"THE LORD'S DAY IS THE SABBATH DAY NOT SUNDAY ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES

[Subduction Zone]

I know it is popular to read the gospels and Acts, our main sources of information about Jesus and the early Church, and to assume they are a pack of lies and then to make up your own version of Jesus and what happened in the early Church, but I'm just a boring conservative and stick to what the Bible tells us about Jesus and the early Church.
I also go along with what Jesus said about His death, that He was giving His body and blood for our sins.

You have that backwards. When stories are unsupported, at least partially refuted, and often self contradictory there is no good reason to believe them. There is no need to assume that they are a "pack of lies". They may be merely totally wrong. People may have believed the stories that naturally evolved. That does not make them lies, though I grand that parts of them do look like lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are things which look like they contradict but do not and there are other things that probably do contradict. Most of it can be harmonised.

I would disagree. "Made to harmonize" is often just a way of lying. When one takes a bad situation and cannot admit that it is wrong one makes the religion weaker.

For example you do know that Luke's nativity is pure hokum I hope.

 

[blü 2]

show me your evidence and prove to me there is no God. Since no one else in the world has ever proven there is no God you might win a noble prize for your discovery if it is true.

I think the question "Does a real God exist" is drawn from the same hat as "Does a real qozmuphtomp exist?"

There's no definition of a real God such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.

There is no definition of a real qozmuphtomp such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was qozmuphtomp or not.

Of course if God ─ we can come back to qozmuphtomp later if you wish ─ is not real, then he, she, it or they exist only as concepts with no real counterpart, which is to say, as imaginary beings ─ as in fact appears to be the case.

And of course if you have a definition of a real God such that if we find a real suspect we can indeed determine whether it's God or not, then I'd be delighted to hear it.

Because as you'll have noticed, so far God has been defined only in terms of imaginary qualities ─ omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, infinite, eternal, and so on. We want a real God so we need real qualities instead..

 

[Brian2]

There are the letters of Paul, though they weren't known till the mid-2nd century. As I said, in toto they give us a bio of Jesus that fits in a couple of lines.

The first gospel written is Mark. It can be dated to the mid 70s CE by inter alia (a) Jesus' prediction of the sack of Jerusalem (Mark 13:2) which happens in 70 CE, and (b) the use of Josephus' Wars as template for the trial scene, a work not available till 75 CE.

Pauline letters were known and quoted a long time before the mid-2nd century.
Dating the New Testament - Early Church Fathers

You do realise that the internal evidence shows the synoptic gospels to have been written before 70AD I suppose, but when people make the presumption that the prophecy from Jesus about the Temple destruction is not true prophecy and must have been written after 70AD, that is the reason that modern dating is after 70AD.
Do I need to point out to you the circular reasoning in using post 70AD dating to determine the authenticity of the gospels?

But he's VERY lacking in interest about the real Jesus. For example he goes to Jerusalem to stay a fortnight with the leaders of the proto-Christians there, but it makes not the slightest difference ─ he continues to write nothing about the real Jesus.

As I pointed out, Paul had plenty of time in churches.
But why do you think that Paul should have been writing about the life of Jesus in his letters anyway?
Do teachers these days write about the life of Jesus? It indicates nothing about what they know about the life of Jesus or what Paul knew.

But even Paul says clearly that this is a personal mental phenomenon, not a real one.

Whaaaa?

Apologies ─ I sacrificed accuracy for brevity. What Paul and John have in common is that in each of their versions, Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, Jesus created the material universe, and Jesus' birth and childhood are ignored (except for the claim that Jesus was descended from David). This gives both of them a flavor of gnosticism, with Jesus pre-existing carrying out the gnostic role of the demiurge ('craftsman') by creating the universe.
In the synoptics we have two different versions ─ Mark's, the ordinary Jew baptized and adopted, and Matthew's and Luke's, the products of divine insemination of a virgin (which is all good fun at Christmas, but very silly as history, as the silence of Paul, Mark and John may suggest. And of the synoptics, Mark's Jesus is expressly not descended from David, while Matthew's and Luke's (absurdly, since Joseph is not their father and the purported genealogies back to David are individually not credible and just as bad are hopeless incompatible).

Jesus is a real man with a real body and who really died and rose bodily in John and in Paul. Nothing gnostic about that.
What are you talking about when you say Mark's Jesus is expressly not descended from David?
For a start, if the son of David title is not used in Mark it does not mean that Mark does not think Jesus was the Son of David, second the title is used. The Messiah is the Son of David and Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah. Also................
Mark 10:48, Mark 11:10.
And yes the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are different and the probably explanation is worked out as you know.

