Friday, August 13, 2010

Commandment: Do Not Bear False Witness

I know... I know that Adventists are sincere. 

They do not mean to bear false witness against their neighbor. But they do it all the time. Their entire sect is based upon the idea that it is wrong to worship on Sunday and that Constantine changed the Sabbath to Sunday...

NONE of this is true. Christians have always, since the day of Resurrection worshipped on Sunday.

Jesus rose on Sunday. (Matt. 28: 1; Mark 16:2, 9; John 20:1)

That evening, He appeared to His disciples who were behind a locked door and consecrated them for His service. SUNDAY.

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. John 20: 19-22.

A week later (John 20:26) the disciples were again together worshipping and Jesus appeared to them. SUNDAY.

Pentecost was on a Sunday, which many point to as the beginning of the Christian church.

The New Testament records they attended worship services on Sunday. (Acts 20: 7; I Cor. 16: 2.)

The Lord's Day (Gk, kyriake hemera) was a common phrase for Sunday. This was used by John in Revelation. (I have heard Adventists say this was a reference, not to Sunday but to the final day of Judgment. However, the common phrase for that was hemera tou kyriou, never kyriake hermera).

There are also references in first and early second century Christian writings that affirm Christians worshipped on Sunday.

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles or Didache 14, "But on the Lord's Day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure." This is a reference to the Acts two breaking of the bread on the first day.
110 A.D., St. Ignatius of Antioch (letter to the Magnesians) "If, then, those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s life . . ."

The mid-second century, Gospel of Peter, (even though the work was not written by Peter and was not included in the canon, it is a historical document) records the early church worshipping on Sunday.

There is also the writings of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in his letter to the Romans (2nd. century) "Today we have kept the Lord's holy day" The Lord's holy day being the same words as used for Sunday.

Another second century document, Acts of Peter, calls The Lord's Day (Dies Domini) "the next day after the Sabbath."

Justin Martyr wrote of the Lord's Day, Sunday, as fulfilling the eighth day symbolism in scripture. (2nd century).

There was a clear distinction by the second century between The Lord's Day and Sabbath. They WERE NOT the same day, nor was Sunday considered a "sabbath." From the beginning Christians celebrated Sunday as a memorial of the resurrection. In fact they worshipped every day of the week. Constantine never changed Saturday worship into Sunday worship because the early church had ALWAYS worshipped on Sunday (and Saturday--that is how we get our weekend!). Constantine merely signed a law of tolerance so it would be legal for the Christians to do what they had ALWAYS done--worship on Sunday.
It is a terrible false witness to teach that Christians who worship on Sunday are breaking the commandments and that Christians never worshipped on Sunday until Constantine. It is a terrible false witness against your neighbor to teach that one day those who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the Beast. No Biblical texts come close to saying that.
I know I am getting redundant here, but it bears repeating to Adventists:
The Apostles worshipped on Sunday! (Actually every day!) If you believe the Apostles got it wrong, then you have to dismiss all the New Testament as false. Please note this: THE APOSTLES WORSHIPPED on SUNDAY! It's okay to worship God on Sunday. It's okay to worship God any day of the week.
Adventists, we beseech you as our brothers and sisters in Christ to repent of this terrible lie repeated generation after generation. You teach that the Ten Commandments are God's law for today, well using your own standard, one of these eternal laws is DON'T BEAR FALSE WITNESS! Please, for the sake of your own souls, please cease misrepresenting scripture and misrepresenting history, stop the slander against your neighbor.


Eric Richter said...

Actually, Adventists do not bear false witness. There are biblical and historical arguments for what we say.
Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, nobody questions that. But after the resurrection there wasn’t any especial meeting on Sunday.
On John 20:19-22. We need to know the context:
“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:19)
Disciples weren’t worshiping God or keeping Sunday. Actually, they were hidden for fear.

On John 20:26. There was another reason for Jesus apparition.
At the first apparition of Jesus (John 20:19-22) Thomas, the “doubting disciple”, wasn’t there (John 20:24). Thomas did not believe what his fellows tell him about Jesus resurrection, so Christ decided to show up before him to convince him. The following Sunday, Thomas was with the rest of disciples:
“And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:26)
That was the only reason for Jesus apparition: Thomas’ presence.
We must to believe that Jesus’ disciples weren’t gathered only on Sunday. The Bible says that they were afraid of the Jews, and they couldn’t be afraid only one day at the week, isn’t it?

