Justin Martyr AD151- re sunday fellowship

[BlindSeeker]

These Quotes prove that the Lords Day is in fact a seperate day to the seventh day. Also that both days were kept as a sabbath.

actually all it proves is that the Syrian "church" of the 2nd century was already re-interpreting with a greek spirit.

My first question (of many) about what they say is "Was this statement made during or after Origin??" because it was him who introduced "spiritualizing" scripture to bend it into whatever shape they want.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the Lord's Day is anything but the Sabbath.

None whatsoever.

Brother Yod's here!!!

[BlindSeeker]

It was still IN the end of the Sabbath.

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.

Was hoping for a rejoinder BS if you are out there.

Read what you posted JCISGD...interesting, although keeping my distance on this one...maybe we need to take both Saturday and Sunday off just to be on the safe-side

been way tooooo busy . . . hope to have time later . . .

[Joshua-777]

Now going back to scripture, I just stumbled across this. Sunday was a day they broke bread together and had fellowship according to Acts 20, but They broke bread and had fellowship every day.

The first day of the week begins at sundown Saturday in the hebrew calendar. Many of these gatherings were a Motza-shabbat, or "ending of the sabbath" gathering on a Saturday night. They also wouldn't have taken any kind of collection or monies on the Sabbath.

That would make sense because jewish believers would have met in the synogogue with their own families/people for the sabbath and (christian) gentiles wouldn't necessarily be welcomed. After Sabbath, they could walk whatever distance it took to go and have fellowship with the gentile converts to this Jewish faith.

I have no doubt that the community of faith would come together on the first day of the week after having taken a Shabbat.

good point thanks

[JCISGD]

These Quotes prove that the Lords Day is in fact a seperate day to the seventh day. Also that both days were kept as a sabbath.

actually all it proves is that the Syrian "church" of the 2nd century was already re-interpreting with a greek spirit.

My first question (of many) about what they say is "Was this statement made during or after Origin??" because it was him who introduced "spiritualizing" scripture to bend it into whatever shape they want.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the Lord's Day is anything but the Sabbath.

None whatsoever.

hi Yod, where is your proof of a "greek spirit" being the reason of this change, or more importantly where are the historical records of the early church keeping the seventh.

The bible is both inspired writings and historical record, and all peoples at this time in history had historians who kept records of important persons and they had scribes and keepers that wrote down these things. Luke writes to Theophilus, a historian. Are we to believe that the disciples after the Apostles were not recorded or did not have writings that remain.

" [XXXIII...Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord's day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord's day of the resurrection]"

Note it says let the slaves work "five days". They are being given two seperate days to observe or perhaps choose from.

It also says the "sabbath is on account of creation" and the "Lords Day of the resurrection". I suppose they could be forced to mean they both were on the seventh day, but i think thats stretching the use of language.

Those who claim that sabbath is exclusive to and interchangeable with the seventh day now have the difficulty of which tittle belongs to the seventh day, "the sabbath" or "the Lords Day"?

You say there is NO evidence, but i think any scholar of language would admit that there is quite strong evidence. Wether this evidence proves it conclusively is another question.

This Topic is covering historical records and is not an arguement from the bible as both sides have scriptures they believe prove there arguement, and around and around it goes.

I have put forth historical records from the earliest time since the apostles, that show SOME atleast did keep the FIRST day as Lords Day and for the purposes of God.

I am asking for those records that show differently and wont be drawn into arguement of biblical verses thanks.

God bless.

[JCISGD]

This does show that this church kept both days in later times, but this was also 250 A.D. A lot has happened since the apostles, Israel was destroyed, gentiles dominated Christianity. You also had around 400 years of persecution starting with Nero, who's persecution lead to the destruction if Israel in 70ad. I would like to see evidence around the time of the apostles for sunday being the Lords day. With the growing greek influence, it's easy to see how the roots where covered.

Also scripturally it would have had to correspond to to the same Sabbath Jesus observed, the 7th day of the week. Not just random 6 days and 7 day rest, but literally the seventh day. Proof, they met in the synagogues. Paul was not saying any day after 6 consecutive days, and to claim so is not biblical.

If the Lords Day was superior, why didn't God mention that in His word? I can see through out acts they taught on the Sabbath, and kept the Sabbath, also verses saying it was Pauls custom to keep the Sabbath, but there is lacking verses for sunday being the Lords day. If Sunday, the Lords day was superior, God would have put His signature on it as He did with the 7th day.

While that single verse does not prove what the early church did, The fact they broke bread every day, stops that verse from being used to support the First Day was the day of worship. Now with this verse no longer applying, There is only one verse in the bible left.

1 Corinthians 16:2

2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

So this verse shows that they laid aside something, on the first day so that there would be no collections when Paul came to them. Notice Paul wasn't there, and that was the reason to collect money. It has nothing to do with Sunday church. Also it showed that they where to work, "collecting" or "Gathering"

Now with that and Acts 20:7 together, You have a very weak scriptural argument for sunday observance, but You do have multiple verses that say they taught on the Sabbath, they gathered on Sabbath, ect. Though Paul was beat and chased out of the synagogues some times, does not prove they discarded the Sabbath. They also met in houses, though it does say what day they met, Acts 18:7 was a result of teaching on the Sabbath and being rejected.

