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

[Subduction Zone]

I have compared Matthew and Luke and see that they can be harmonised (correct spelling) in relation to the birth of Jesus.
Matthew has Jesus birth some time before the death of Herod in 4BC.

They can't be. Luke clearly has it ten years later.

 

[3rdAngel]

So you mentioned, but a fact is an accurate statement about a real state of affairs, and "real", in my book, means existing in the world external to the self, nature.

The truth of the matter is no one knows all the facts in life. Just like me taking a bite of an apple and asking you what it tastes like. You can never know because you have never experienced it. Take a bite of the apple and you will know what it tastes like.

Where no gods may be found, since if they were, you could show them to me. But these are all personal mental events, not real events. I'm not arguing that they're not meaningful to you. I'm simply arguing they don't exist in the world external to you, or you could show them to me. No, neither Paul nor the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John thought Jesus was God. In each case their particular Jesus specifically denies he's God, and never claims to be God. (I can set out some quotes for you if you wish.) It's true that the Jesuses of Paul and John pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe, but Jesus' status was that of a divine being such as an angel in those cases.

Ever heard of the saying "You can lead a thirsty horse to water but you cannot make it drink it? The horse has to first choose to drink the water offered it before its thirst can be quenched. As posted earlier in the proverb, "There is he that has has an experience and no explanation is necessary and there is he that has not had the experience and no explanation is possible." Just like me taking a bite of that apple and asking you what it tastes like. Just because I cannot see gravity, cosmic radiation, the earths magnetic field, the wind, electricity, sound waves, emotions etc) does not mean these things are not real. How can you prove that God does not exist in the world external to you? You cannot prove this but I see now see God in all of His creation which is external to us and through my many answered prayers in my personal life. These my friend are all real events. How can you say to me that neither Paul of the authors of Matthew Mark Luke and John thought Jesus was not God when I just posted scripture to you with them claiming Jesus was God? Perhaps you did not read the scriptures already shared with you from previous posts. (e.g. John 1:1-4; 14; John 5:18; Matthew 1:23; from Isaiah 9:6; Titus 2:13; Mark 1:24; Acts 10:41; 2 Corinthians 1:21; John 10:30; John 8:58; John 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 1:8; 1 Peter 1:1). I am not sure now if you are reading my posts. I believe you are quite wrong here.

Although there was pressure from quite early on (but after the gospels were written) to elevate the central figure of Christianity to god status, no model acceptable to the various Christian factions was found till the 4th century, when the Trinity doctrine took flight. Unfortunately for common sense, that doctrine, by the Churches' own admission, is "a mystery in the strict sense" in that "it cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed" ─ their words, not mine ─ which is a fair description of a nonsense, no?

Sorry I do not know what your talking about here. What I posted earlier was scripture from the bible from the authors you claimed did not believe Jesus was God when they clearly did.

That can't be right. They hadn't read the Vedas or the early Buddhist writings ─ though they knew a little of Greek philosophy / theology, since like the Jews they borrowed ideas from it ─ so they can't be said to have made an informed decision. Nor is anything but personal opinion involved at any point.

I was talking about the gospel writers and the Apostles and their view of Jesus being God as well as my personal experience not finding God or peace in those other religions you mentioned in your earlier post. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was referring to here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The truth of the matter is no one knows all the facts in life. Just like me taking a bite of an apple and asking you what it tastes like. You can never know because you have never experienced it. Take a bite of the apple and you will know what it tastes like.

Ever heard of the saying "You can lead a thirsty horse to water but you cannot make it drink it? The horse has to first choose to drink the water offered it before its thirst can be quenched. As posted earlier in the proverb, "There is he that has has an experience and no explanation is necessary and there is he that has not had the experience and no explanation is possible." Just like me taking a bite of that apple and asking you what it tastes like. Just because I cannot see gravity, cosmic radiation, the earths magnetic field, the wind, electricity, sound waves, emotions etc) does not mean these things are not real. How can you prove that God does not exist in the world external to you? You cannot prove this but I see now see God in all of His creation which is external to us and through my many answered prayers in my personal life. These my friend are all real events. How can you say to me that neither Paul of the authors of Matthew Mark Luke and John thought Jesus was not God when I just posted scripture to you with them claiming Jesus was God? Perhaps you did not read the scriptures already shared with you from previous posts. (e.g. John 1:1-4; 14; John 5:18; Matthew 1:23; from Isaiah 9:6; Titus 2:13; Mark 1:24; Acts 10:41; 2 Corinthians 1:21; John 10:30; John 8:58; John 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 1:8; 1 Peter 1:1). I am not sure now if you are reading my posts. I believe you are quite wrong here.