On Acts 20:7 Again we need to know the context.
Paul was travelling around Minor Asia and spend one week in Troas (Acts 20:6). Imaging this: If the Pope Francis (who is one of the mines, Argentinean!) will come to your town for one week, Do you think that He will make just one meeting? Of course not! Well, Paul was a famous preacher at his time, and is very improbable that he would have spend one week in a city doing only one religious meeting. Besides, early Christians used to gather together every day (Acts 2:42), so Paul must have had seven meetings with Troas’ Christians. The main reason for Sunday meeting mention is the miracle which happened there.
Besides, this meeting was a goodbye party for Paul, who was to depart at the next day (Act. 20:7). They did not celebrate the Eucharist, like some scholars have believed. The phrase “to break bread” is always used in Acts book for fraternal meals, not the Lord’s Supper (Acts. 2:42; 20:11; 27:35).

On 1 Corinthians 16:2 Well, this is the easiest to refute.
“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store (thesaurizo), as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” (KJV)
The same language of this verse impedes to talk about a Sunday meeting. The phrase παρ’ ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω means “to book with himself”, that is, by his own, not in group meetings. This translation is supported even by Catholics. For example:
“On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, A jesuitical Bible version)


PD: Again I apologize for any mistake that I could make. English is not mi native language

Eric Richter said...

Well, the topic of the “Lord’s Day (kuriake hemera)” in Revelation is quite complex because John didn’t say us about which day he was talking about and it doesn’y appear again into the biblical text. Nevertheless, we have two tracks to follow: the historical context of worship days and the words he used.
(I assume that both of us rejected the interpretation of “Lord’s Day” as the final Day of Judgment)
Historical context.
Revelation was written for John the Apostle about 96 AD, although catholic scholars give it a early date. . For Pliny the younger we now that Christians from that time used to gather together in a fixed day (Letter 86 from Pliny the younger to Emperor Trajan, 111 AD). Ignatius of Antioch commands to his parishioners to keep the Sabbath day following the example of Jesus Christ (Epistle to the Magnesians, chap. 9, 105 AD). So we can say that the Christians of that time used to watch the Saturday and not the Sunday. Besides, there’s not any evidence of Sunday keeping in the first century and John never call the Sunday as “Lord’s Day” in his Gospel but as “first day of the week” (John 20:1, 19). It’s necessary to know that the Gospel of John was composed AFTER the Revelation (as it’s acknowledged by many scholars) so the idea that John called the Sunday as “Lord’s Day” in Revelation and then called it with a so common denomination as “first day” have no sense.

So the historical evidence supports the Sabbath as the Lord’s Day.

Lexica and Grammatik
Although the word “kurike” does not appear again in the Bible, a related word “kuriaken” appears in 1 Corinthians 11:20. That verse refers to the Lord’s Supper, that is, the supper that [b]belongs to[/b] the Lord.
In the whole Bible there is just one day that belongs to God: “the sabbath… my holy day” (Isaiah 58:13). In Mark 2:28 Jesus said that He is “the Lord of the Sabbath” (kuriou tou sabbaton). These words are in a genitive case, which implicates belonging, property or possession. Of course, God owns the seven days of the week, but just one of them belongs to Him in different and especial manner.
Although you search and search harder, you’ll never find a only verse that affirm the Sunday as the especial day of God. But there many biblical verses that say the Sabbath is the holy day of our God.

We can conclude that the historical and biblical evidence shows the Sabbat is the Lord’s Day in Revelation.

You have said that are reference of early Sunday keeping. But the most of these references are fake.
Let see the Didache. The text says as follow:
“But every Lord's day (kata kuriaken de kuriou) gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” (Didache, chap. 14)
The greek text (kata kuriaken de kuriou) means “the Lord’s of the Lord”. The word “hemera” (day) does not appear. Thus, we can see that this is not a reference of Sunday at all. The word “hemera” is added arbitrarily without any grammatical or contextual support.
The right word that should to appear is deipnon, which means “supper”, because the whole chapter is talking about the Lord’s Supper. The context supports deipnon instead of hemera,

Eric Richter said...