Acts 18:7 And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

Acts 17 clearly shows to me that it was Paul's custom to keep the Sabbath, And Paul didn't just teach Jews on the Sabbath, but He also taught the gentiles.

Acts 17:1-4

1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

The most reliable source we have for knowing what is accurate is the bible. What the Apostles did during the time scriptures to me is more important than what they did 100 years later. What is written is most accurate. The scriptures do not prove sunday is the Lords day, but they do prove they gathered on the Sabbath to worship with Jews and gentiles during the days of the Apostles.

Heres an interesting quote I found,

http://www.biblehistory.com/The%20Origin%20of%20Sunday%20Worship.html

Rome and Alexandria. Thus both Barnabas of Alexandria and Justin Martyr in Rome not only refer to the practice of Sunday observance, but they both also manifest a negative attitude toward the Sabbath. Interestingly, it is precisely these same two cities--Alexandria and Rome--that are mentioned by two fifth-century historians, Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen, as being exceptions to the general rule that worship services were still held on Saturday throughout the Christian world as late as the fifth century. What particular circumstances could have led Rome and Alexandria to their early adoption of Sunday observance? Moreover, why was Sunday observance soon (at least by the third century) so readily accepted throughout the rest of Christendom, even when the Sabbath was not abandoned? Obviously, the evidence thus far presented shatters the theory that Sunday was substituted for the seventh-day Sabbath immediately after Christ's resurrection. But likewise incorrect is the opposing view that the Christian Sunday was borrowed directly from paganism early in post-New Testament times. Not only does this theory lack proof, but the sheer improbability that virtually all Christendom suddenly shifted to a purely pagan practice should alert us to the need for a more plausible explanation. Especially is this so when we remember that numerous early Christians accepted martyrdom rather than compromise their faith. Justin himself was such a Christian, suffering martyrdom in Rome about A.D. 165.

Sorry Joshua but you have made multiple assertions that are not proof to my mind. This Topic is in danger of ballooning out into arguements that are not within the scope of it. But i will try answer objections not straying too far.

You have asked for earlier historical records of first day observance than 250 A.D, but i have already asked for the opposing evidence to even this. The quote you provide at end of your post ^^, is that a quote of someone living in that time ? it appears to me to be commentary and not proven fact or a quote of those times?

I wasnt attaching the definition of sabbath as a seventh part occuring after every 6 to Paul, I have asserted that this is the accepted definition and have yet to be shown proof of otherwise.

Why God did not have it made known in the bible that the Lords Day is superior to the seventh i cannot say, but there are many things the Holy Spirit leads the church in that are not directly stated in the bible.

I would venture to say that those who are grateful for to the Lord for their salvation, and also believe the Lords Day to be in recognition of this, would naturally hold it as superior. Further to this historical records already seen do prove the Lords Day to be the first day of the week.

What Paul did does not prove the christians on the whole met in synagogues, and the severe persecutions around that time almost certainly prove they couldnt have. Paul had extra annointing to go into synagogues to refute the Jews and endure the beatings etc. Paul and the other Apostles did not remain in one spot, but travelled often to assist the fledgling churches or start a new work in places without the gospel, what they did is not the rule but the exception.

Sorry but the fact the disciples broke bread daily does not prove what you say, and again if anything the fact of persecutions in synagogues tends to prove the opposite. " He took the bread and broke it, saying as often as you come together do this in rememberance of me" Did all meet daily ? and for how long did this continue?

At some point life would have had to settled to one day of sabbath, and this being in rememberance of Christ and His work on the cross, would naturally be the Lords Day imo, and is supported by history.

Yes the bible is and always will be the most reliable source if interpreted correctly, but we have an impasse since the verses both sides use, cannot be said to be absolute proof of claims, history is an aid not be denied except by dishonesty imo.

To each his own day, but imo the sabbath as the seventh day only cannot be substained in the light of all the proofs now available to us, and the charge of a man made change of day, borders on conspiracy theory as it is charge after the fact and the facts do not back this up.

[nebula]

I have to admit I do feel puzzled by the debate.

The 7th day was established as a day of rest, not a day of gathering together in a building for the purpose of spiritual pursuits.

Why does it matter what day we have our "church" services then?

[JCISGD]

I have to admit I do feel puzzled by the debate.

The 7th day was established as a day of rest, not a day of gathering together in a building for the purpose of spiritual pursuits.

Why does it matter what day we have our "church" services then?

The topic was started because some believe that Constantine changed the day from seventh to first, but the early church records show the Lords Day observance was not instituted by man but by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

My challenge is for those who believe otherwise to come forward with historical records that prove it.

[Botz]

Read what you posted JCISGD...interesting, although keeping my distance on this one...maybe we need to take both Saturday and Sunday off just to be on the safe-side

been way tooooo busy . . . hope to have time later . . .

