. The other rulers and nations were in effect only following their dim minds, and even then they were more honourable. Typhro himself does not object to JMs charges of sabbath for their unrighteousness, but i will admit that i dont have scripture to back this yet. It does make sense to me however and the more i read of these first church fathers the more a light i am recieving. There was no law given before Moses and yet many were called righteous by God, so why then was the law given if not to curb their unrighteousness? Math 23:27 does only address the leaders, but this does not prove your point. Lk 14:26 says "anyone" this is the same as everyone in this context imo? My point was that Jesus used the word "hate" and this is not anti-fathers or siblings, i did not mean to stop at fathers and the words in brackets (previous beliefs) had a ? to denote a possible interpretation? of hating our father. Are you saying that before Christ you were not a white washed tomb full of dead mens bones? I know i was. All my righteousness was "filthy rags". I only read that the last prophet sent was 400 BC and have not researched this. However i think it will be found such by a quick search of the prophets. I will try to find out. Math 15:24 only proves there were lost sheep in Israel, not that Israel was a lost sheep. Jesus also said there were goats there. Only those of faith are Abrahams sons (Israel). I think you are ignoring that God was at times very angered with Israel, and often punished them according to their great sins very mercilessly. Paul says the law was good, but yet it did not produce righteousness. Why then would God use it knowing it was not enough unless it be just to keep the sheep from straying further? Thats my 2 cents worth.

You are right to say it was given to Israel, but it was for a sign and it will not be needed forever. Our glorified bodies will not need rest. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, as a day to remember His work in creation, the same God later did a far greater and everlasting work of redemption. The millenium will indeed celebrate a sabbath, and all flesh shall come together to worship the Lord, but that doesnt mean it will be on the seventh day. The answer to your last question, is that the Holy Spirit had been given and would lead the church into all truth. It is absolutley clear in the NT (Jn 20:19, Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2), that the church met on the first day and that this was known as the Lords Day, and this is confirmed by church history as well. I think you are asking for more proof than God has chosen to give. The clear verses rule over the unclear, and its unclear that they met in synagogues other than to witness or refute the Jews. How could they meet and worship Jesus in the synagogues? it is accepted fact that they were heavily persecuted for even mentioning Jesus, they would have had no opportunity or peace to have intimate fellowship and worship of the Lord. I think we are in stalemate, but its not my intention to stop you posting your opinions. on the contrary i welcome them. God bless.

Im discerning some differences of opinion here.

I don't think so and there's no scriptural proof for that assertion. It's absurd to think that God rejected the Jewish people, God forbid! The early Church was all Jewish. It's also a demonic deception to claim that the plot of the devil to wipe out all of the Jews has anything whatsoever to do with God. Peace, Dave Hey Dave i never said anything about wiping out the Jews or any racial hatred towards them. Im only looking at the sripture sited by JM, and we know that at times in OT God did slay thousands for their wilful sin, leaving only a remnant and a whole generation perished in the wilderness, not going into the promised land. I dont think the Holocost was Gods punishment as they were far removed from the sins of their forefathers. "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I considered, and none assisted: and My arm delivered; and My fury came on them, and I trampled them in My fury, and spilled their blood on the earth.'" Is this not speaking of Israel ? I disagree the early church was Jewish, they left off following the law to follow Christ. "for their is neither Jew or Gentile...but all are one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28 Abraham was saved by faith in Christ to come, and no one is saved by birthright or keeping the law. Jesus is clear that those only who have Abrahams faith are his children, and not those born from him. I dont know where this leaves endtimes events concerning the Jews, but we do know none that continue in vain observance of the law will be saved. Peace to you.

JM shows here that he does not curse Jews to a Christless eternity, but the opposite if they repent. And Trypho remarked, "What is this you say? that none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God?" CHAPTER XXVI -- NO SALVATION TO THE JEWS EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST. And I replied, "I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God. For God speaks by Isaiah thus: 'I, the Lord God, have called Thee in righteousness, and will hold Thine hand, and will strengthen Thee; and I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out them that are bound from the chains, and those who sit in darkness from the prison-house.' And again: 'Lift up a standard s for the people; for, lo, the Lord has made it heard unto the end of the earth. Say ye to the daughters of Zion, Behold, thy Saviour has come; having His reward, and His work before His face: and He shall call it a holy nation, redeemed by the Lord. And thou shalt be called a city sought out, and not forsaken. Who is this that cometh from Edom? in red garments from Bosor? This that is beautiful in apparel, going up with great strength? I speak righteousness, and the judgment of salvation. Why are Thy garments red, and Thine apparel as from the trodden wine-press? Thou art full of the trodden grape. I have trodden the wine-press all alone, and of the people there is no man with Me; and I have trampled them in fury, and crushed them to the ground, and spilled their blood on the earth. For the day of retribution has come upon them, and the year of redemption is present. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I considered, and none assisted: and My arm delivered; and My fury came on them, and I trampled them in My fury, and spilled their blood on the earth.'" Who is Christ talking of here? and why then do any charge JM of anti-semitism for repeating the same?