Ignatius of Antioch is one of my favorites. His famous quote is not a evidence of Sunday observance but of Sabath instead!
All we have to do is read the context:
“Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.
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 and by His death—whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.”
(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Magnesians, chap. 9, Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, page 63)

As we can see, Ignatius is talking of the “divine prophets”, who lived “in the ancient order of things”, that is, the Old Testament prophets. He said that the jews prophets “have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day,” This is ridiculous! All of us know that the Hebrew prophets kept the Sabbath, there is abundant biblical evidence of it.
This weird contradiction is easily explained. The true greek text of the Epistle to the Magnesians says: “uhketi sabbatizontes alla kata kuriaken zontes”, which literally means “no longer sabbatizing but living according the Lord’s”. The word “hemera” does not appear.
All Latin manuscript of Ignatius’s writings said “secundum dominicam viventes” (according the Lord’s). The Codex Mediceus Laurentius, the oldest one which contain the Epistles of Ignatius, said in this polemical passage: “kaka kuriaken zoen zontes” (according of the Lord’s life).
The plain truth is that most editors (Sunday keepers, by the way) inserts the word “day” into the text, contradicting the context and the logic.
The real passage says that the Christian should keep the Sabbath imitating the example of the old prophets, that is, not following human traditions but God instructions. There’s not any Sunday-Sabbath controversy in here, but both different ways to keep the Sabbath day

I have a question: Why do the Sunday advocates need to interpolate these texts? Is it because there no evidence of Sunday observance in early Christianity?

The rest of your references about early Sunday observance are not convincing.
The Gospel of Peter
This book is apocryphal (do I need to explain what does means?), and was written about the last half of the second century. This Gospel, which is also Gnostic (do I need to explain what does means? Is the first reference of the Sunday as the Lord’s day.
What did the early Christians think about this book?

Eric Richter said...

Serapion, the bishop of Antioch (about 190 to 211 AD), wrote:
“For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself. But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name, we as experienced persons reject…” (The Ante-nicene Fathers, volume VIII, page 775)

Serapion was an orthodox Christian and bishop and contemporary with the gospel of Peter. He said that they rejected this book and called “heresy”.

Dionysius bishop of Corinth
He never say about which day is talking about, bu is language is quite similar to Revelation 1:10. As I’ve shown, this verse speaks about Sabbath.

Acts of Peter
About this book, which is apocryphal and Gnostic, Eusebius, one of the most important ecclesiastical historian, wrote:
“The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.” (The Church History, book 3, chap. 3)
Is it necessary to say something else? I think it is.
“The Acts of Peter, containing an account of his life and martyrdom. These, however, are spurious and historically quite worthless.” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series II, volume I, page 322)

Justin Martyr
He have made just one reference to Sunday observance. But this passage is quite suspicious. An adventist scholar has made an excellent research to prove that this statement about Sunday keeping is an interpolation.
Here is the link:
I guess that you gonna read it before answer.

Well, as we have seen, there’s not any authentic reference to Sunday observance in the first or second century. Some of these so-called references are no more than interpolations, the rest of them are works of gnostic heretics. One of this references actually is an argument for the Sabbath keeping (Ignatius).

Blessing. I wish that God open your ind and destroy your pride.

PD: I apologyze for any mistake that I have could made. As I've said, english is not my native language.

Teresa Beem said...


Thank you for taking the time to send such a lengthy answer, especially since it is not your first language. Being a former SDA I have heard all these arguments against "The Lord's Day" being Sunday and the other arguments that you have presented.

This is the dilemma. Adventists interpret these texts differently than any other Christian church since the beginning. God would not have withheld the Sabbath from His people for 18 centuries if it was important. If you choose to interpret all the scriptural and historical texts to fit SDA theology, I don't know what to write to convince you for you are already convinced. There is overwhelming evidence that from the first century all Christians worshipped on Sunday. Not all can be easily refuted.

