Resurrection

[Justin Adams]

I thought this mark up was a good way to illustrate the difference between paying attention to what Scripture actually says vs. what traditions and translators try to make it say. Please note that the rule is not one I made up. It is the ideal all translators are supposed to follow and most believe they should follow. But tradition imposes and the rule is hypocritically dismissed. For the few brave souls willing to base their worship of the Almighty on truth instead of tradition.

[Guest shiloh357]

5 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

I thought this mark up was a good way to illustrate the difference between paying attention to what Scripture actually says vs. what traditions and translators try to make it say. Please note that the rule is not one I made up. It is the ideal all translators are supposed to follow and most believe they should follow. But tradition imposes and the rule is hypocritically dismissed. For the few brave souls willing to base their worship of the Almighty on truth instead of tradition.

"After" is the correct meaning of opse in this particular context.   Rarity is irrelevant.   Context is more important than the lexical definition of a word.   It is the way a word is used that determines how it is translated.

[Justin Adams]

[Deborah_]

23 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

I thought this mark up was a good way to illustrate the difference between paying attention to what Scripture actually says vs. what traditions and translators try to make it say. Please note that the rule is not one I made up. It is the ideal all translators are supposed to follow and most believe they should follow. But tradition imposes and the rule is hypocritically dismissed. For the few brave souls willing to base their worship of the Almighty on truth instead of tradition.

With respect, this translation is terrible; it's even less correct than the 'traditional' ones. It ignores the Greek grammar completely!

Opse is being used as a preposition (because the word that follows it, sabboton, is in the genitive case); therefore it means 'after' ('late' is an adverb!). The literal rendering should therefore be "after sabbaths". Mian does not mean 'first', but 'one'; it is also feminine in gender, so it cannot be referring to the word 'sabbath' (which is neuter). It's actually referring to the feminine word 'day' (hemera), which is omitted because this is an idiomatic expression that a native speaker would understand. The literal translation would be 'first day of sabbaths' - or, as we would say, 'after the Sabbath, on the first day of the week'.

[Justin Adams]

A second view of this seemingly confused time-line is as follows.

It is interesting to note is that the days are reported to have sometimes been from 6am to 6pm, depending on the Priests and the way the calendar worked. However, the Sabbath ALWAYS was the traditional Israeli evening to evening. The 'day' in that particular time period is said to sometimes begin (except for the Sabbath) when the stars begin to fade and the dawn is seen to be approaching. Many scholars have engaged in researching this.
NB. the Roman day began at 6 am also.

So here is the second possibility briefly recounted.
Note that Yeshua DID rise on the Jewish Sabbath however we manipulate the days.

(1) The time of Yeshua a Jewish day was from sunrise to the next sunrise, except for Sabbaths.
(2) It's also possible (according to Matt. 28:1 footnotes in the 1599 Geneva Bible) that the Roman day was also from sunrise to the next sunrise at the time of Yeshua.
(3) The scirpture accounts of Peasch, Unleavened Bread, Sabbaths, First Fruits and Yeshua's Resurrection makes more sense (it all fits) when considering that the weekly 24 hr Jewish day during the time of Yeshua was from sunrise to sunrise.
(4) Also, that Yeshua arose before sunrise toward the end of the 7th Day Sabbath while there were still at least a few stars visible just with the approaching dawn.

[Justin Adams]

SUNDAY RESURRECTION ??

What of the argument that the universally held position of the early church that Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday. Is there proof of this? Many Sunday keepers use this position to justify going to church on Sunday, and not keep the Sabbath. What of these historical quotes:

90AD DIDACHE: "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)

250 AD IGNATIUS: If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him ... let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.)

130AD BARNABAS: Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven. (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147)

150AD JUSTIN: But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose from the dead. (First apology of Justin, Ch 68)

150AD JUSTIN: We all make our assembly in common on the day of the Sun, since it is the first day, on which God changed the darkness and matter and made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturn's day, and on the day after (which is the day of the Sun) he appeared to his apostles and taught his disciples these things. (Apology, 1, 67:1-3, 7; First Apology, 145 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , Vol. 1, pg. 186)

150AD JUSTIN: ...through the resurrection from the dead on the first day of the week of Jesus Christ our Lord. For the first day of the week, although it is the first of all days, yet according to the number of the days in a cycle is called the eighth (while still remaining the first). (Dialogue 41:4)

180AD GOSPEL OF PETER: Early in the morning when the Sabbath dawned, a multitude from Jerusalem and the surrounding country came to see the scaled sepulchre. In the night in which the Lord's day dawned, while the soldiers in pairs for each watch were keeping guard, a great voice came from heaven. [There follows an account of the resurrection.] Early in the morning of the Lord's day Mary Magdalene, a disciple of the Lord .... came to the sepulchre. (9:34f.; 12:50f.)

190AD CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: He does the commandment according to the Gospel and keeps the Lord's day, whenever he puts away an evil mind . . . glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself. (Ibid. Vii.xii.76.4)

250AD CYPRIAN: The eight day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day." (Epistle 58, Sec 4)

300AD EUSEBIUS: [The Ebionites] were accustomed to observe the Sabbath and other Jewish customs but on the Lord's days to celebrate the same practices as we in remembrance of the resurrection of the Savior. (Church History Ill.xxvii.5) (quotes from Bible.ca).  