Sorry I do not know what your talking about here. What I posted earlier was scripture from the bible from the authors you claimed did not believe Jesus was God when they clearly did.

I was talking about the gospel writers and the Apostles and their view of Jesus being God as well as my personal experience not finding God or peace in those other religions you mentioned in your earlier post. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was referring to here.

One quick note. The burden of proof is upon the person making a.positive affirmation. The burden of proof is upon those people that say a God exists.

 

[3rdAngel]

One quick note. The burden of proof is upon the person making a.positive affirmation. The burden of proof is upon those people that say a God exists.

Actually yes and no, it is the same for someone making a claim that God does not exist, The burden of proof is on them to prove that claim. In science we call this positive and negative hypothesis that we seek to prove or disprove through experimentation. However, there is no experimental design that can be made that can prove or disprove God's existence so God cannot be proven or dis proven through science

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually no, if you or anyone else makes the claim God does not exist then the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim.

Who has claimed that? And that doesn't change the fact that you still have a burden of proof.


EDIT: I see that you realized part of your error.

 

[3rdAngel]

Who has claimed that? And that doesn't change the fact that you still have a burden of proof.
EDIT: I see that you realized part of your error.

You did in our previous discussions. I made no error, I simply changed what I posted before I saw what you posted so there would be no misunderstanding. I did not see your post until after I finished my edits. Your error is in thinking if you make a negative claim the burden of proof is not on you to prove that claim. It is in science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I made no error, I simply changed what I posted before I saw what you posted so there would be no misunderstanding. I did not see your post until after I finished my edits. Your error is in thinking if you make a negative claim the burden is not on you to prove that claim. It is in science.

You made the same error.

And you have no excuse since you dodged my question.

 

[3rdAngel]

You made the same error. And you have no excuse since you dodged my question.

As posted earlier, I made no error, I simply changed what I posted before I saw what you posted so there would be no misunderstanding. I did not see your post until after I finished my edits. Your error is in thinking if you make a negative claim the burden of proof is not on you to prove that claim. It is in science. I did not dodge any questions. What question are you referring to?

 

[Soapy]

Weird questions. Just own up to your error. You tried to claim that a person that understood his own language better than you do that he was wrong

In America we tried to "fix" the English language at one point. It did not take long to realize that we could not do so. "ough" alone is a huge problem. But as a result we dropped some of the superfluous "u"s changed the endings of some words from "re" to "er". Made much more liberal use of the letter "z", and a few other "corrections". Yet I still see you using a "u" in savior. There is no real reason to have it in the US. You are probably just copying your KJV Bible.

I was so tempted to "correct" your spelling of "saviour". after that post of yours. <and Google is trying to get me to change it too>

I openly admit that I was wrong. I’m usually ultra careful about my spulling so it’s a shock to me to see me making such an error. I feel all my life I’ve spelt ‘Practice’ as I did just then. I knew there was a difference between verb and noun in this regard and in all honesty on my part ‘Practise’ just looked so wrong:

• “Have you got football practice, today?”
• “I always do it that way, it’s my practice”
• “I’m practicing for my music exam”

I hadn’t even noticed that I put in my phone: ‘xxxx Medical Practice’ for my doctor otherwise I’d have checked out why the/my spelling is the same.

‘Practise’, to me, looks ugly! It’s a quirk in my head!

I don’t quibble about ‘Saviour’ and ‘Savior’ since I know that there are many Americans on this site. And if I copy text I don’t worry about correcting it to British English.

