Saturday or Sunday?

[TheMatrixHasU71]

15 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Every bible translated from 300 AD onward, yes, mistranslated

Then you are calling God incompetent and the Scriptures a lie. Dont mean to sound harsh here but there is no better way to put it. God is perfectly capable of inspiring men to accurately translate scripture. And it is a logistical impossibility for Christ to rise on a Saturday, when He died only the day before, mid afternoon, and the scripture is clear that He rose on the THIRD DAY. 

You are no expert in Greek and neither am I. But to deny the truth is a slap to every single (Sunday believing) theologian and translator with decades of experience in the language in the past 2000 years.

 

I have already explained as well in my first pot how a Saturday resurrection is taken directly from paganism

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by TheMatrixHasU71

[George]

Let's be sure to discuss this as mature believers and keep it clean -- we're trying to edify one another.    There were a few posts in this thread reported -- and very borderline ... but I don't want to shut down a conversation.  Please make our jobs easy.    If there's an issue -- don't take it on the thread with an insult -- but report the post in question! 

[OneLight]

7 hours ago, inchrist said:

14 hours ago, OneLight said:

Has everyone considered this?

Romans 14:1-13

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.  For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.  Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.  Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.  He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.  For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.  For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.  For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.  But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.  For it is written:

“As I live, says the Lord,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.  Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.

I did, it has actually nothing to with the sabbath at all.

The whole chapter is about food and how some in the congregation had certain beliefs that incorporated fasting days   Paul corrected both sides on their views on the subject of fasting days

The passage starts out indicating how we should receive one who is weak in faith, and then goes on to give examples.  One is what people eat, "but he who is weak eats only vegetables."  Those who are not weak should not despise those who are.

Then it speaks of the days one esteems to the Lord. "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike."  Let me say it another way.  One person worships on one day above another (Sabbath vs Sunday).  There are those who seem they are required to esteem Saturday for worship, while there are others who esteem every day alike.  We should not despise each other, nor dispute with each other, over doubtful things. 

It does cover this discussion as esteem is to hold in higher regard.

[angels4u]

1 hour ago, inchrist said:

Youve turned this into legalism now.

Its got nothing to do with heaven or hell

But has everything to do with love.

If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; 

If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; 

but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God 

A wife who loves her husband would never ask if I do this or dont do this will you divorce me. It would never be a question of her doing it to stay married to him.

Its all about pleasing God....pure love = obedience

If a wife persisted in rebelling against her husband and she never wanted to please him, and she never wanted to celebrate their anniversary when he asked her to, wouldnt that lead to a breakdown of the marriage?

True love never has an agenda,but if you state things like...... When a Christian who chooses not to keep the Sabbath day dies, where does that Christian spend eternity ..... Then you not displaying true love, you displaying a legalistic agenda.

Quote

True love never has an agenda,but if you state things like...... When a Christian who chooses not to keep the Sabbath day dies, where does that Christian spend eternity ..... Then you not displaying true love, you displaying a legalistic agenda.

This makes me wonder if you believe everybody will go to heaven?

[angels4u]

26 minutes ago, inchrist said:

How would you determine that when im not even talking about salvation?

 

Quote

True love never has an agenda,but if you state things like...... When a Christian who chooses not to keep the Sabbath day dies, where does that Christian spend eternity ..... Then you not displaying true love, you displaying a legalistic agenda.

Some people believe that all people go to heaven because God is love?

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, inchrist said:

You refusing to accept the answer, this has nothing to do with heaven and hell, you are simply asking the wrong question with a legalistic agenda, instead of asking what are you going to do to show God you love him?

No, you are siding with those who say Sabbath day observance is REQUIRED.  You never made about a "love" issue until you are questioned about what happens to the person who doesn't comply with what you say is REQUIRED.

You are evading the question because:

1.  You know the kind of resistance you will get on the boards if you actually possessed the courage and integrity to answer the question honestly and truthfully.

2.  You would be exposed for being a false teacher

3. You cannot prove that the Sabbath is required, so you try to take your legalism and project it on to me.  The truth is that you're the one promoting legalism by arguing that the Sabbath is required.

[Guest shiloh357]

10 minutes ago, inchrist said:

Of cause its required, it was appointd by God himself, no where in the NT has it been discontinued. You havnt provided a single shred of evidence

 And simply because its a required commandment, does not mean that it is a salvation issue. It is a sanctification issue. You can learn to be set apart or you can make it very hard for me to tell the differemce between you and a nonbeliver

 

So what is the eternal consequence of a Christian who does not keep the Sabbath day if it is required?