Not so. At Mark 1:10-11 Jesus becomes the son of God. No one including him thinks he's the son of God until that point. His family have never had the benefit of angelic messengers before he was born, since they think he's nuts (Mark 3:21). And at Acts 13:33 we get a further confirmation that Psalm 2:7 is the model for this event (since there, unlike in Mark, the additional words 'This day have I begotten thee' are included).

No, Jesus was already the Son of God and His Father identifies His as His Son at Mark 1:10-11. Your reasoning about what is written is the gospels is non existent it seems. You just seem to read a book about skeptic views of the gospels and accept them without thought.
Interestingly Psalm 2:7 is applied to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 13:33 and other places also I think) and by Paul who believes Jesus came from heaven. Interesting. It means that Jesus is the Son of God from before coming to earth and the resurrection is God declaring that fact.

 

[PruePhillip]

Your response here...

My response....

You responded with...

No it is the bibles take on things. Scripture has already been provided as can be seen in the discussion trail above. They are Gods' Words not mine. I still do not know how what you have posted here has anything to do with what I have posted above in the posts you are responding to.

OK, simply put Sunday became the new Sabbath to the foundation church. There was still a day of rest to the Gentiles, but it wasn't Saturday.

 

[3rdAngel]

OK, simply put Sunday became the new Sabbath to the foundation church. There was still a day of rest to the Gentiles, but it wasn't Saturday.

Sunday was never the Sabbath in the foundation Church. That did not happen for more than 300 years after the death of the Apostles and even then the Sabbath has always been kept by many of Gods Church all through time from Jesus and the Apostles after the death and resurrection of Jesus and after the persecution and death of the Apostles.

 

[3rdAngel]

Still ignoring the fact that they did not hear God.
Of course, you do realize that this whole tale is myth, don't you?

No you provided no facts. What is there to ignore?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Take some time and re-read the post you were quoting from because not only does it show from the scriptures alone that Revelation 1:10 is a reference to the Sabbath day but also that there is no scripture anywhere in the bible that says "the Lords day" is Sunday. Do yourself a favor and read and understand what was posted before responding so there is no misunderstandings and you understand why and what is being shared with you. There is no scripture linking Sunday to "the Lords day" but there are many showing Gods' ownership of the day in both old and new testament scripture is "the Sabbath day"

Take Care.

Sorry but none of the verses you quoted from the Tanakh say anything about the "Lord's Day" that Christians observe.

 

[3rdAngel]

I think the question "Does a real God exist" is drawn from the same hat as "Does a real qozmuphtomp exist?"

There's no definition of a real God such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.

There is no definition of a real qozmuphtomp such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was qozmuphtomp or not.

Of course if God ─ we can come back to qozmuphtomp later if you wish ─ is not real, then he, she, it or they exist only as concepts with no real counterpart, which is to say, as imaginary beings ─ as in fact appears to be the case.

And of course if you have a definition of a real God such that if we find a real suspect we can indeed determine whether it's God or not, then I'd be delighted to hear it.

Because as you'll have noticed, so far God has been defined only in terms of imaginary qualities ─ omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, infinite, eternal, and so on. We want a real God so we need real qualities instead..

I am not interested in playing build the paper tiger and tear it down. I never asked the question does a real God exist. I was an Atheist and God proved me wrong. So I know the arguments. I am challenging the claims of the member Subduction Zone that he has evidence that God does not exist. He made the claim so I asked him for the proof. All I have heard so far is silence with him asking me to prove his claim that he has evidence God does not exist.

 

[3rdAngel]

Sorry but none of the verses you quoted from the Tanakh say anything about the "Lord's Day" that Christians observe.

Oh sorry are you a Jew? If so you do not believe and read the New testament scriptures and are still awaiting your promised Messiah. The good news is He has already come in Jesus but that might be another OP. Perhaps this OP is not for you then. It is a new testament question in regards to the claim that "the Lords day" is Sunday. According to the scriptures it never has been. It has always been the Sabbath day. Sunday worship is a man-made teaching and tradition not found in the bible and most Christians (not all) know it.

 

[3rdAngel]

Were the gospel authors real Christians? They provide some quotable quotes that have fired up antisemitism throughout the ages.

Matthew 27:24So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves."25 And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"
​

I think the chances of that being historical are extremely small, and it's not in any other gospel, but there it is.

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ... 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
​

Both of those ─ and more ─ have given, and give, aid and comfort to antisemitists through the centuries. And just look at the Christian record for extortion, theft and murder against Jewish citizens.