I posted my claims and source of such to show that if I had even checked it out I would still have found myriad examples in my favour… but yet the actual was against!

But here is a call to righteous arms. Admit your errors - no one is perfect. Perhaps Satan is tempting me to try to slide - nah! If I do that over small things what would I do for greater ones.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Here we have all the evidence pointing to an early date for the writing of the gospels and you want an authenticated example of supernatural foreknowledge.
It's a good trick that skeptics use to "prove" that the story of Jesus is not authentic however, since He fulfilled so many prophecies and so the story must have been made up to fit them.

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.

I'm not familiar with the trial scene you mention.

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.

So you presume that Paul should have written a lot about Jesus life if he knew and you presume that he did not care. (and you presume the supernatural is not real and so the gospels were written after 70AD and by people who knew nothing of Jesus.) This is a lot of presumptions, no evidence, just presumptions.

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

So you are referring to Paul saying that the gospel he got was by revelation from God. That does not make it any less real however unless you bring in you "presumptions" about God and the supernatural again.
Actually the reality of the gospel that Paul got is seen in the fact that he says he did go to Jerusalem to verify that what he was preaching was correct and got the thumbs up. (Galatians 2:1-10)

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.

Why do you say that John's God is remote from the material world and from us. John says that the Father and the Son will come and dwell with those who love Jesus and keep His commands. (John 14:23)
Why do you say that the synoptics do not say also that Jesus was sent from heaven?
See Mark 9:37, 12:6-8, Luke 10:16, 7:18-23, 12:49-51, 19:10,
Jesus was recognised by demons Matt 8:28-34, Mark 1:24.
Jesus said that He came. Mark 1:38, 2:17, 10:45.
Matthews identifying Jesus as God with us (Emmanuel) and as the Son of God also show that the synoptics along with John show Jesus to be pre existent in heaven.

I mean Mark 12:35-37.

That does not say that Jesus was not descended from the Messiah, that just is something said to bamboozle the Jewish teachers and to show that He, the Messiah is greater than David.
The Messiah (as Jesus is identified in Mark) is the son of David. If Jesus is identified as Messiah then He is identified as son of David.

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.)

The Son of God in Psalm 2 is the Son of God who inherits and rules the nations, it is the Messiah even though applied to David initially probably. So you are admitting that Jesus is the Son of God in Mark and we already know He was identified as such at His baptism.
When Peter in Mark says that Jesus is the Christ we can see that He means that He is the Son of God (Ps 2) and Matthew in the same incident has Peter saying that, that He is the Son of the living God.
Yes Psalm 2 is applied to Jesus resurrection not Baptism at Acts 13:33.
Mary, Jesus mother had kept the things about Jesus in her heart (or so the gospels tells us) that does not mean that she told all the family about them or that the family knew what Mary knew. They no doubt saw Jesus's father as actually being Joseph.
The accounts of the resurrection only differ in details and a lot of this is able to be reconciled, and some say it is all able to be reconciled. (But I did not realise there were 6 accounts of the resurrection.

 

[blü 2]

The truth of the matter is no one knows all the facts in life.

But it's possible to know a few facts. Unless of course you're looking for something that doesn't exist in reality, only as an idea in a mind, in which case you're no longer in the realm of facts.

he that has has an experience and no explanation is necessary and [...] he that has not had the experience and no explanation is possible."

If the experience is purely mental, then that defines the experience ─ it's not in that realm of facts.

And it's clear there's no objective test that will tell me ─ or anyone else ─ whether any particular passage in a sacred writing or elsewhere, is god-breathed or not. All such claims are simply opinions. Again, facts aren't involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As posted earlier, I made no error, I simply changed what I posted before I saw what you posted so there would be no misunderstanding. I did not see your post until after I finished my edits. Your error is in thinking if you make a negative claim the burden of proof is not on you to prove that claim. It is in science. I did not dodge any questions. What question are you referring to?

Yes you did. Denying your error does not help you. In fact you repeated it again.
I would suggest that you go back and try to answer the question that I asked of you.

