JCISGD

so you're saying they met together for fellowship & teaching on the first day, sunday. ok. does that prove they did not still keep the 7th day sabbath ? hi Fraught, im not trying to prove anything other than that they did meet for tithing and communion on the first day of the week known as the Lords Day, and that this was the custom of the early church. It is recorded that some did go into the synagogues reguarly, but as far as i remember it also only records that it was to win the Jews to Christ. If anyone wants to keep the seventh day i have no issue, just dont try to make a size 10 foot fit a size 7.

[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.] 3rd attempt.

Have you got alot of paitence? as you see my first two attempts bombed out.

[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

hi Carlos , just a thought but if nothings happening where you are, why not go be with your mum, that would be something. Have you heard of the saying "build the bridge and the people will come", something like that anyway. If the Lord is prompting you, you might need to go in faith? and believe for doors to open. Its scary i know, but the two starving beggars who went out and found the spoils left by the army God slew, were scared too but reasoned "were going to die if we stay here, so theres nothing to lose". One thing i will caution is that you will produce whats in your heart. Alot of disgruntled christians have tried the "start a church" or "home church" concept, only to find they dengerated into pettiness and division. Im not saying thats you, but proverbs says "a man seperates himself off to go his own way" and many get just that. You seem to have blanketed Sunday Churches as in error? A quick look at those who were used in mighty revivals and soul winning proves that the day of worship is not the issue. Pm me if you wish. God bless.

Others have tried to show me before, but i just dont get it. How do i quote a portion of a post and then get it into my reply? Do i click reply first? or highlight required words, use quote options and then click reply? or neither?

Hi Blindseeker, im not sure what Joes position is, or if you are arguing for first day ressurrection or seventh? I dont get what your saying. You say the seventh day finishes at sundown but 12 hrs later at sunrise is early in the first day? Either way you say "the first day of the week had begun" and that was "Sunday". Those that argue Jesus rose on the seventh day are not able to prove this imo, and the fact that the first day became known as the Lords Day is proof that He rose on the first and not the seventh. If anyone can quietly without predjudice read the following link and still remain in dispute, i dont know what amount of proof could ever prove them anything? http://www.charlesfinney.com/finney/finney.php?op=125 Reguardless, blessings and see you all in heaven, seventh or first day observance.

Thanks Nebula, im not disputing your position, and i agree with you for the most part. I think the quotes given are not necessarily anti-semitic, and i would like to read the writings in context. I wonder what some might think of Peters critism of his fellow Jews? or Jesus for that matter who said the Pharisee`s father was Satan? That's a good point JCISGD......but briefly the evidence shows that these harsh sounding statements in no way pre-disposed the speakers to any sort of anti-Semitism....quite the opposite...more of a clarion call for them to wake up to the signs of the times and the fact that G-d was visiting them and they had become so religious that they were missing it, and causing those that looked to them for guidence to miss it too. Can you imagine it...Israel looking so longingly for centuries that Messiah would come, and then not realising it when He came and dwelt amongst them....and then later being told they had actually crucified the King of Glory....it is astounding! No woneder they were cut to their hearts at Peters preaching. I can see your point and agree they may not be apples with apples. Its just that i have seen many preachers vilivied by taking words out of context, and especially when i have read much of them and know what was actually said in context. So i need to see more than critique of isolated writings before i am willing to decide, especially when i detect a baias such as in the COG writing. I will admit that some of these later "church fathers" do appear quite unchristian to me, and i cant accept that Luther or Calvin were born again. IMO its proven from his own words and life that Calvin was a despotic man.