No worries, take your time BlindSeeker...PM me if you would rather, as it is a side-track from the debate about Saturday and Sunday which is going on here...I personally find the chronology of events extremely important as they are like the cement that holds the account together, and it is not always easy working it all out from the different recorded Gospels. Best regards. Bptz

[Joshua-777]

Sorry Joshua but you have made multiple assertions that are not proof to my mind. This Topic is in danger of ballooning out into arguements that are not within the scope of it. But i will try answer objections not straying too far.

You have asked for earlier historical records of first day observance than 250 A.D, but i have already asked for the opposing evidence to even this. The quote you provide at end of your post ^^, is that a quote of someone living in that time ? it appears to me to be commentary and not proven fact or a quote of those times?

Hi, if you feel this topic is in danger of ballooning out into arguments, I'll stop the discussion and back out, I am not looking to argue, and I will not participate in arguments. I have been reading various commentaries from multiple sources on first day observance, and Justin Martyr. I do know that catholics hail Justin as a well respected saint, but the majority of commentaries from Christian to secular sources mention Justin Martyr as being more towards the anti-Semitic side, along with many others from that time frame.

I wasnt attaching the definition of sabbath as a seventh part occuring after every 6 to Paul, I have asserted that this is the accepted definition and have yet to be shown proof of otherwise.

Acts 17:1-4

1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

Why God did not have it made known in the bible that the Lords Day is superior to the seventh i cannot say, but there are many things the Holy Spirit leads the church in that are not directly stated in the bible.

I would venture to say that those who are grateful for to the Lord for their salvation, and also believe the Lords Day to be in recognition of this, would naturally hold it as superior. Further to this historical records already seen do prove the Lords Day to be the first day of the week.

God made His day known, He said He sanctified it before man fell into sin. I personally believe that the Sabbath is the Lords day, and by His Word have not seen evidence contrary. The only contrary evidence is quotes many years after the apostles spread the gospel. Now with how clear God is on the seventh day Sabbath, if the first day of the week is the Lords and it is superior to the Sabbath, then God would have made that completely clear scripturally, instead of having to rely on extra biblical sources.

What Paul did does not prove the christians on the whole met in synagogues, and the severe persecutions around that time almost certainly prove they couldnt have. Paul had extra annointing to go into synagogues to refute the Jews and endure the beatings etc. Paul and the other Apostles did not remain in one spot, but travelled often to assist the fledgling churches or start a new work in places without the gospel, what they did is not the rule but the exception.

If Paul didn't observe the sabbath would he have been in a position to be beat and persecuted on the Sabbath? Is it a law that You cannot be beat or persecuted on the Sabbath? Paul was persecuted for the sake of Jesus, and Acts makes it clear that He did keep the Sabbath, also He taught not just the Jews, but greeks also on the Sabbath.

Sorry but the fact the disciples broke bread daily does not prove what you say, and again if anything the fact of persecutions in synagogues tends to prove the opposite. " He took the bread and broke it, saying as often as you come together do this in rememberance of me" Did all meet daily ? and for how long did this continue?

At some point life would have had to settled to one day of sabbath, and this being in rememberance of Christ and His work on the cross, would naturally be the Lords Day imo, and is supported by history.

The bible says they did this daily. Did all meet daily? How long did this continue? Well test everything with scripture. the bible says all met daily, and they where one accord, they sold everything they owned and the church was in total unity. This I believe reflects the church through out Paul's whole journey.

Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved

Yes the bible is and always will be the most reliable source if interpreted correctly, but we have an impasse since the verses both sides use, cannot be said to be absolute proof of claims, history is an aid not be denied except by dishonesty imo.

To each his own day, but imo the sabbath as the seventh day only cannot be substained in the light of all the proofs now available to us, and the charge of a man made change of day, borders on conspiracy theory as it is charge after the fact and the facts do not back this up.

The bible is the most reliable source, and no extra biblical sources can add anything or take anything away from it. It is complete. As far as the Lords day, I do not see anywhere in the bible referring to it as the first day of the week, and no where does it say that it is superior. I personally like the symbolism behind the 7th day sabbath. 6 days + 1 day rest, 6ooo years of sin, and 1ooo years reigning with our Messiah. But anyways that Sabbath rest I don't want to miss.

Isaiah 58:13-14

13 “ If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,

From doing your pleasure on My holy day,

And call the Sabbath a delight,

The holy day of the LORD honorable,

And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,

Nor finding your own pleasure,

Nor speaking your own words,

14 Then you shall delight yourself in the LORD;

And I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth,

And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father.

The mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

[Joshua-777]

I have to admit I do feel puzzled by the debate.

The 7th day was established as a day of rest, not a day of gathering together in a building for the purpose of spiritual pursuits.

Why does it matter what day we have our "church" services then?

The topic was started because some believe that Constantine changed the day from seventh to first, but the early church records show the Lords Day observance was not instituted by man but by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

My challenge is for those who believe otherwise to come forward with historical records that prove it.

Constantine did make it a law for sunday observance, and also killed many believers who kept the sabbath, but He wasn't the one who started it.

As far as sunday being the Lords day in early church, I do not believe that it was instituted by the leading of the Holy Spirit, I believe it was instituted by man. The Bible was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and God would have made it clear in His Word if it was. Though I believe Justin Martyr was a believer, I do not view his letter as doctrine.