I asked you who was making negative claims. You never answered that. You also have a false accusation in this post of yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I openly admit that I was wrong. I’m usually ultra careful about my spulling so it’s a shock to me to see me making such an error. I feel all my life I’ve spelt ‘Practice’ as I did just then. I knew there was a difference between verb and noun in this regard and in all honesty on my part ‘Practise’ just looked so wrong:

• “Have you got football practice, today?”
• “I always do it that way, it’s my practice”
• “I’m practicing for my music exam”

I hadn’t even noticed that I put in my phone: ‘xxxx Medical Practice’ for my doctor otherwise I’d have checked out why the/my spelling is the same.

‘Practise’, to me, looks ugly! It’s a quirk in my head!

I don’t quibble about ‘Saviour’ and ‘Savior’ since I know that there are many Americans on this site. And if I copy text I don’t worry about correcting it to British English.

I posted my claims and source of such to show that if I had even checked it out I would still have found myriad examples in my favour… but yet the actual was against!

But here is a call to righteous arms. Admit your errors - no one is perfect. Perhaps Satan is tempting me to try to slide - nah! If I do that over small things what would I do for greater ones.

English is a messed up language. There are reasons for the spelling variations. The problem is that they are not always good reasons so sometimes a word will just look wrong.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

Absolutely. You will notice these people RESPECTED THE TEMPLE AND THE LAW OF MOSES. Until there was no more temple and no more Sabbath. In fact ALL religious observances were banned in the Roman empire after this for a long time - Sabbath, Yom Kippur etc. - all banned.
And this is another reason why Christians treated the first day of the week as their Sabbath - not just the practices of the Apostles.

And 'first day of the week' was clearly significant and symbolic to these people. We don't know what the fellowship meals were about, but there had a special day otherwise no day was special. And Sunday was that day. We aren't told it was a 'day of rest' but that would have come about when the Romans banned Sabbath rest - and Christians were just another Jewish group.

 

[blü 2]

Here we have all the evidence pointing to an early date for the writing of the gospels and you want an authenticated example of supernatural foreknowledge.

Yes. Without that, the category "real prophecy" doesn't exist ─ or more accurately, continues not to exist.

He fulfilled so many prophecies and so the story must have been made up to fit them.

Exactly so ─ and never more ludicrously than in Matthew eg

The author of Matthew requires Mary to have been a virgin because the LXX in translating Isaiah 7:14 rendered Hebrew 'almah, young woman, as parthenos, virgin;

He invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to “fulfill” Micah 5:2

He invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to “fulfill” Hosea 11.1.

He absurdly sits Jesus across a foal and a donkey to ride into Jerusalem "to fulfill prophecy" (Matthew 21:2-5) in Zechariah 9.9;

I'm not familiar with the trial scene you mention.

The trial of Jesus before Pilate. >This link< may make things clearer. (I'm not a Carrier fan, but he's summarizing work by protestant theologian Ted Weeden jr.)

So you presume that Paul should have written a lot about Jesus life if he knew and you presume that he did not care.

As I said, if it's true he spent a week or two with the leaders of the proto-Christian church in Jerusalem, including "the brother of the Lord", there's nothing in his subsequent writing to suggest he learnt any more about the earthly life of Jesus than he knew before. So either he didn't bother to enquire because he wasn't interested, or he was told but never mentioned it because he wasn't interested ─ that seems a fair hypothesis to me.

and you presume the supernatural is not real

I don't presume it, I know it from its definition. If it were real ─ found in the world external to the self ─ then it would be one of the areas of study within the physical sciences. But it isn't. All we need to alter that is a satisfactory demonstration of an authentic real supernatural event, so I invite you to do so, since I can be persuaded by satisfactory evidence. Until then, I continue to rule out magic as an element of reality.

so the gospels were written after 70AD

I don't presume that Mark was written after 70 CE, I conclude it from the evidence I mentioned.

and by people who knew nothing of Jesus.

Neither Paul, nor any of the authors of the gospels, ever claims to have met an historical Jesus; and nothing suggests any did.

This is a lot of presumptions, no evidence, just presumptions.