I love ya brother Joe, even though i find your answers too deep to swim in sometimes.

hi Mizzdy, its a big topic because many today are being misled about it or are in ignorance of the facts. We are called to defend the faith and disprove error. Can you explain how the bible verses i gave are "extra readings"? Please look up the definition of the word "sabbath", it means a seventh part and does not mean a particular day. God rested on the "seventh" day and called it a sabbath for man, can you show me where He named it "sabbath" as opposed to "seventh"? Im not getting into a sabbath debate, my intention is to show the facts according to scripture that the Apostles and disciples met for fellowship on the first day. Wether they also kept the seventh is another topic. Wether the Lords Day is also His return and a day of wrath, does not take away from the scriptures provided. Good bible study uses the clear verses to understand the unclear and not the other way around which leads to much error and spiritualising. I am interested in any study, if you pm it to me i will consider it without predjudice thanks. God bless. The extra reading I was refering to was the 'early church father' stuff. I know exactly what Sabbath means and it does refer to a specific day, I would think that even with all the calendar changes etc there is a group of people that did seem to be able to hold onto history that included the days of the week and when the seventh day comes around on the calendar. Sabbath doesn't really mean seven but intermission, the roots of Sabbath are: H7673 שׁבת shâbath shaw-bath' A primitive root; to repose, that is, desist from exertion; used in many implied relations (causatively, figuratively or specifically): - (cause to, let, make to) cease, celebrate, cause (make) to fail, keep (sabbath), suffer to be lacking, leave, put away (down), (make to) rest, rid, still, take away. So when God said to remember the Sabbath and rest from all things work etc. He did mean to give us one day which is at the end of each week as He did as an example, although being God He doesn't need rest nor does His 'work' stop but like Yeshua who also gave us examples on what we are to do. Others have already given you examples of who the apostles were teaching on the Sabbath that went into the next day or rather the day turned to the next day at sundown. I will get you those links soon. Mizz I really need to learn how to cut and post quotes as i dislike including the unecessary bits and filling the page with repetition. Its not disputed that the disciples did go into the synagogues, but it was to win the Jews to Christ. We know that any teaching on Christ often led to uproar and beatings, are you saying they went there for fellowship? Im not sure where you get proof the disciples taught into the night in the synagogues?.Paul was in a private house when the meeting went late into the night and the young man fell out the window. The "extra writings" are credible in the light that some were church leaders directly after the apostles and taught by those taught by the apostles. If you discredit them because of a little seperation of time, then all proofs put forth by your sources are all the more discredited and likely to be error?

Even if i admit the possibility? of Jesus rising on the seventh day, it still poses further problems. So now you would be saying the Jewish Sabbath Day is now called the Lords Day, yet they are two distinct days. The scriptures say that it was nearing dawn AFTER the sabbath. AFTER means it had finished, and this only leaves the conclusion that it was now the FIRST day of the week, and that at that time of year DAWN was sometime after the first hour. I cant remember where, but i just read somewhere that the Jewish day is not 24 hrs but 12, and Jesus himself said "are there not 12 hrs in a day?" If this is so that makes the sabbath day finish at 6pm and then the seventh night starts and finishes 6am. The intention of this post is to show that the churches following imediatley after the Apostles did keep the first day as the Lords Day and the day they met for intimate fellowship away from Jewish synagogues. What you do with that imformation is up to you, I have no dispute with any in reguard to their practice, apart from those who insist the Lords Day =the seventh.

Thanks for the replies they were all helpful and encouraging. I do like a good debate but when the page is full of my posts i wondered if it came accross as overbearing? but i think it was just "the accuser" having a go at me. I like your tenacious attitude Nebula. Please forgive also if i fail to reply, but i do try to. Not withstanding computer hitches and unforseen events. God bless.

Thanks Nebula, im not disputing your position, and i agree with you for the most part. I think the quotes given are not necessarily anti-semitic, and i would like to read the writings in context. I wonder what some might think of Peters critism of his fellow Jews? or Jesus for that matter who said the Pharisee`s father was Satan?

When i start a topic i try to reply to all who post out of curtiousy except maybe to those replying to another. Is this good manners or seen as over self importance and hogging the topic?