Most of this is scripture and not just JMs fancy. He may be using it wrong but each need decide for themselves. Do any think God did not punish the Jews who accepted Christ`s blood on themselves and then put to death many and persecuted His church? CHAPTER XVI -- CIRCUMCISION GIVEN AS A SIGN, THAT THE JEWS MIGHT BE DRIVEN AWAY FOR THEIR EVIL DEEDS DONE TO CHRIST AND THE CHRISTIANS. "And God himself proclaimed by Moses, speaking thus: 'And circumcise the hardness of your hearts, and no longer stiffen the neck. For the Lord your God is both Lord of lords, and a great, mighty, and terrible God, who regardeth not persons, and taketh not rewards.' And in Leviticus: 'Because they have transgressed against Me, and despised Me, and because they have walked contrary to Me, I also walked contrary to them, and I shall cut them off in the land of their enemies. Then shall their uncircumcised heart be turned.' For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.' For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision. For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor fore-ordained his deserts for each one. Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him; and now you reject those who hope in Him, and in Him who sent Him--God the Almighty and Maker of all things--cursing in your synagogues those that believe on Christ. For you have not the power to lay hands upon us, on account of those who now have the mastery. But as often as you could, you did so. Wherefore God, by Isaiah, calls to you, saying, 'Behold how the righteous man perished, and no one regards it. For the righteous man is taken away from before iniquity. His grave shall be in peace, he is taken away from the midst. Draw near hither, ye lawless children, seed of the adulterers, and children of the whore. Against whom have you sported yourselves, and against whom have you opened the mouth, and against whom have you loosened the tongue?'

IMO Justin Martyr here rightly points out that the law given by Moses saves none. He is answering objections to christianity by a Greek Jew? named Trypho living at a time when greek gods were considered superior and real. CHAPTER XI -- THE LAW ABROGATED; THE NEW TESTAMENT PROMISED AND GIVEN BY GOD. "There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing" (I thus addressed him), "but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now--(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law--namely, Christ--has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says: 'Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, ye kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shah be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in Mine arm?' And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: 'Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt'). If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.

Actually brother, circumcision was given to Abraham and his whole Household. Ge 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you; Every male child among you shall be circumcised. Ge 17:11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins; and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Ge 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. Ge 17:13 He that is born in your house, and he that is bought with your money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Peace, Dave Hi Dave your quite right, i got that wrong and shouldve said before Abraham. I have been reading JMs writings about it again and will cut and paste 3 of them for all to see. I hope people will read them carefully and not in any intemperate mood. It wasnt my intention to be defending these people by posting this topic, as i only wanted to put them up for others to read and i myself had mostly only read of Hermas and a little of JM. I hadnt read of his expositions on circumcision nor did i hear of such things before this, but now i find myself in agreement so far as i have read. I dont accept that they were anti-semitic, and i think they are being villified because of misunderstanding? Thanks for the other reply also, i dont disagree with either as they stand. God bless. Arthur