Does this prove a Sunday resurrection?

Let’s go through the sources:

90AD DIDACHE: "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)

Nothing here about the resurrection. It does not say here that the first day of the week is the Lords day. It could just as well refer to the Sabbath, since that is the only day the Bible says belongs to the Lord. In another Apocryphal work from that time called the Acts of John it says: "And on the seventh day, it being the Lord's day, he said to them: Now it is time for me also to partake of food, And having washed his hands and face, he prayed, and brought out the linen cloth, and took one of the dates, and ate it in the sight of all." (8:560-561) The terminology of the “lord’s day” seems to be the seventh day not the first day of the week. Notice the footnote from the book Sabbath in Scripture and History says, “The ‘seventh day’ here may refer to specifically the seventh-day Sabbath, or it may refer to the seventh day of the journey. If the latter, the day would evidently be Saturday. This is so because fasting on Saturday was not allowed in the region to which the document pertains-the Roman province of Asia, in the Eastern Christian world, which did not adopt the Sabbath fast” (footnote 9, p.350).

In Isaiah 58:13, who declares that the Sabbath is "My holy day." And Jesus is called “lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).

Notice what this source says about the church in the second century, “The most important in this festival was the Passover day, the 14th of Nisan…In it they ate unleavened bread, probably like the Jews, eight days through…there is no trace of a yearly festival of the resurrection among them…the Christians of Asia Minor appealed in favor of their Passover solemnity on the 14th Nisan to John (Gieseler, Johann Karl Ludwig.  A Text-book of Church History. Translated by Samuel Davidson, John Winstanley Hull, Mary A. Robinson. Harper & brothers, 1857, Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized Feb 17, 2006, p. 166). Clearly however they did begin to venerate Sunday as the day of the resurrection, but where did this come from? We will examine this at the end of the article.

The context of this portion of the Didache some even suggests that it may be referring to the Christian Passover (compare with I Corinthians 22:23-29) or some other gathering (compare with Acts 2:42), but only a forced and inaccurate translation would suggest Sunday (which is what many Sunday advocates suggest). The belief that this refers to Passover is centuries old a F. Coneybeare reported it was a belief of the Paulini: “But the Paulini also keep the feast of the Pascha on the same day (as the Jews), whatever be the day of the full moon, they call it Kuriaki, as the Jews call it Sabbath, even though it be not a Sabbath” (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. clii).

Now let’s examine IGNATIUS: If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him ... let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.).

Here is what the Greek states:

Εί ούν οί έν παλαιοîς πράγμασιν άναστραφέντες είς καινότητα έλπίδος ήλθον, μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, άλλά κατά κυριακήν ζώντες, έν ή καί ή ζωή ήμών άνέτειλεν δι’ αύτού καί τού θανάτου αύτού, <öν> τινες άρνούνται, δι’ ού μυστηρίου έλάβομεν τò πιστεύειν, καί διά τούτο ύπομένομεν, ïνα εύρεθώμεν μαθηταί 'Iησού Χριστού τού μόνου διδασκάλου ήμών· (Holmes, p. 154).

Here is a fairly typical 19th Century translation of verse 9.1, by Dr. J.B. Lightfoot:

“If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny -- a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher” (Ignatius. Letter to the Magnesians, Verse 9.1. Translated by J.B. Lightfoot. Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation. © 2001 Peter Kirby). But what is its true meaning?

First, it is mistranslated. The 19th century theologian John Kitto understood that neither the context nor the Greek required adding the word “day.”  Thus he translated a highly relevant part of it correctly as follows: “…living according to our Lord s life…”( Kitto J.  The cyclopaedia of Biblical literature, Volume 2.  American Book Exchange, 1881.  Original from Harvard University, Digitized. Jan 31, 2008 p. 270).

John Kitto also made the following comments about the passage from Ignatius: “Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear), that alter κυριακήν [Lord’s] the word ἡμέραν [day] is to be understood… The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive to which άvroύ can refer. This defect, so far from being- remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of ἡμέραν…the passage does not refer at all to the Lord’s day…it cannot be regarded as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term ‘Lord’s day’ (for which it is often cited), since the word ἡμέραν [day] is purely conjectural” (ibid). Yet, almost all anti-Sabbath websites have ignored the scholars that understand the truth about Ignatius’ writings as they cite the mistranslations as “proof” of early Sunday observance—even though the actual Greek text does no such thing.

Now what does it mean, “, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, [or as it should read “according to the Lord’s life”]”?

To better understand Ignatius' letter, we should look at more of the context and not just verse 9.1. out-of-context as some Sunday advocates have.

Notice the context:

 8:1 Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace:

8:2 for the divine prophets lived after Christ Jesus. For this cause also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to the end that they which are disobedient might be fully persuaded that there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word that proceeded from silence, who in all things was well-pleasing unto Him that sent Him.