I wrote another piece on the beliefs and practices of the early church. I will try and find it for you. But what we do know is that St. Paul tells us that it is up the individual to decide to keep a day holy or not and that we are not to judge each other on our Sabbaths. Christians have no problem with Adventists keeping Sabbath. Please do! You have that freedom in Christ.

But there is no evidence at all, anywhere in scripture or history, in which the early church specifically were told not to worship on any day. In fact, Christians worshipped daily as did Israel in the Temple. There is no day that it is wrong to worship.

We can certainly have discussions about whether resting on Sabbath was an early Christian belief and if resting on Sabbath is clearly commanded by Jesus in scripture. I think that is where the conversation should begin. But the Bible is so very clear that His people worship Him daily (either at the Temple, Tabernacle and in the New Testament in church or an assembly.)

To teach otherwise is to willfully remain in error. I am not saying this to you personally Eric, but to the SDA denomination. I am sure you are a very dedicated Christian. God bless.

Teresa Beem said...

Hee is the first part. Look through the posts near it for more on the subject.

God bless!

Eric Richter said...


Adventist interpretation obviously will be different from other Christian churches, because the most of them keep the Sunday. Off course, all the churches pretend to give biblical support to their doctrines and practices, even if those are unbiblical. So we should not surprise if those religions attempt to interpret some biblical verses for their own convenience although historical, grammatical and contextual evidence expose them as false.
I’ve said the majority of religions keep the Sunday, but is the majority always right? The Bible itself shows us that the “different ones” used to be right most the time!
It’s true that the adventist interpretations could be “different”, but: Does “different” mean wrong? Off course not!. “Different” means just “different”. And the Scriptures say that “different” pleases the Lord:
“For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession.” (Deuteronoy. 14:2)

“Then Haman said to King Xerxes, “There is a certain people dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom who keep themselves separate. Their customs are different from those of all other people, and they do not obey the king’s laws; it is not in the king’s best interest to tolerate them.” (Esther 3:8)
Bible is clear: God’s people must to be different from other peoples.

My challenge to you is this: Do not reject adventist interpretation because it is different, but because it is erroneous! Off course, You must to prove that it is wrong.

Eric Richter said...

Did God withhold the Sabbath for 18 centuries?

Historical evidence is quite clear about it. Ignatius of Antioch commands his parishioners to keep the Sabbath according Jesus’ Life. (First Century). Christian Tradition unanimously says that Ignatius was a orthodox bishop appointed in his place by Apostle John himself. So, he is a trusted source about early christians practice.
The first Sunday worship mentions began on Alexandria at the end or second century and beginning of the third. Alexandria, by the way, was the mother of many gnostic doctrines, called by the “Mother Church” as “heresies”.
It’s a shame that the Catholics cannot see the true origin of some of their manners.

The Sabbath observance and Sunday keeping coexist for many centuries, although Seven Day remained as the most observed day.
Saint John Chrysostom, whom the Catholic Church have named as “Doctor of the church”, said:
“There are many among us (the christians) now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly or rather ignobly and basely” (Comment on Galatians 1:7 in Commentary on Galatians. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series I, vol. XIII, p. 8)
That was written in the fourth century!

The historian Socrates Scholasticus wrote around fifth century:
“Nor is there less variation in regard to religious assemblies. For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.” (Ecclesiatical History, book 5 chap. 22. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series II, volume II, p. 132)

Sozomen, a lawyer and historian contemporaneous to Socrates, wrote:
“The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria” (Ecclesiasticas History, book 7, chap. 19. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, series II, volume II, p. 390).

So, we have evidence for Sabbath observance into the first five centuries of Christianity.

The Sabbath remains as the Rest Day for centuries. In the seventh century the pope Gregory I attacked some citizens of Rome (!) who were observing the seven day. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series II, Vol. XIII, p. 13)

Historical evidence shows that the Sabbath observance remained in Scotland, Ireland, Abyssinia, Persia, China, India, Armenia, Bulgaria, the Alps, and others places during the Middle Age. Seems that only the faraway places from Rome remained keeping the seven day of the week. Coincident?