Quote

No I just saw through you.

No, you didn't.

 

Quote

I would be exposed as a false teacher if I stated salvation is a requirement of the law.....but in case you havnt noticed NO ONE who supported the commandment to obey the sabbath on this forum has stated it is a salvation issue....It is YOU who is are creating the legalistic agenda. 

You are a false teacher because you reject the deity of Jesus.   But you are also wrong in that there are those on this very thread namely the SDAs who affirm that it is a salvation issue.

[Justin Adams]

19 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Why do you use a Greek word εβδομάδα that does NOT exists in any original text of the New Testament? I don't judge you. I'm giving you facts you choose to ignore those facts in lieu of tradition, just like the fallen Jews. It's so odd you choose to use "Sabbath" and "Saturday" as if they're different words, but they mean the exact same day. There is no such thing as a Sunday Sabbath.

Read the article posted as a link below. You will see that NO ONE changed the Sabbath to a 'sun-day' Lord's Day.
Even though people would have you believe that, it just is not true.

The people who trust in the Fathers as their authority for departing from God's commandment, are miserably deceived as to what the Fathers teach.

1. The Fathers are so far from testifying that the apostles told them Christ changed the Sabbath, that not even one of them ever alludes to such a change.

2. No one of them ever calls the first day the Christian Sabbath, nor, indeed, ever calls it a Sabbath of any kind.

3. They never represent it as a day on which ordinary labor was sinful; nor do they represent the observance of Sunday as an act of obedience to the fourth commandment.

4. The modern doctrine of the change of the Sabbath was therefore absolutely unknown in the first centuries of the Christian church.²

But though no statement asserting the change of the Sabbath can be produced from the writings of the Fathers of the first three hundred years, it is claimed that their testimony furnishes decisive proof that the first day of the week is the Lord's day of Revelation 1:10. The Biblical argument that this term refers to the seventh day and no other, because that day alone is in the Holy Scriptures claimed by the Father and the Son as belonging in a peculiar sense to each, is given in chapter eleven, and is absolutely decisive. But this is set aside without answer, and the claim of the first day to this honorable distinction is substantiated out of the Fathers as follows:—

The source: pay close attention to what was meant by the '8th day': an allusion to circumcision only and not the first day of the week. So many poor translations have given us errors of epic proportions.
[http://sabbath.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BOOK/k/955/Sunday-Lords-Day-Not-Traceable-to-Apostles.htm

[When Is Jesus Coming?]

3 hours ago, Giller said:

Personally I would rather go with the bible, and in truth even though Pentecost does fall on the 1rst day of the week , after the 7th sabbath, it does not always fall say on day 6, or 7 and so forth of the month, because every year is different, and the Jewish calendar of the bible had 30 day months.

You ever notice that God does not put a day of the month to Pentecost and firstfruits, why?

Because they do not always fall on the same day, each year, do the calculations and you will see, even calculate for the next 3 years if you want.

It is men that make it say that it has to fall on a certain of the month each year.

So you believe the current 7 day rolling week goes all the way back to Adam, yet you have no proof of this. Lets look at one simple fact and see how you explain this:

Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and the like - all the way up to today have been using a continuous 7 day cycle (so you believe). 

Now we use a calendar that is called the Gregorian calendar that is a slightly amended version of the Julian calendar that was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46BC: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar

Now when this new calendar was created it was for the express reason that there were hundreds of calendars and methods for calculating time across the Roman Empire and Julius want to standardise them so that arranging meetings and making plans with the various leaders and people groups in the empire would be much easier. 

Now up to then the Romans were using a calendar with and 8 day rolling week:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar

Only the Romans were using this 8 day week calendar in the province of Rome within Italy, only! Now remember the Israelites had been using there own 7 day week calendar for 100's of years before the Romans ever existed. So how did the two weeks get to match up perfectly? Do you think the Roman's thought they would use the Jewish timing of their weekly cycle? Do you think they thought they would use this obscure religious sects timing, a group of people who lived over a 1000 miles away. Who, by-the-way, were one of the most (if not the most) troublesome groups within the Empire? No of course not, they didn't even give them the time of day (excuse the pun-analogy).

Instead the mathematician Sosigenes who Julius Caesar employed to create the new calendar simply removed one of the 8 days (Market day) from the old Roman calendar just as history records, so the chances of the current 7 day week matching the Jewish week is only a 1 in 7 chance. 