9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer
observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny – a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher –

9:2 if this be so, how shall we be able to live apart from Him? seeing that even the prophets, being His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher through the Spirit. And for this cause He whom they rightly awaited, when He came, raised them from the dead.

The context is Judaizing the Christian faith. Not the Old Testament, but the man made religion of Judaism. There are at least two reasons for this. The first is that the godly Old Testament prophets had been keeping the seventh day Sabbath. And the second is since the portion of the Greek term translated as the first part of “no longer” is a ‘qualified negative’ (Strong J.  Words 3371 & 3361 in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, Abington, Nashville, 1890 , p.48), the context supports that the ‘Judaic concepts’ (verse 8.2) are part of the qualification.

It may also be of interest to note how the less-accepted “longer” version of Ignatius’ letter was translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers as follows: “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner...”(Ignatius (Pseudo). The Epistle to the Magnesians (longer recension). Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1999 printing, p.62).

This assessment is also consistent with later testimony from Jerome who mentioned that the Sabbath-keeping Christians he ran into did not adhere to the Jewish traditions--in other words, although they kept the Sabbath, the Nazarenes did not keep the Sabbath Judaically.

Jerome 404 a.d. declares:  "On Isaiah 9:1-4

"The Nazarenes, whose opinion I have set forth above, try to explain this passage in the following way: When Christ came and his preaching shone out, the land of Zebulon and Naphtali [the region of Galilee] first of all were freed from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of the JEWISH TRADITIONS. Later, however, the preaching became more dominant, that means the preaching was multiplied, through the gospel of the apostle Paul who was the last of all the apostles. And the gospel of Christ shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world, which earlier walked or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the gospel" (p.64).

In this passage, we find that the Nazarene Christians -- like Jesus the Messiah, Peter, James, John and especially Paul -- rejected Jewish traditionalism, invention, and additions to the Torah or Old Testament. They referred to them as the "very heavy yoke of the Jewish traditions."

The Nazarenes existed well into the third century, and were actively engaged in a dialogue -- "heated, no doubt," says Ray Pritz -- with rabbinic Judaism. Pritz adds that the Nazarene Jewish Church was "familiar with the developments within Judaism and rejected the authority of the pharisaic scholars to interpret scripture definitively."

Pritz goes on: "...Nor did they accept as binding on themselves (or on any Jews) the Oral Law as embodied in the Mishnah. These Jewish Christians view Paul and his mission favorably and evidently even accepted -- in theory at least -- the unity of the Church as composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ...And finally, this group had not lost hope that the Jewish people might yet turn to accept Jesus as the Messiah" (see Ray A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the end of the New Testament Period until its disappearance in the Fourth Century, The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, c.1992, p. 70).

The ancient churches held this belief for a long time of not Judaizing the church, "The ancient Christians were very careful in the observation of Saturday, or the seventh day...It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival...Athanasius (A.D. 297-373, Bishop of Alexandria) likewise tells us that they held religious assemblies on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. Epiphanius says the same." (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Bk.xx, Ch.3, Sec 1, 66. 1136,1137).  

Ignatius was teaching that the godly prophets, who lived in ancient times, lived in accordance to the ways of Jesus Christ, and not after improper Judaic concepts. 

There is no doubt that the ancient prophets (such as Isaiah) kept the Sabbath on what we today call Saturday. 

The Bible records that these prophets knew how to keep the Sabbath (and not Barnabas’ eighth day) properly, as a delight for them to be in the LORD (e.g. Isaiah 58:13-14).  Since the ancient prophets did that, Ignatius may be saying that Christians need to keep the Sabbath in accordance with Jesus’ example of doing good on the Sabbath and not be unduly focused on non-biblical restrictions—for, Ignatius says, we are to not live apart from Jesus.  Jesus, of course kept the Sabbath, as part of His way of life.

It is also possible that all Ignatius was doing was the same type of thing that Paul warned about in Colossians 2:16—he was telling Christians to let the “body of Christ” and not others (like those advocating  extra-biblical Jewish practices) tell them how to keep the Sabbath.  He may have simply written this section to help differentiate Christians from Jews in the eyes of both the Christians and the Gentile governments that they tended to be under (distancing Christians from Jews would have been physically advantageous for many Christians at that time).  But regardless of the intended point, Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians does not advocate doing away with the biblical Sabbath, nor does it show that the Sabbath was being replaced by Sunday nor is a resurrection day implied whatsoever.

 What of the longer version that says, “let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week.” Is this a deliberate deletion from the letter? Because the true quote is, “And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days[of the week].”  (From the 38 volume work: Early Church Fathers Ante-Nicene Fathers to A.D. 325, Vol. 1Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors). Here it seems to imply that the resurrection was on the Sabbath not Sunday. Is there historical proof for this belief that the Sabbath was the day of the resurrection? Yes! Later in this article we will quote many sources that prove this position.

After this he says, “Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, ‘To the end, for the eighth day,’ on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ,’’’ Here he is saying the 8th day our life sprang up again and our victory over death by Jesus he is clearly speaking of our spiritual circumcision that took place on the 8th, or the day of a Christians baptism (Romans 6). (see W.Rordorf, "Sunday," p.277. In the New Testament a typological relationship is established between the circumcision and baptism, but there are no allusions to the significance of the eighth day per se; see Col.2:11-13; cf. O.Cullmann, "Baptism in the New Testament," 1950, pp.56ff). Nothing here about Sunday or the resurrection being on Sunday.