At the end of the Middle Age some religious movement appeared. The Waldensians, Anabaptists and others spread the Sabbath keeping for Germany, France, Italy, Britain and, finally, the New World.

History proves that the Sabbath wasn’t hidden or keeps abandoned. God never withheld the Sabbath from us, but preserved along the history.

Eric Richter said...

You said “There is overwhelming evidence that from the first century all Christians worshipped on Sunday” I want to see that so-called evidence or I’ll believe that you were lying me.

The text of Romans 14 is so misinterpret! You readly can see that Paul never mentions the words: “Sabbat” or “seven day”, that’s because Paul wasn’t talking about that. He just mentions that there were some days considered especial for some people. These days are related with the food.
Didache mentions that there were christians that fasted according to the manners of the Jews, also in the same days. (Chap. VIII).
If Paul was talking about the Sabbath keeping, why did He was so ambiguous and unspecific?
In a matter of fact, there is not any command, not from Paul or the Apostles, to do not keep the Sabbath and worship every day.
Let me clarify, they worshipped God every day, and we must to do the same, isn’t it? But there’s no evidence from Scripture that we should to keep every day as holy. After all, why God did not want anymore a one day especially dedicated to Him?

God bless you!

PD: I’ll read the link you sent me and will answer in there.

Teresa Beem said...

Eric R wrote:
Do not reject adventist interpretation because it is different, but because it is erroneous! Off course, You must to prove that it is wrong.

My response:

Of course! We must reject theology on the basis that it is wrong. And I can assure you that I have.

There are several problems with your above statements. First, who gets to decide what interpretation is wrong? Does God give us all the knowledge and wisdom to know what interpretation of scripture is the one He meant? For to say Biblical interpretation is obvious is to really undermine Adventism. For Adventists rely on Ellen White to have a vision to explain what no Christian ever got from scripture. So that means scripture's interpretation cannot be obvious to the average reader or scholar for no other group ever got anything like what Ellen and her friends found in the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is not divided in His counseling. He would not bring one person to an understanding of scripture and then bring another person to another opposite interpretation. So what you are going to have to explain is how the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from all men of goodwill for 18 centuries so that a wrong interpretation could flourish among all God's people. This is a true problem for Christ promised that He would NEVER leave nor forsake His people. In fact that was the last thing He promised before going to Heaven, "I will be with you always, even to the end of the world." So if God was with Christians all those centuries, did He deliberately cause them to celebrate The Lord's Day on Sunday? If He did, then they couldn't have been wrong. Adventists are quite wrong when they say God left His church and abandon His Bride. He was indeed and still is with His Church.

Also many Adventists wish those of us who left the church to satisfy to their personal expectations the reason we left. I can only give you my sincere, honest story, but I am not trying to convince you of anything. I cannot prove anything to anyone who doesn't wish to be convinced. So, I don't expect to prove anything to you. The most I expect is respectful dialogue and that usually happens. Indeed it is with you and I thank you for that.

If you would like a more exhaustive explanation of the theology that causes many people to leave Adventism, my husband and I wrote a book that is available at and it is called, "It's Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist." In it you will find all the theological reasons why we left Adventism based upon scripture alone. God bless you Eric and have a blessed day.

Teresa Beem said...


All Christian scholars (other than SDA) Schaff, Mosheim, Eusebius... the list is endless.... all agree that from the first century onward, Christians observed The Lord's Day on Sunday. This is irrefutable. Please show me one shred of historical evidence that Christians did not observe the Lord's Day. These quotes are not simply the first century, but they show that the practice was widespread from early on. What I was referring to is historical scholarship from the beginning. Not just contemporary evidence but universal acceptance of all scholars about the first century.

The Didache

"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 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" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] 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 and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).


"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).

The Didascalia

"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).

Teresa Beem said...


"Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection" (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229]).


"The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished" (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things" (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 312]).

"[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality" (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).


"The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord’s day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord’s day as being the memorial of the new creation" (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has henceforth ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean" (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).

Council of Laodicea

"Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord’s day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians" (Canon 29 [A.D. 360]).

Teresa Beem said...