I've outlined the evidence. If you don't want to look at the evidence, I can't make you.

So you are referring to Paul saying that the gospel he got was by revelation from God.

That is, it was a purely internal mental event, according to Paul. It had no input from reality, the world external to the self. It was not based on facts that Paul personally observed. It was a vision, from the same mental stable as the dream and the hallucination.

Why do you say that John's God is remote from the material world and from us. John says that the Father and the Son will come and dwell with those who love Jesus and keep His commands. (John 14:23)

Good point. What remains is that you can't get to God ─ "no man has seen God" ─ without Jesus.

Why do you say that the synoptics do not say also that Jesus was sent from heaven?

Mark's Jesus is God's envoy, but he didn't pre-exist in heaven. Neither Mark 9:37 nor Mark 12:6-8 says any different.

Luke 10:16

Sent him by creating him by divine insemination.

Luke 7:18-23

That Luke's Jesus is 'he who is to come' doesn't suggest he has to pre-exist in heaven.

Luke 2:49-51

Nothing there says Jesus pre-existed in heaven.

Luke 19:10

Yes, created by divine insemination again.

Jesus said that he came/

As God's envoy. Nowhere is there a statement that he pre-existed.

Matthews identifying Jesus as God with us (Emmanuel) and as the Son of God also show that the synoptics along with John show Jesus to be pre existent in heaven.

But that's to do with Isaiah 7:14. It says nothing about Jesus having pre-existed in heaven,

That does not say that Jesus was not descended from the Messiah, that just is something said to bamboozle the Jewish teachers and to show that He, the Messiah is greater than David.
The Messiah (as Jesus is identified in Mark) is the son of David. If Jesus is identified as Messiah then He is identified as son of David.[/qutoe] No, the whole point of the passage is that Jesus isn't so descended. The Jesuses of Paul and John are descended from David though we're never told how. In Matthew and Luke it's claimed that Jesus is descended from David, but the claim is absurd, since the (incompatible, plainly fake) genealogies end with Joseph, who is expressly and out loud NOT Jesus' father.

And so on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to “fulfill” Micah 5:2

That was an error in Luke's version. He even made it clear which census it was. But that was a mistake since we know when the census of Quirinius was. Luke had Jesus born ten years later than Matthew did.

And for those trying to defend that as a "second census" the answer is "No". Before then Judea was still it's own country. It was a client state of Rome. Meaning that it was given the ability to rule itself. They were buffers between Rome and potential enemies. It was not until Herod's son failed that Rome stepped in and took over. Since they made Judea part of Rome they needed to start to tax it. So they had to do a census of its citizens.

That was the Census of Quirinius. Oh, and the mistake of " all of Rome was to be taxed" is more evidence of a later authorship of Luke. The first census of all of Rome was in 74 CE.

 

[Soapy]

English is a messed up language. There are reasons for the spelling variations. The problem is that they are not always good reasons so sometimes a word will just look wrong.

Just this morning a day time discussion program (programme) was discussing a newspaper report about reducing the complexity of English words:

• ‘Blue’ should become ‘Bloo’
• The county of ‘Leicestershire’ should just be spelt ‘Lestershire’
  
• ‘Wickham’ should just be ‘Wikum’

It’s all about ‘dumbing down’ language. There has always been change and English is the worst language for stability. YET English is the most acceptable and world widely spoken by popularity (not by population, I know!).

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

SUNDAY WORSHIP IS NOT THE LORD'S DAY

The term "the Lord's day" was used by some in the early Church as a reference to Sunday worship in celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. It comes from a scripture in the bible found in Revelation 1

• REVELATION 1:10 10, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet

The Greek words used for the day that JOHN was in the Spirit of is the for Lord's day are

• REVELATION 1:10 εγενομην εν πνευματι εν τη κυριακη ημερα και ηκουσα οπισω μου φωνην μεγαλην ως σαλπιγγος