For brevities sake -anwers to Botz, Nebula and Mizzdy. (not exhaustive due to time constraints) Botz, any charge and that of anti-semitism is not proven true just because we are offended. They charged Jesus of being of the Devil, and were highly offended. A level head is needed in all things and when emotions rise, judgement declines. The wrath of man is not pleasing to God. I admit that the things im reading are new to me, but so far i think its truth. Im afraid you are making unsubstainiated claims based on the opinions of others?, have you got before the Lord about this? Justin Martyr has said that "christians are the true Israel". Is this true? we need to put aside our opinions and predjudices and weigh the evidence. Im the first to admit this is new to me and rather shocking. The Jews thought they were the sons of Abraham, but Jesus clearly states that those of the same faith and therefore lifestyle as Abraham are the sons of the kingdom. Do you think in the last days the whole of Israel will be converted? or that the unconverted Jews will be saved just because they live there? Being a new thought to me i need more time to form my convictions, but reading Justins writings by themself and without commentaries i cant see the anti-semitism you see. Ill have look into the circumcision issue, but we do know that God did not give the law untill Moses, why is that? Why the need now and not before? what did those before observe and if they did without the law? were they not soft enough to be taught without it? Nebula, i am not afraid to consider things other than i have previously held true, who among us has the same convictions now that we had earlier? and were we not as adamant of those earlier things? You are imposing thoughts not found in the author imo, Where does he say they are the "sinners above all" or the "scum of the earth" as you say? Jesus was addressing all who did not "hate their father" (their previous beliefs?), the Jews had not been sent a prophet for 400 yrs BC, because they were no longer listening. Were there some righteous Jews among them? yes but as a race that God had wanted to lead by His Spirit they had utterly gone astray. "Do not think i have come to call the righteous" "but the unrighteous". Is this different from what Justin is saying, that they were unrighteous? Mizzdy, sorry but i can only see speculation mostly in the things you have submitted. Every righteous person in history has been reviled by some and accussed of the most absurd things. So far im just not seeing the things being said of Justin from his actual writings in context. If you want to prove it, show actual quotes and links to see the context. Like the bible, any writing can be made to seem different than it was intended. Chrysostom uses very strong language, but what do you make of the prophets who also charged their own kind with the same things, or God who also compares Israel to wild donkeys mad in desire? What about Jesus` command to "hate" our mother and father, of course we know He did not mean it as we first think. If we are going to be honest we must apply the same rules to all, without predjudice. I myself am continually staggered at my wickedness and hard heart, untill i met Jesus i thought i was a good person without predjudice and as a christian i thought i would never act like the Jews in the wilderness. I havnt read but a fraction of early church writings so i may recant all of said if i come accross the things you say, but for now i stand my ground in sincerity.

I hear what you are saying bro, and I went back and re-read your excellent post about the comings and goings to the Tomb and the timing of it all...I enjoyed it then and I enjoyed it again just now. It seems the particular thing we have a slight difference of opinion about at the moment is the word usage of Matthew 28:1 in which I see you insist on using the KJV, which is fine, but I did not find your explanation of the wording 'as it began to dawn' conclusive or completely convincing...there are two main reasons:- 1. From what I know of Jewish tradition/laws visiting a graveyard on the Shabbat is strictly forbidden, so it would seem much more likely and as far as I can see in accordance to Scripture, that the women had deliberately waited till the Shabbat had finished, and were no longer rstricted by either the length of their journey, or the object of their destination. 2. Most major translations do not emphasis the things written in quite the way you do (they may be wrong I guess) and David Stern in his translation of this verse in the Jewish New Testament writes 'After Shabbat towards dawn on Sunday...' in his commentary he concludes that the reference is definitely directed towards Sunday morning. hi Botz, i hadnt considered other translations, thats a fair comment. I agree that they would not have violated the shabbat, and this is further proof that it was into the first day before they began their journey to the tomb. The word "dawn" is not a specific hour and depending on the season could be after the begining of the first hr, and seems to be so as the verse more clearly says it was "after" the sabbath. The clear rules over the unclear. But the proof of anything is in all the facts, and the actual practice of the early church confirms that the first day is the Lords Day and the day they met as a church. Seventh Day Aventists are dishonest in that they accuse Constantine of changing the day, but even those who were disciples of John met on the first day and did call it the Lords Day.(google "early church fathers) Constantine did make it a day of rest as a law within his duristriction, but that is not the same as being the originator of its observance. I hope ive answered your questions, apologies if ive misunderstood what your position? Im certainly no authority or scholar.

Thanks for the link, its alot of reading. Ive read enough to see that he does say that, but without reading the whole of it we miss the proof he gives for his assertions. I admit its new to me, but new doesnt equal error. At a glance i think he is right on and is expounding the scriptures inline with the very things Jesus said. Did not Moses give them divorce because of "hardness of heart" which is unrighteousness. Its not anti-semitism that i can see, any more than Jesus` remark of them being "white washed grave stones".

great! i have so far read iraneaus & hippolytus. probably not spelled right, sorry. very worthwhile. iraneaus himself was actually a disciple of the apostle john. so definitely worthwhile to get some of this 2nd generation teaching. Yeah those names sure trip me up too. Glad you took the time to read and comment. I havnt read Iraneous yet nor did i know he was Johns disciple, im looking forward to reading. I was previously predjudiced and suspicious of them, but mine eyes have been opened. Im not saying they were infailable, but todays preachers seem way off track compared to these?

[To do this, I typed in an end-quote tag in the middle of the paragraph,] [ hit <Enter> a few times to create line spaces between the quotes, and then typed in a new begin-quote tag.] Hit "Reply" at the end of my post to see what that looks like. (Note that it will be embedded inside quote tags of my post. Testing testing 1 2 3 This turned out right. Not really, i was trying to get the two quoted sentences of Nebula only with my comment under that