John Chrysostom

"[W]hen he [God] said, ‘You shall not kill’ . . . he did not add, ‘because murder is a wicked thing.’ The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath— ‘On the seventh day you shall do no work’—he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? ‘Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make’ [Ex. 20:10-11]. . . . For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: ‘You shall not kill. . . . You shall not commit adultery. . . . You shall not steal.’ On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition" (Homilies on the Statutes 12:9 [A.D. 387]).

"You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul’s words, that the observance of the law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews?" (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).

"The rite of circumcision was venerable in the Jews’ account, forasmuch as the law itself gave way thereto, and the Sabbath was less esteemed than circumcision. For that circumcision might be performed, the Sabbath was broken; but that the Sabbath might be kept, circumcision was never broken; and mark, I pray, the dispensation of God. This is found to be even more solemn than the Sabbath, as not being omitted at certain times. When then it is done away, much more is the Sabbath" (Homilies on Philippians 10 [A.D. 402]).
The Apostolic Constitutions

"And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food" (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).


Teresa Beem said...

"Well, now, I should like to be told what there is in these ten commandments, except the observance of the Sabbath, which ought not to be kept by a Christian. . . . Which of these commandments would anyone say that the Christian ought not to keep? It is possible to contend that it is not the law which was written on those two tables that the apostle [Paul] describes as ‘the letter that kills’ [2 Cor. 3:6], but the law of circumcision and the other sacred rites which are now abolished" (The Spirit and the Letter 24 [A.D. 412]).

Pope Gregory I

"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, ‘You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day’ [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: ‘If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing’ [Gal. 5:2]" (Letters 13:1 [A.D. 597]).

Teresa Beem said...

There were also non-Christian contemporary (first and second century) writings establishing that Christians observed the day of the resurrection.

But the best proof is scripture itself. Acts 2:46 states that the Apostles worshipped daily at the temple and broke bread at individual homes. You can't get more direct than that. The worshipped daily.

You should look around my blog I have lots of posts on this subject.

Blessings to you Eric.

Eric Richter said...

This is my answers to your questions:

“First, who gets to decide what interpretation is wrong?”
Jesus said “I am the Truth” (John 14:6). Christ, who is infallible and never gets wrong, also said praying to His Father: “Thy Word is truth”
The Bible itself can show us what is wrong and what is right. But is not so easy, we need a sincere spirit of devotion to God, and study the Bible following the lead of the Spirit of God. Many theological errors come from to read just a portion of the Bible and not to read the whole Bible.

Does God give us all the knowledge and wisdom to know what interpretation of scripture is the one He meant?
Off course!
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:4)
But God gives us something more:
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth;” (John 14:16-17)
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you”
(John 16:13-15)
If we want to understand God’s word, we will need the Spirit of Truth. Jesus Christ said that when he’ll rise to heaven, the divine Comforter would be sent to them for fulfill the “empty room” that Jesus leaves.
The Holy Spirit will be the appointed successor of Christ when He returns to Heaven. Only the Spirit of God can lead us to the Truth, because He gives us the knowledge that comes from God.
We cannot trust into man for get the Truth (it doesn’t matter who could be that man or woman). Ellen G. White is not infallible, but a fallible human be who received messages from the infallible God. As many others prophets along the Bible’s history, hers writings are inspired but not canonical.

Eric Richter said...

The Holy Spirit can enlighten people with the divine Will, but we always are free to accept or reject the influence of the Divine Spirit. We must not surprise that for centuries many prestigious theologian reject the Truth. Didn’t the Israelites abandon God although they knew the Truth? Scripture recorded that only a few keep their fidelity.
Why does that cannot happen again? Even the Apostle Paul said:
“Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.” (Romans 11:20-21)
It’s also written:
“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;” (John 8:31)

The early Christians kept the Sabbath, as the historical evidence shows us. Then, in the following centuries, accept a pagan practice into Christianity, rejecting the lead of the Holy Spirit. God did not forget His people, but some of them forgot God’s will. Jesus Christ was, is, and will be forever with those who keep the commandment of God and have His testimony.

I’ve see about your book. Sadly I have no way to purchase it, although I want to. All I have to know you and your reasons to leave the Adventist is your blog.