What of Barnabas? 130AD BARNABAS: Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the deadand when he appeared ascended into heaven. (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147).

First of all nowhere here does it say Sunday!

This is the first theological motivation of the 8^th day which is of an eschatological nature. The eighth day, in fact, represents “the beginning of a new world.”

It is noteworthy that Barnabas presents the resurrection of Jesus as the second or additional motivation. The 8^th day is observed because on that day “Jesus also (en he kai) rose from the dead” (v. 9).

Barnabas in fact, in spite of his sharp anti-Judaism, justifies the “observance” of the eighth day more as a “continuation of the eschatological Sabbath than as a commemoration of the resurrection. This bespeaks a timid and uncertain beginning of Sunday-keeping. The theology and terminology of Sunday are still dubious. There is no mention of any gathering nor of any eucharistic celebration. The eighth day is simply the prolongation of the eschatological Sabbath to which is united the memory of the resurrection.” (From Sabbath to Sunday SB, pp.220-221). There is no mention of gatherings on Sunday because of the resurrection in this epistle.

But what does this mean, the 8^th day? As noted above the theology of the resurrection was linked to circumcision and baptism. Circumcision took place on the “eighth day” which could be any day of the week. Bacchiocchi explains, “Origen (ca. A.D. 185- ca. 254) similarly views the eighth day as the symbol of the resurrection of Christ which provided an immediate and global circumcision, namely the baptismal purification of the world. He writes, Before the arrival of the eighth day of the Lord Jesus Christ the whole world was impure and uncircumcised. But when the eighth day of the resurrection came, immediately we were cleansed, buried, and raised by the circumcision of Christ.

“In these texts the circumcision is not associated with Sunday baptismal ceremony, but rather with the event itself of the resurrection, to which is attributed cleansing power. Moreover, baptism was not administered in the primitive ‘Church exclusively on Sunday. Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-ca. 225) in his treatise On Baptism, while he recommended Passover and Pentecost as the most suitable times for baptism, also admits that ‘every day is the Lord’s, every hour, every time is apt for baptism.”’ (From Sabbath to Sunday, pp.281-282). In early Christianity the eighth day had nothing to do with Sunday. The resurrection was called the “Lord’s day” but it does not name a specific day of the week. It was only attributed to Sunday later, “The fact that Sunday could be viewed as the eighth day ‘with reference to those preceding’ does not explain why such a name became so popular a designation for Sunday until about the fifth century.” (ibid, p.280, emphasis added).

Christians observing the 8^th day was meant in an eschatological sense not a literal day of the week.

What of Justin Martyr? 150AD JUSTIN: But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose from the dead. (First apology of Justin, Ch 68)

150AD JUSTIN: We all make our assembly in common on the day of the Sun, since it is the first day, on which God changed the darkness and matter and made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturn's day, and on the day after (which is the day of the Sun) he appeared to his apostles and taught his disciples these things. (Apology, 1, 67:1-3, 7; First Apology, 145 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , Vol. 1, pg. 186)

150AD JUSTIN: ...through the resurrection from the dead on the first day of the week of Jesus Christ our Lord. For the first day of the week, although it is the first of all days, yet according to the number of the days in a cycle is called the eighth (while still remaining the first). (Dialogue 41:4).

Justin claimed that Sunday worship was ordained because circumcision was on the eighth day after the birth of Hebrew males in the Old Testament:

Now, sirs," I said, "it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites...there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion. Jesus Christ circumcises all who will--as was declared above--with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace (Dialogue with Trypho. Chapter XXIV).

But what does Justin mean about this circumcision? “The eighth day could be reckoned according to a normal human cycle, as he says in his last statement, but it could also be reckoned spiritually the first of all of the days thereafter. This does not mean Sunday is to be celebrated on a weekly basis. It means exactly the opposite. After the resurrection of Christ, all the days are the same. They are the spiritual and perpetual Sabbath-keeping that occurs when anyone repents or when a Christian does good works. All of the days after the resurrection, according to Justin, have been smoothed out into one great spiritual continuum. There is no day above another, neither Sabbath nor Sunday. The important thing is that we be spiritually circumcised, which was typified in the Old Testament legislation.” (William Shea, JUSTIN MARTYRÕS SUNDAY WORSHIP STATEMENT, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/2 (Autumn 2001):p.13)

He continues “Justin does employ a curious kind of eighth day typology, but even that does not support the idea that Christians of his time kept Sunday. On the contrary, that eighth day typology symbolizes the circumcision of the heart, not any keeping of the eighth day by Christians. Justin’s teaching in dialogue with Trypho is that from the cross and the resurrection all days are equal spiritually and neither Sabbath nor Sunday are to be kept literally. When one does good works or repents, one keeps the perpetual Sabbath, no matter when those events occur in the week. Justin’s theology on this point actually undermines the practice advocated in Chapter 67 of the Apology.” (William Shea, JUSTIN MARTYRÕS SUNDAY WORSHIP STATEMENT, p.15 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/2 (Autumn 2001):)

But what of Justin’s claims of Sunday worship due to the resurrection? This same source proves that “These lines of evidence demonstrate that Chapter 67 does not belong with Justin’s First Apology. It was placed there later by some anonymous author who wished to enhance the acceptance of Sunday by reading it back into the time of Justin in the middle of the second century. We do not know who did this or when it was done, but one might estimate that it occurred sometime during the third or fourth centuries A. D., when the spread of the Christian Sunday took on greater proportions. That was not the case in Justin’s time in the second century.” (ibid, p.15, emphasis added).