Good points made by Cobalt above imo, thanks for pointing out Lords Day vs Day of the Lord. I did not know the difference. I started this topic carefully to avoid getting into sabbath keeping arguement, and having it closed. Im hoping it will stay focused on refuting/correcting interpretation if possible of the verses provided, and the testimony of early church teaching, and not wander to far from this.

we are in agreement there. I like your Ravenhill quote and statement brother. I love those also who disagree with me, may i never seek only approval.

There is no such thing. No person has ever existed that could do that except Christ. All men are flawed, sinful and have human interests. All. Like Botz, I am leary, and in some cases openly contemptuous of some of the people that have been branded church "fathers" because some of these people refered to as cornerstones of the church brought us a great deal of error and bad theology that mushroomed over the centuries. Botz mentioned the grave problems that Justin Martyr had. Augustine and Origen gave us interpreting the scriptires in spiritual, allegorical ways, thus paving the way for D.I.Y. bible translation. Personal interpretations and preterism was the result. Martin Luther while laumching the Reformation was a flaming anti-semite, and all the reformation did, at that time, was enable you to go to either a Lutheran church or a Catholic church instead of only a Catholic church. John Calvin is my favorite. People, even today brand themselves as Calvinists, thereby aligning themselves with a person. Never mind that his doctrine is severely flawed and false, but they are following a doctrine derived by, and aligning themselves with a person who had people burned at the stake for believing differently than him. I do not see the concept of killing people who believe differently that you do anywere in the Bible. A great many people are refered to as church "fathers" who should not in any way be referenced in that way. Hi Cobalt, i agree and fully see where you are coming from i think. I too am/was very contemptuous of so called "church fathers", and if Botz can give me a link to verify his claims i will simmer down somewhat. But also keep in mind we are judged by the liight we have and each generation is more accountable than the last, remember Christ said Sodom and Gommorah will judge Israel for rejecting Him. I struggle to uphold Martin Luther as any example, and Calvin was despotic in my veiw, but im only reading of Hermas, Justin and Polycarp so far, and all i can say is that i have been in ignorance annd predjudice concerning them. Concerning DIY bible translation, and personal interpreting i see that as far more a modern phenomina than ever before? Myself included as i am now seeing my many errors after 20 yrs of misinterpreting the bible because of trusting in self learning. I outright reject your first statement, and believe it to born out of ignorance. No offence intended. I am not at liberty to expound any further on WFs publically, so pm me if you wish to continue that topic. God bless.

I agree with you in reguard to calling no man father in the sense Jesus meant it, but tell me why then does Jesus elsewhere say we are to obey our fathers using the very word "father" to describe them? I fully agree all are no more than brothers, but i think you err to think God wants no recognition of those who followed Him staying pure unto death. These men defended the faith against the false teaching and were given audience before kings and rulers, and were put to death for it. But brother im not seeking to be quarrelsome or disrespectful. I am only expressing my opinion. Not looking to quarrel either....Paul tells us that we should expect to be able to speak our minds to the brethren without the worry of condemnation or quarrel. I'm learning from this exchange, as I do most of the post I respond to. I would ask what verse you mean where you state Jesus told us to obey our fathers. What type recognition God wants , I think, is that we would see how God was in their lives and set this an as example. I remember a verse where a Pharisee is described in all his garments and such and how the people were in awe of him...and Christ said, truly, he has his reward. I would think that the early Christians, even the men you refer to, would be happier to know that we Glorify God through their actions than themselves. I do understand your deep respect for these men, but remembering that there were countless thousands who went to their deaths believing that we know nothing of. I am pleased to find such as yourself, a brother who is humble and inquiring and not afraid to hear disagreement. I myself am of no special standing or worth and count myself as ever learning and needing much instruction yet. The verses i had in mind was Math 15: 4-6 but perhaps this is changed later by His command not call anyone father?, more likely i think is that the Hebrew thought has not translated well into english? I again agree with you that many who were worthy of mention are not known, but neither are their teachings held up in historical notibility and full veiw as example. I concede also that none should be idolised or taken over scripture, and more if they taught other than the Apostles, they should be considered heretics and worse. Ive just finished reading the martyrdom of Polycarp, God is great and greatly to be praised. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/martyrdompolycarp-hoole.html Peace and blessings. arthur.