Eric Richter said...

Schaff, Mosheim and Eusebius were Sunday keepers. Their opinions are important because they’re scholar, but not decisive because they’re subjective. Historical evidence, as I have shown you, determines that early christians did not keep the Sunday, but Sabbath instead. And this evidence is irrefutable, or at least that is what I think, because you did not refute it.
The main argument against the early Sunday keeping is that there’s not any apostolic or biblical command to watch the Sunday, or historical evidence what shows early Christians keeping the first day of the week. My answer to the so-called evidence for early Sunday keeping is this:

The Didache:
I’ve answered this before. This is not more than a interpolation of modern translator (who are Sunday keepers, off course).

The Letter of Barnabas
The date of this epistle is not certain. The date you have supplied (74 AD) is not supported by the historical evidence. Philip Schaff, like many modern scholar, has dated this epistle in the beginnings of the second century (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. I, p. 135).
This epistle appears to have written in Alexandria. In the beginning of the third century Clement of Alexandria and Origin (both from Alexandria) acknowledged this letter as inspired and canonical, but Ireneus of Lyon, who was contemporary with them, did not know this epistle at all. Eusebius, the reputed historian, wrote:
“Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas.” (Church History, book III, chap. XXV)
Historical evidence shows that the epistle of Barnabas was only known and accepted in Alexandria and surrounding places. Most of Christians rejected it as a spurious writing. I personally believe that any person who reads the eleven chapter of the Epistle of Barnabas will get convinced of its lack of serious doctrinal teachings.
Barnabas believed that the seven days of the week represented the six thousand years of human history:
“Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished” (Epistle of Barnabas, chap. XV)
The world will last six thousand years, afterwards Jesu Christ will return to the earth and destroy the evil:
“And He rested on the seventh day.” This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day” (Epistle of Barnabas, chap. XV)
Th eight day is not the Sunday, but the symbol of the eternity in the New Earth:
“Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (Epistle of Barnabas, chap. XV)
Barnabas never said that the eight day is the Sunday. This is an arbitrary interpretation which is used for Sunday advocate. For Barnabas, the first day of the week represented the first one thousand years of human history. The eight day is not a part of the week because does not represent one thousand year, but the whole eternity in paradise. Actually, the eight day is the Sunday’s resurrection of the Easter (jew Passover). This day is celebrated with joyfulness because Jesus rose from the dead, contrasting with the sadness of the Good Friday.

Eric Richter said...

Ignatius of Antioch
I’ve already answered this. Ignatius -who was a bishop appointed by the apostles themselves- was a advocator of Sabbath keeping, not Sunday. He is the proof that early Christians remain keeping the Sabbath, as Jesus did.

Justin Martyr.
His so-called statement of Sunday worship is a forged interpolation. I’ve shown you a research that proves it.

Tertullian believed that the Sabbath was not valid for Christians any longer. But the Sabbath was not replaced by the Sunday, but the “eternal sabbath”. Tertullian believed, like Justin Martyr, that making good deeds you keep the “eternal Sabbath”.
Well, the quote you showed me do not prove that Tetullian supported Sunday keeping.

The Didascalia
I have said that the first references to sunday keeping come from the beginning of the third century. Didascalia is the proof that some christians began to observe the Sunday at the first half of the third century.

Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory Magno and Cyril of Jerusalem.
These evidences of Sunday keeping come from the four, fifth and sixth century, not from first or second. I accept that many Christians of those times kept the Sunday, but I don’t accept that early christians did.

Council of Laodicea
Canon 16 said:
“The Gospels along with other scriptures be read on the Sabbath”
Canon 49 said:
“During Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord’s Day only.”
Canon 51 said:
“The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and Lord’s days.”
This is a proof of the coexistence of the Sabbath and Sunday in the fourth century.

You wrote:
There were also non-Christian contemporary (first and second century) writings establishing that Christians observed the day of the resurrection.
I’m excited to know these writings.

Acts 2:46 states:
“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,”
As you can read by yourself, there’s nothing about worship there. Early Christians gathered together daily, but do not observer every day nor rejected the Sabbath.