This statement does not fit with the rest of Justin’s dialogue. This source says, “He never mentions the day of the week or the day of the month on which Jesus died or was resurrected. He does not identify it as the 6th day, the preparation day, the 14th of Nisan, or the Passover. None of these references carry with them any specific date for the resurrection. In other words, the specific chronology of the days when Jesus died and was resurrected are not of great concern to Justin. He is far more interested in demonstrating these as historical events and drawing from them their meaning for salvation.

“The closest Justin ever comes to giving a date for the crucifixion is to say Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate (Chaps. 13, 35, 46, and 48). Once he mentions that he was crucified during the reign of Tiberius (Chap. 13). These are very broad, bold chronological strokes that have nothing to do with the specific chronology of the Sunday resurrection found in Chapter 67. That type of writing is quite different from Justin’s approach both to chronology in general and to the chronology of Christ’s death and resurrection. That passage does not look like any of Justin’s other writing on these subjects. It looks rather as if it has come from another hand.” (ibid, p.7, emphasis added).  More proofs are given in this source that proves that this statement was a later addition and was not written by Justin Martyr. Source can be read here

So Justin’s theology fits the theology of the second century of Jesus resurrection was the eighth day being the day of circumcision and nothing to do with Sunday or any other day of the week.

Now what of 180AD GOSPEL OF PETER:  “But early when the Sabbath was dawning, a crowd came from Jerusalem and the surrounding area in order that they might see the sealed tomb.

“But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher…Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them),”

First, the reason why Christians assemble is not mentioned. The Lord’s Day is not called Sunday. The Lord’s Day according to second century theology meant the 8th day meaning the day of circumcision not Sunday.

Now this source says of this Gospel, “These are all the references there are for one hundred years after the apostle John which by any sort of jugglery, chicanery, or stretch of imagination or exaggeration of interpretation, could be thought to refer to Sunday…

“Why are these garbled, badly translated, fancifully interpreted references used as they are by advocates of Sunday observance? Simply because there is nothing else; because evidence for primitive Sunday keeping is so badly needed to support a practice which has no actual basis except in tradition. Therefore the proponents of Sunday catch in vain at every straw. It is pathetic. Worse, it is spiritually and theologically dangerous.

“It is historically bad. There are honest historians of the Sunday who believe that because Sunday is called ‘the Lord's day’ at AD 200, 300, and 400 and on, one may then work back from these dates and force late meanings of the expression ‘Lord's day’ into earlier usage. This is utterly unsound historically. Such a method leaves no room for changes in customs, or for deliberate perversions in religious practice…There is only tradition to support Sunday observance. The tradition is not apostolic, but later.” (Early Christian Sabbath, Frank Yost, pp.17-18, emphasis added). These meanings or “forced” by the translators and Sunday observers.

The theology of the day was that the “Lord’s day” was eschatological, meaning a new world dawned, when the world was spiritually circumcised, not Sunday. This is mostly likely the meaning in these passages.

190AD CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: He does the commandment according to the Gospel and keeps the Lord's day, whenever he puts away an evil mind . . . glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself. (Ibid. Vii.xii.76.4).

This source cleverly quotes Clement of Alexandria selectively, and leaves the whole context out of it so it looks as though the Lord’s Day is the resurrection day and of course that means Sunday, but it does not! First, nowhere in these passages above does it say Sunday is the Lord’s Day. Nothing about assembling on Sunday because of the resurrection is mentioned.

Now look at the entire context quoting right from the source, the Stromata book 7, chapter 12 and it says, “He knows also the enigmas of the fasting of those days -- I mean the Fourth and the Preparation. For the one has its name from Hermes, and the other from Aphrodite. He fasts in his life, in respect of covetousness and voluptuousness, from which all the vices grow. For we have already often above shown the three varieties of fornication, according to the apostle -- love of pleasure, love of money, idolatry. He fasts, then, according to the Law, abstaining from bad deeds, and, according to the perfection of the Gospel, from evil thoughts. Temptations are applied to him, not for his purification, but, as we have said, for the good of his neighbours, if, making trial of toils and pains, he has despised and passed them by.

“The same holds of pleasure. For it is the highest achievement for one who has had trial of it, afterwards to abstain. For what great thing is it, if a man restrains himself in what he knows not? He, in fulfilment of the precept, according to the Gospel, keeps the Lord's day, when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself. Further, also, when he has received the comprehension of scientific speculation, he deems that he sees the Lord, directing his eyes towards things invisible, although he seems to look on what he, does not wish to look on; chastising the faculty of vision, when he perceives himself pleasurably affected by the application of his eyes; since he wishes to see and hear that alone which concerns him.”