I agree with you in reguard to calling no man father in the sense Jesus meant it, but tell me why then does Jesus elsewhere say we are to obey our fathers using the very word "father" to describe them? I fully agree all are no more than brothers, but i think you err to think God wants no recognition of those who followed Him staying pure unto death. These men defended the faith against the false teaching and were given audience before kings and rulers, and were put to death for it. But brother im not seeking to be quarrelsome or disrespectful. I am only expressing my opinion.

You ask that as if it's an impossible task to accomplish. I have a bible, a concordance, and a thirst for understanding. Then you will let your yes be yes and no be no. I asked you that not because i thought it impossible, but because i wanted to know if you thought all learning from others was "itching ears"?

Jesus didn't rise on Sunday. Care to provide scripture for that? In my bible it says in Math 28:1 "Now AFTER the sabbath, as the FIRST day of the week began to DAWN, Mary Mag`dalene and the other Mary came to see the TOMB" Capitalised words are for highlight, and not shouted.

my 2 cents worth. Penalty must equal seriousness of the crime to satisfy justice. Payment to avoid penalty must equal seriousness of crime. Only Gods Son is enough to pay the penalty demanded by justice in the sight of God, man, and the angels, and still ensure the government of God go unchallenged. All sin is against God, and a finite sinless man could not atone for sin against infinate God. Yep it had to be Jesus.

hi Botz, HP, Man. Botz- did you read that or get it from another? can you provide a link to it so it can be verified? HP- i too was uneasy with the use of the word "church fathers" as i always associated it with thr RCC, and because of Jesus` words about it, but a proper understanding of our Lords intention and meaning clears this up i think. Have you seen any amputations to remedy sin? Man- why would it be itching ears to heed the words of proven holy men of God, who taught according to the Apostles? Paul did not say dont heed any, he said dont heed those who teach anything different. Are you saying you recieved all your instruction by revelation alone, and that you hear no mans teaching? So far i see no error in them, but i admit ive not read all yet. Im happy for any factual correction. I found the writings of Hermas very striking, and he records his personal dialogues with Jesus Himself. Did anyone read them, or just knee jerk reaction?

hi Mizzdy, its a big topic because many today are being misled about it or are in ignorance of the facts. We are called to defend the faith and disprove error. Can you explain how the bible verses i gave are "extra readings"? Please look up the definition of the word "sabbath", it means a seventh part and does not mean a particular day. God rested on the "seventh" day and called it a sabbath for man, can you show me where He named it "sabbath" as opposed to "seventh"? Im not getting into a sabbath debate, my intention is to show the facts according to scripture that the Apostles and disciples met for fellowship on the first day. Wether they also kept the seventh is another topic. Wether the Lords Day is also His return and a day of wrath, does not take away from the scriptures provided. Good bible study uses the clear verses to understand the unclear and not the other way around which leads to much error and spiritualising. I am interested in any study, if you pm it to me i will consider it without predjudice thanks. God bless.

Hi Joe, im not sure what your saying there? We are in agreement that Jesus is Lord of the sabbath. The Lords day IS by the scriptures the first day of the week, also known as sunday. Jn 20:19, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2 + Rev 1:10 The Lord of the sabbath has the right to make changes if the needs of its subjects change, and indeed He said "sabbath was made for man" (given for our needs). Though it may seem conjecture, it is reasonable to see that the disciples needed a day distinct from Jewish law, and also this freed them up to labour for the souls of the Jews in the synagogues on the seventh day and still have intimate fellowship etc on the first day. Had the Lord made issue of keeping the first day, many souls would be lost and unprofitable persecution of the disciples would have ensued due to uproar over breaking from Moses` teaching. The intention of this topic is to show that the disciples and early church did meet on the "first" day for fellowship, teaching, tithing and communion. Wether they also met on the seventh day is another topic. God bless you.