There is nothing wrong with the scriptures you posted. What is wrong is people using scripture against the Spirit they were given. Christians are not to do this. Yet many professing Christians do. Keep in mind even the Devil used scripture to try and tempt Jesus away from following God and His Word (see Matthew 4:6). There has always been people abusing and twisting the scriptures for their own advantage to their own destruction according to *2 Peter 3:16 because they do not understand them. That does not mean that there is not a correct understanding of the scriptures and a right way to use them. Another words those who do wrong and claim the name of God will according to these same scriptures be judged all the harder by God come judgment day. There has always been professed Christians that are not Christians. Jesus calls them the tares in amongst the wheat or the goats in amongst the sheep and others call them wolves in sheep's clothing (see Matthew 13:24-43; Matthew 25:31-46; Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29). That does not mean God does not have his true followers and believers in His sheep and wheat

Take Care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you provided no facts. What is there to ignore?

That is true. I proved no facts since I quoted the Bible. I am so glad that we can agree on that, but since we were describing a fictional event I thought that we were playing by the rules of fan fiction.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sunday was never the Sabbath in the foundation Church. That did not happen for more than 300 years after the death of the Apostles and even then the Sabbath has always been kept by many of Gods Church all through time from Jesus and the Apostles after the death and resurrection of Jesus and after the persecution and death of the Apostles.

Yes you can read in Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians how Sunday was the day of worship and rest for the Foundation Church.
It wasn't the Sabbath of course, but it was the new day of worship and rest for these people. With time the Gentiles in the Roman Empire came to observe this as as a day off.
And it stands to reason. No day was more special than the day they believed Jesus rose from the grave.
And Jesus did not meet these people in the temple, or a synagogue on Saturday, he met with his people as they GATHERED on the Sunday in their homes.
This is a statement about both temple worship and Sabbath observance.

 

[blü 2]

Pauline letters were known and quoted a long time before the mid-2nd century.
Dating the New Testament - Early Church Fathers

You do realise that the internal evidence shows the synoptic gospels to have been written before 70AD I suppose, but when people make the presumption that the prophecy from Jesus about the Temple destruction is not true prophecy and must have been written after 70AD, that is the reason that modern dating is after 70AD.

Of course it's written after the event. There is no true prophecy, no such thing as supernatural foreknowledge in reality. Of course, an authenticated example of supernatural foreknowledge would change that, not just for Christianity but for all religions, but until we get one, non-acceptance of the reality f magic remains a staple of historical method.

Do I need to point out to you the circular reasoning in using post 70AD dating to determine the authenticity of the gospels?

I've just told you why it's a valid way to date things. And of course the use of Josephus' trial scene from Wars as a template is further confirmation of a date of writing in the mid-70s or later.

But why do you think that Paul should have been writing about the life of Jesus in his letters anyway?

I think its importance lies in underlining how little he actually knew about an historical Jesus ─ and it's been said before that he didn't particularly care anyway.

Do teachers these days write about the life of Jesus?

Which Jesus? Paul's, or those of the respective authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?

Whaaaa?

I gave you the quote from Galatians. It says exactly that.

Jesus is a real man with a real body and who really died and rose bodily in John and in Paul. Nothing gnostic about that.

The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John, unlike the synoptic Jesuses, pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe, just as the demiurge does in gnosticism. And although there's mention of Jesus as mediator between man and God in (I think) all gospels, the author of John gives it particular emphasis (John 17 and other mentions), which is consistent with the gnostic concept of God been pure spirit and incredibly remote from the material world.

What are you talking about when you say Mark's Jesus is expressly not descended from David?

I mean Mark 12:35-37.

No, Jesus was already the Son of God and His Father identifies His as His Son at Mark 1:10-11. Your reasoning about what is written is the gospels is non existent it seems. You just seem to read a book about skeptic views of the gospels and accept them without thought.

Jesus is no more already the son of God in Mark than David was already the son of God in Psalm 2:7, the model for Mark's Jesus ─ Mark 1:9-11, and stated even more clearly in Acts 13:33. I may also have mentioned before that when his family hear he's in strife with the religious establishment, they think he's nuts, not that he's God's son (Mark 3:21) ─ meaning there were no supernatural portents to his mother or family beforehand.

I read the books of the bible as I'd read any other ancient document, analytically. The trouble with your synthetic approach is that by trying to reconcile the five versions of Jesus, you end up with a sixth version incompatible with the other five. (This problem is general, but never more blatantly obvious than in trying to reconcile the six NT accounts of the resurrection.)