 

[Justin Adams]

16 hours ago, Abdicate said:

And all of you are fixated on the Sabbath being a commandment. It existed long before the Law was created. And Jesus didn't do away with the Law, He fulfilled it. My issue is not to keep the Sabbath or not, Paul says every day is the same. My issue is the FACT the Catholics changed the resurrection from Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday. All the dictionaries and translations (other than Young's Literal) perpetuated the lie. Think about this. Americans say "ok" and it's used around the world. Someone declares "ok" to mean "no" instead of "yes/acknowledgement." That's what the Catholics did to Sabbath in Greek. That's my issue. That change made certain information null and void about the resurrection. It changed the dynamics of our relationship with the Jews. It's also one of the main reasons they REJECT Jesus because WE tell them their beloved Sabbath is done away even though it was institutionalized by God Himself since Creation! This is a major issue because it changes the truth into a lie. The Sabbath was long before the Law was put to pen.

Good stuff. Thanks. Also, do you actually know who penned your bible?
There were so many changes made to the bible, that now a group is collating all this and will soon have a searchable database. There are literally thousands of manuscripts with slight changes, or obviously added verses. Yes, in the 'canon' as well. Check out the 'variants'.

Source [http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html]

Here are a few comments.

Their research is of particular interest to evangelical Christians who, because they regard the Bible as the sole authority on matters of faith, want to distinguish the earliest possible texts and carefully evaluate subsequent changes.

The first phase of the researchers’ work is done. They have documented thousands of creeping changes, down to an extraneous Greek letter, across hundreds of early manuscripts from the 2nd through 15th centuries, said Bill Warren, the New Testament scholar who leads the project at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

After 10 years of work and the interruption of Hurricane Katrina, the seminary’s Center for New Testament Textual Studies has logged those changes, amounting to 17,000 pages of highly technical notes, all in Greek, into a searchable Internet database for use by Scripture scholars worldwide.

Now Warren and about nine colleagues at the research center have launched into a more accessible project for serious amateurs unfamiliar with ancient Greek. They’re taking the most substantive of those text changes, verse by verse, and cataloguing in English how and when each appeared, with the center’s own analysis of the historic and theological motives behind the changes.

Those with more than a passing familiarity with the New Testament know its 27 books and letters were not first published exactly as they appear today.

Mistakes crept in

The earliest works — some of Paul’s Epistles — date to about the middle of the first century. Like the Gospels that followed, they were written by hand, and successors were copied by hand. Mistakes occasionally crept in.

Moreover, with Christianity in its infancy and the earliest Christians still trying to clarify the full meaning of Jesus, his mission and his stories, the texts themselves sometimes changed from generation to generation, said Warren.

As archeologists and historians in later years uncovered more early manuscripts, each one hand-copied from some predecessor, they could see occasional additions or subtractions from a phrase, a verse or a story.

The changes are called “variants.”

Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.

But others are more important. They meant something.

For example, the famous tale in John’s Gospel in which Jesus challenges a mob about to stone a woman accused of adultery — “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” — is a variant that copyists began inserting into John at least 300 years after that Gospel first appeared.

In the conclusion to Mark, the description of Jesus appearing to various disciples after his resurrection does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.

And in Luke, the crucified Jesus’ plea that his executioners be forgiven “for they know not what they are doing” likewise does not appear in the earliest versions of his Gospel.

What’s at work here, Warren said, is that even after the 4th century church definitively settled on the books it accepted as divinely inspired accounts of the Christian vision, some of the texts within those books were still subject to slight changes — and some had already seen changes since being first published.

A true story

Warren said the story of the adulterous woman in John’s Gospel, for example, seems to be an account of an actual event preserved and treasured by the Christian community.

“People know it, and they like it,” he said. “It’s about a forgiveness that many times is needed in the church. Can you be forgiven on major sins?”

John had not included it, but Christians wanted to shoehorn it in somewhere, Warren said.

Warren said the story wanders across several early John manuscripts, appearing in a variety of places.

It even shows up in two early copies of Luke.

“But probably it was never part of John’s Gospel, in the original form,” he said.

By the 7th century, it had found its current home. It appears today in John 7:53-8:11.

Another change appears in Mark 9:29, when Jesus tells his disciples some demons can be driven out “only by prayer.”

Warren said 3rd century manuscripts added “and fasting” — probably as Christians’ own commentary on the power of that spiritual discipline, which was then becoming standard Christian practice.

In those and other cases, early Christian copiers are probably hoping to clarify a teaching or story for Christian audiences.

In effect, early copiers were taking what modern readers would recognize as study notes and slipping them into the texts, a process that began to tail off around the 9th century, Warren said.