What is he speaking of? Is he speaking of a specific day, Sunday as the Lord’s resurrection day? No! He is speaking of keeping yourself from all types of pleasure of the flesh and temptations, and those that do this keeps the “lord’s day,” and “glorifying the Lord's resurrection IN HIMSELF” What is he speaking of? What is the context? Again, the theology of the second century of the Lord’s Day being the circumcision of Christ (Romans 6) him being resurrected and all Christians are spiritually circumcised and do good deeds leaving aside he deeds of the flesh. This source writes, “Clement’s Lord's day was not a literal, but a mystical, day, embracing, according to this, his second use of the term, the entire regenerate life of the Christian; and according to his first use of the term, embracing also the future life in Heaven. And this view is confirmed by Clement’s statement of the contrast between the Gnostic sect to which he belonged and other Christians. He says of their worship that it was ‘NOT ON SPECIAL DAYS, as some others, but doing this continually in our whole life.’’’ (History of the Sabbath, p.122,  J.N Andrews emphasis his).

There is nothing here about Sunday being the Lord’s Day or the resurrection being on Sunday! This is just another example of Sunday keepers trying to force a Sunday interpretation of early Christian so-called writings.

250AD CYPRIAN: The eight day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's Day." (Epistle 58, Sec 4).

First nowhere in these passages above does it say Sunday is the Lord’s Day. Nothing about assembling on Sunday because of the resurrection.

Again this source quotes selectively out of this epistle and leaves out the context. First this section was about infant baptism. Notice what it says, “For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.” (Epistle 58, sec.4). When it is all quoted the context becomes clear. Now as noted above baptism did not exclusively take place on Sunday in the early church, so this does not mean Sunday.

The “Lord’s day” was the “eighth day.” The day of circumcision symbolized by the resurrection of Jesus. So the Lord’s day is the day of circumcision in which we are circumcise spiritually. This is the primary point he is getting at, not the day of the resurrection taking place on Sunday.

But what does it mean, the “first day after the Sabbath”? Does it mean the weekly Sabbath? Actually it does not! This was meant in an eschatological way not in a literal way during that time. This interpretation comes from the Jews view of the end times, and then the Christians started speculating with it. W. Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 48-51, provides a concise summary and an illustrative chart of the prevailing eschatological interpretations of the cosmic week found in late Jewish apocalyptic literature. The eschatological Sabbath, usually viewed as a seventh millennium which would follow the present age (measured in six millennia) was interpreted according to three basic variants: (1) paradise restored, (2) an empty time of silence which would follow the Messianic age and precede the new age and (3) an interim period of the Messiah which marks the anticipation of the new world. These divergent interpretations are indicative of the keen interest in late Judaism and in New Testament times, for eschatological-chiliastic problems. F. A. Regan, Dies Dominica, p. 212, comments in this regard: “The Judaic preoccupations with the millennium ... gained a wide following during the New Testament era and the centuries immediately preceding it. The coming of the Messianic age, the so-called ‘days of the Messiah’ with its transition between ‘this world’ and ‘that world to come’ as well as the ‘end of days’ were terms that dotted the vocabulary of the age”; (cf. J. L. McKenzie, “The Jewish World in New Testament Times,”A Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 1953, ed. 738t.; J. Bonsirven, Judaisme Palestinien au temps de Jesus Christ, 1935, pp. 341f).

The 8^th day was the world to come, “These speculations were common in Christian circles as well. In the Slavonic Secrets of Enoch, for instance (an apocryphon of the Old Testament interpolated by Jewish Christians toward the end of the first century) we find not only the seven-day millennia scheme,but also the first explicit designation of the new aeon as ‘the eighth day’: And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first created after my work and that the first seven should revolve in the form of seven thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of no-counting, endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.” (Sabbath to Sunday, SB, pp.281-282, emphasis added).

Again this source in no way proves that Christians at that time assembled on Sunday due to the resurrection taking place on Sunday. This is another case of forcing an interpretation into the writings of the early church fathers.

Eusebius’ quote I will quote right out of the source, it says in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 27 (c. 315 A.D.) "The Ebionites cherished low and mean opinions of Christ. For they considered Him a plain and common man, and justified only by His advances in virtue, and that He was born of the Virgin Mary, by natural generation. With them the observance of the law was altogether necessary, as if they could not be saved, only by faith in Christ and a corresponding life. These, indeed, thought on the one hand that all of the epistles of the apostles ought to be rejected, calling him an apostate from the law, but on the other, only using the gospel according to the Hebrews, they esteem the others as of little value. They also observe the Sabbath and other discipline of the Jews, just like them, but on the other hand, they also celebrate the Lords days very much like us, in commemoration of His resurrection." (14)

Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 23 (c. 315 A.D.) "The churches throughout the rest of the world observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Savior. Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops on this question; and all unanimously drew up the ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places, that the mystery of our Lords resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lords day." (15).

Again context is key. What is the “Lord’s day” according to these passages? Nowhere does it say Sunday. But the key is in book 5 chapter 23, here is where we find what the “Lord’s day’ means.