 

[3rdAngel]

That is true. I proved no facts since I quoted the Bible. I am so glad that we can agree on that, but since we were describing a fictional event I thought that we were playing by the rules of fan fiction.

You quoted the bible out of context and applied an interpretation to it while ignoring the immediate scripture context that disagreed with your interpretation. Then when provided the scripture contexts that were in disagreement with you then you ignored those also because they disagreed with you. Sorry I do not see any further point to our discussions. You are free to believe as you wish. I believe the scriptures teach that we will all answer to God come judgment day in John 12:47-48; 2 Corinthians 5:10. At that time though I believe the scriptures teach it will be too late for the many that were called but chose not to believe and follow what Gods' Word says.

 

[3rdAngel]

Yes you can read in Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians how Sunday was the day of worship and rest for the Foundation Church.
It wasn't the Sabbath of course, but it was the new day of worship and rest for these people. With time the Gentiles in the Roman Empire came to observe this as as a day off.
And it stands to reason. No day was more special than the day they believed Jesus rose from the grave.
And Jesus did not meet these people in the temple, or a synagogue on Saturday, he met with his people as they GATHERED on the Sunday in their homes.
This is a statement about both temple worship and Sabbath observance.

Actually Acts 20:6-7 or 1 Corinthians say no where that Sunday replaces Gods' 4th commandment seventh day Sabbath as a day of worship and rest from work.

According to the scriptures in Acts 2:46-47 it says 46, And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47, Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

So according to the scriptures Gods' people met together everyday of the week to worship God and also met together to keep the Sabbath according to Gods' 4th commandment (see Acts of the Apostles 13:14; 13:27; 13:44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4; Revelation 1:10)

According to the scriptures in Acts 20:6-7 it is written 6, And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to them to Troas in five days; where we stayed seven days. 7, And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The reason why the disciples were meeting together was because Paul was leaving them the very next morning. It was a going away meal. "the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart on the morrow" (Act 20:7). The scripture says no where that Sunday was a new day of worship. It was just another day the disciples were meeting together like they did every other day of the week (Acts 2:45-47). The reason why they were meeting in Acts 20:7 is told in the scripture. It was because Paul was leaving them and they were having a farewell meal together.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You quoted the bible out of context and applied an interpretation to it while ignoring the scripture context that disagreed with your interpretation. Then when provided the scripture contexts that were in disagreement with you then you ignored those also because they disagreed with you. Sorry I do not see any further point to our discussions. You are free to believe as you wish. We will all answer to God come judgment day according to the scriptures in John 12:47-48; 2 Corinthians 5:10. At that time though I believe the scriptures teach it will be too late for the many that were called but chose not to believe and follow what Gods' Word says.

As did you. I quoted the part that you missed.

And I don't think that you understand the concept of context.

Lastly preaching is not allowed here. Your beliefs are as silly as those that believes in Leprechauns. Threatening others with him only makes them laugh. Of course that raise the question of why do you believe in an apparent immoral God.

 

[3rdAngel]

As did you. I quoted the part that you missed.
And I don't think that you understand the concept of context. Lastly preaching is not allowed here. Your beliefs are as silly as those that believes in Leprechauns. Threatening others with him only makes them laugh. Of course that raise the question of why do you believe in an apparent immoral God.

I understand the context that is why I provided the context that was in disagreement to what you was posting earlier. Here perhaps this might help. Show me what you think I quoted out of context to our discussion. Lets be honest and talk facts and detail.

 

[3rdAngel]

As did you. I quoted the part that you missed.
And I don't think that you understand the concept of context. Lastly preaching is not allowed here. Your beliefs are as silly as those that believes in Leprechauns. Threatening others with him only makes them laugh. Of course that raise the question of why do you believe in an apparent immoral God.

I was not preaching I was quoting scripture that was in disagreement with you and no you posted no scripture that was in disagreement with me. If you believe you did please post me a link. Here perhaps this might help. Show me what you think I quoted out of context to our discussion. I did not quote out of context I provided the context to the scriptures you provided that were in disagreement with you. Lets be honest and talk facts and detail. I am not interested in personal attacks as a distraction to telling the truth, so you can do that by yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here perhaps this might help. Show me what you think I quoted out of context to our discussion. Lets be honest and talk facts and detail.

I made it clear in the post the you complained about being out of context.

At any rate I do not think that this is going anywhere. Even if we accept your argument the Commandments in Exodus 34 are totally different ones and the ones that would have been in the Ark of the Covenant.