The word "κυριακη" (translit. "kuriake") is an Adjective - Dative - Singular - Feminine. This means it is being used as a 'possessive' as ownership or belonging to ("of", see 1 Corinthians 11:20, "the Lord's supper"), which means the "day" in context belongs to "the Lord". It is literally "the Lord's (belonging to) day". This means, that the "day" in context is uniquely "the Lord's" out of all the 7 days of the week, for the day under consideration is that which exists within the week, as a day which repeats weekly. This is extremely important, as those who incorrectly assume it to mean "the first [day] of the week" in lieu of Jesus' resurrection, cannot get a weekly occurrence out of a one-time event, in fulfillment of typology of the Firstfruit/Wavesheaf in Leviticus 23:9-14, as made known in 1 Corinthians 15:20,23

The problem here however is that there is not a single scripture that references Sunday or the first day of the week (bible names for the days of the week) to being "the Lords day" in scripture.

According to the scripture "the Lords day" however can be referenced to "the Sabbath day" of Gods' 4th commandment found in Exodus 20:8-11.

Letting the scriptures answer this question

• WHAT DAY IS THE LORD'S DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?

• MATTHEW 12:8 FOR THE SON OF MAN IS LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY

This then promotes a bit of a dilemma for the Church as there is not a single scripture in all of the bible that days "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is Sunday. Yet there is many scriptures referencing "the Lords day" or Gods' specific claims to ownership of any particular day to the Sabbath day that he blessed and set aside as a holy day of rest for a memorial of creation (see Genesis 2:1-3) and made one of Gods' 10 commandments (Exodus 20:8-11).

God's "ownership" of the Sabbath day or "Lord's day is also repeated elsewhere as "MY" (ownership of the day as in the Greek used in REVELATION 1:10 κυριακη). Other scriptures in the bible pointing to "the Lords day" as being the Sabbath day...

• MATTHEW 12:8 FOR THE SON OF MAN IS LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY. (the Sabbath day is Lord's day)

• ISAIAH 58:13-14 [13], If you turn away your foot from the SABBATH, from doing your pleasure on MY HOLY DAY (God's claim to ownership of the Sabbath day); and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words: [14], Then shall you delight yourself in the LORD; and I will cause you to ride on the high places of the earth, and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken it.

• LEVITICUS 19:30 You shall keep MY SABBATHS, (God's claim to ownership of the Sabbath day)and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

• EZEKIEL 20:12 Moreover also I gave them MY SABBATHS, (God's claim to ownership of the Sabbath day) to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ used in Revelations 1:10 is in reference to the Lord's ownership of the day. It does not say that this day is in reference to μιά των σαββάτων which means the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.

............................

Your challenge here in this OP is to prove from the scriptures alone that the Lord's DAY is in reference to the First day of the week. If you cannot all you have is a teaching and tradition of men that is not supported in the scriptures. There is not a single scripture in all the bible that refers to Sunday as being "the Lords day".

May God bless you as you seek Him through His Word.

I’d say that Spanish (Latin) speaking people know the sabbath to refer to Saturdays.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just this morning a day time discussion program (programme) was discussing a newspaper report about reducing the complexity of English words:

• ‘Blue’ should become ‘Bloo’
• The county of ‘Leicestershire’ should just be spelt ‘Lestershire’
  
• ‘Wickham’ should just be ‘Wikum’

It’s all about ‘dumbing down’ language. There has always been change and English is the worst language for stability. YET English is the most acceptable and world widely spoken by popularity (not by population, I know!).

In India it became the lingua franca. Not due to England forcing it upon everyone, but because there are so many dialects of Hindu that there were two many to learn to communicate all across the country. Instead of having to learn countless dialects to talk to other Indians they only had to learn one language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’d say that Spanish (Latin) speaking people know the sabbath to refer to Saturdays.

Humbly
Hermit

Perhaps. Sabado literally translates to English as Sabbath day. But people do not always understand the etymology of their own language.

 

[3rdAngel]

I’d say that Spanish (Latin) speaking people know the sabbath to refer to Saturdays.
Humbly Hermit

Thanks HP good point and something I pointed out earlier in the discussion. You might find this interesting...

Most countries of the world know about the Sabbath of Gods 4th commandment

God bless