The whole thing begins with the day in which the Passover fast was kept. This occurred in the days of Irenaeus and Polycrates.

At this time the Asian Christians observed Passover on the 14th of Nisan as instructed in the Bible. The whole discussion was, “It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, [14^th of Nisan] whatever day of the week it should happen to be” Now the other churches, “But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.” This was the “Lord’s day.” As it says, “that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only.”

Now Polycrates would not agree and said, “‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’’’ He knew this was a tradition made from men and not God, and that they were “adding” to the festival of Passover. Irenaeus himself said the same thing, “For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.

“And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode”

Where did this tradition start and what day did they fast. When we find this out we know when the Lord’s Day is at the time of Polycrates.

The western churches also, with the Church of Rome at their head, were strenuous observers of the Passover festival. They also traced the festival to the apostles. Thus Socrates says of them: "The Romans and those in the western parts assure us that their usage originated with the apostles Peter and Paul." (Socrates's Eccl. Hist., book v. chap. xxii.)

One second century reference is from the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter. After describing the death of Christ he says, “And upon all these things we fasted and sat mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath” (Gospel of Peter v.7 Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.9, p.7).

Donald Grey Barnhouse writes that it was a practice to fast because Christ was killed on Passover Wednesday. Since the Gospel of Peter says they fasted till the Sabbath this makes three days and nights. (See Is Good Friday on Wednesday? By Donald Grey Barnhouse ETERNITY Magazine June 1958, 1716 Spruce Street, Philadelphia 3, Pa; James A. Waither, the Chronology of the Passion Week, Journal of Biblical Literature, p.118). So the Lord’s Day, the day of the Resurrection is the Sabbath day. This was known during the second century in the days of Polycrates and Polycarp.

Eventually however, By the fifth century A.D., Easter Sunday celebrations of Christ's resurrection were widespread in Christianity. However, the Church historian Socrates (ca. 440 A.D) in a section of his history entitled, "Differences of usage in regard to Easter," reveals that in the East there were Christians who celebrated Easter [Passover] on Sabbath instead of Sunday. He stated, "Others in the East kept that feast on the Sabbath indeed." (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol.2, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman's, 1952, p.131). Cling to the ancient fast discussed in the book of Eusebius, the fast being on the Sabbath!

Now we showed you one proof above that there is proof in history of a Sabbath resurrection belief, here are several others.

First notice what this source says, “The first Christians celebrated the death of Jesus with a Pascha meal (eucharist) on the lunar date of the Jewish Passover (note 1 Cor. 5:7-8).

“At first there was no annual celebration of the resurrection. Eventually, in the gentile world, the day of resurrection was added to the Pascha festival. That day was Sunday. At the Council of Nicea (325) it was ruled that Easter Sunday would be celebrated on the Sunday immediately following that full moon which came after the vernal equinox. At the same time the Council decided that the vernal equinox would be March 21 in the Julian calendar” (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 3.18). (Synder GF. Irish Jesus, Roman Jesus: the formation of early Irish Christianity. Trinity Press International, 2002, p. 183). Traditions like fasting on Passover week, then Easter replacing Passover etc… eventually ruled the day and enforced when Constantine became emperor of Rome.

Notice what this source says, “"For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and Rome (Catholics), on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this." (Ecclesiastical History, Socrates, Bk 5, Ch.22, pg 289).  Rome and Alexandria where the heresies began.

Also in the fourth century, in Ethiopia, Frumentius reported:

"And we assemble on Saturday," he continues ; "not that we are infected with Judaism [man made precepts], but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath" (Davis, Tamar. A General History of the Sabbatarian Churches. 1851; Reprinted 1995 by Commonwealth Publishing, Salt Lake City, pp. 41-42). Originally the churches celebrated the Sabbath Command, and a Sabbath resurrection would just re-enforce that belief that Jesus the “Lord of the Sabbath.”

Bishop Gregory of Tours (A.D.538-594) tells us that many in France believed Christ arose on the seventh day of the week, even though he himself defended a Sunday resurrection belief. He stated, "Now in our belief the resurrection of the Lord was on the first day, and not on the seventh as many deem." (Gregory of Tours, "The History of the Franks." Vol.2, (Trans. By D.M. Dalton), Oxford: Claendon Press, 1927, p.24).

Alexander Ross (A.D.1590-1654) tells us the Armenians believed in a Saturday resurrection, though he disagrees with them. He stated: "The Armenians taught ... that Christ rose from the dead on the Sabbath day, whereas the Scripture tells us plainly that He arose on the third day." (Alexander Ross, "Pansebeia: or A View of All the Religions of the World," London, John Saywell, 1658, p.219).

In the Nestorian Church in India the communion (Qurbana) is still celebrated to this day at sunset on Holy Saturday in honor of Christ's resurrection. Mar Aprem says, "On Holy Saturday it is stated that Qurbana should be at sunset. Because it is believed that Jesus rose from the tomb at that time."( Mar Aprem, "Sacraments of the Church of the East," India:   Mar Narsai Press, 1978, p.112).

Historical and biblical proof demonstrates a Sabbath resurrection. It is interesting that Sunday resurrection believers have to resort to non-biblical sources to prove a Sunday resurrection and not the Bible. Some even resort to selective quotations, not including the context to deceive others into believing their traditions.

And many of these sources are from people with pagan Greek philosophical backgrounds and speculate, and allegorize and spiritualize on many things in the Bible to the point where the truth is lost and hidden away by their spiritual jargon. Notice what

his source says about these letters from the so called church fathers, "Many eminent theologians, particularly Protestant, speak against accepting the writings of the so-called apostolic fathers with too much authority. Augustus Neander says that they have 'come down to us in a condition very little worthy of confidence.' John L. Mosheim testifies that they [church fathers] all believed the language of the Scriptures to contain two meanings, the one plain, the other hidden, that they attached more value to the hidden meaning, thus throwing obscurity over the Sacred Writings. Archdeacon Frederic W. Farrar writes: 'There are but few of them whose pages are not rife with errors.' 'Their acquaintance with the Old Testament is incorrect, popular, and full of mistakes.' While Martin Luther, who had studied deeply into the writings of those allegorizing, mystical church fathers, declared that God's word when it is expounded by them is like 'straining milk through a coal sack.' Adam Clarke testifies that 'there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed, that cannot be proved by their authority, nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish Church, that may not challenge them as its abettors.'

"In the second century the aims of the sun-worshiping emperors and those of the Alexandrian theologians ran parallel. There was an ambitious scheme on foot to blend all religions into one of which 'the sun was to be the central object of adoration.' Speaking of the influence of pagan philosophy on early church writers, Schaff says. 'We can trace it ... even in St. Augustine, who confessed that it kindled in him an incredible fire.''' (B.G Wilkinson, Truth Triumphant, pp.114-115).

Let’s adhere to the primary source, the Bible. In history the people that did such a thing we see in history kept the Sabbath and believe Jesus rose on the Sabbath, that is the truth!

[Justin Adams]

38 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

With respect, this translation is terrible; it's even less correct than the 'traditional' ones. It ignores the Greek grammar completely!

Thanks for the input. I am not so good at this I must admit. Spent all my life traveling and working up until a couple years ago so I am not so good with translations and have to wade thru a lot of poor stuff.

But slowly I am learning some of it.

I have the Aramaic. Are you able to translate that since it is probably important?

[Justin Adams]

13 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No, we just get our understanding from the Bible.   We don't need you or anyone to explain to us that we get from somewhere else.   We get it from the Bible.   The Bible, the one with 66 books, the only true Bible, is all we need to defend our views.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
(Mat 28:1)

The Greek word "opse" for the word "end"  means, "after."   The issue is not the word "Sabbath."  What the text says is that after the Sabbath, as it was beginning to dawn toward the first day of the week...    After the Sabbath, because the women would not have violated the Sabbath to come to the tomb  to finish anointing Jesus' body.

 

"Historical and biblical proof demonstrates a Sabbath resurrection. It is interesting that Sunday resurrection believers have to resort to non-biblical sources to prove a Sunday resurrection and not the Bible. Some even resort to selective quotations, not including the context to deceive others into believing their traditions.

And many of these sources are from people with pagan Greek philosophical backgrounds and speculate, and allegorize and spiritualize on many things in the Bible to the point where the truth is lost and hidden away by their spiritual jargon."

[Deborah_]

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

Thanks for the input. I am not so good at this I must admit. Spent all my life traveling and working up until a couple years ago so I am not so good with translations and have to wade thru a lot of poor stuff.

But slowly I am learning some of it.

I have the Aramaic. Are you able to translate that since it is probably important?

I have suspected for many years that those who make a lot of noise about 'mistranslations' of the Bible are very often pushing their own agendas. They promote their own mistranslations (or copy other people's mistranslations), and they get away with it because the average person has a very poor knowledge of languages. So I learned NT Greek for myself - and found my suspicions to be confirmed. The official English translations that we have really should be trusted!

I'm now learning Hebrew (slowly!) but I don't know any Aramaic. In any case, I'm not at all impressed by the argument that the Aramaic is the primary text of the NT. It's a translation from the original Greek, and where Jesus' own words are concerned that's back into Aramaic - useful to appreciate the original poetic form, but you can't assume it's exactly what Jesus originally said. That's because every time a translation is made, the translator is faced with ambiguities and options. For example: if you translate a famous English book into French and then translate it back into English without knowing the original, the second English version won't be identical to the first. So if Jesus' words were translated into Greek for the benefit of Greek-speaking readers and then back from Greek into Aramaic, the overall sense will be the same but the exact wording will be two steps removed.

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

"Historical and biblical proof demonstrates a Sabbath resurrection. It is interesting that Sunday resurrection believers have to resort to non-biblical sources to prove a Sunday resurrection and not the Bible. 

Actually, YOU are the only one resorting to non-biblical sources.   I have only ever appealed to the Bible as the only source material I need.  Most of your posts have been non-biblical/extra-biblical articles trying to defend your false teaching.   Its' no different than your appeal other non-biblical sources in other threads, too.