Elle, a thinking person once asked me "Why do you waste your time on this forum with close-minded Adventists who insist on twisting scripture to suit their view?"

I see --
The Roman Catholic Church is right. Even in outlawing Sabbath observance?? And instituting Sunday? (to bring peace in the land) WOW??
To obey God's commandments, His moral law, is "Judaizing".
And the Gnostic Pseudo Barnabas (not Paul's companion at all) is a valid source of what the early church believed.

Well -- you've shown where you stand -- and I DO NOT AGREE!!!!! Indeed it makes me very sad. But it does confirm prophecy -- what has been will be again, and the last crises will be upon us.

Yes, there were GNOSTIC Christians in the second century -- but their writings were NOT what the "early church" as a whole believed. They were a real "thorn" in the church.
They were the "allegorizers" and great at "changing the meaning of words" and thinking they had reached beyond the "childish" understanding of scripture.

And yes, -- gnostic ideas are coming back ==
It is not a good thing.

And yes, by the 3rd century the Sunday movement had adopted the phrase "Lord's Day", but that is absolutely no proof that it had that meaning in the first century -- it didn't.




IF I am wrong and you are right -- it really makes no difference in the end -- as in your opinion all are saved no matter, so it really doesn't matter what one believes.

BUT if I am right and you are wrong, I can only feel very, very sad for you, and pray for you.



In many ways this is not really an Adventist friendly forum anymore, so won't be spending as much time here anymore. So you won't have any pesky Adventist trying to share their convictions and what is plain to them in scripture.

BUT Remember --
Today is the day of salvation.
It is in this life when we choose WHOM we will serve.

Jesus is our Savior -- and He is calling TODAY.

How is that relevant to the 4th commandment which categorically states, "... six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD, your God"?

You are like a man who, wanting to have sex with a woman not his wife, cites Roe vs. Wade in defence: "a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment [is to be] extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion ...", claiming THAT right to privacy for his clandestine affair.

It's clever for sure; but truth has a way of shining through the bitter consequences of acts justified by tangential reasons and wrong arguments. Won't it be best for that man to say, "No. I will NOT commit adultery"?

///

I never said RCC was right. Nor I don't think they outlaw observing the Sabbath like you say ... the quotes you brought forth (3rd & 4th century) contradict that. Even today the RCC conducts masses on Saturday to satisfied those that wants Saturday. The RCC always been this way. Like a Italian friend told me that read many RCC news in her country....they are like a mirror to all religion so to pull all other religious group in.

I had said the above comments in reference to the quotes of the Apostolic constitution that observed both sabbath and the "Lord's Day" (Sunday) which wikipedia says is a document at 3rd and 4th century which is Constantine time when the RCC was forming.


You demonstrated yourself not understanding God's law. The little you know is very superficial and from an old covenant view.

Yes it is "Judaizing" when God instituted a change[transfer] in the law after His death and the followers refutes the changes and stays in the old covenant way of keeping the law.


I never studied much about Barnabas but for sure from scriptures he was Paul close companion and worked with him for a time. I did some little google search to see if his teaching was gnostic as you propose ....and no from what I read from wikipedia and elsewhere his teaching were more Islamic than Gnostic.

Barnabas was a Jew. He was more incline and prone to be a Judaizer then a Gnostic. The Gnostic duality of spirit and flesh came from the Greeks culture who viewed matter as being evil. Jews had no inclination of being Gnostic because the Hebrew writings and language had no such view. The material matter that God created was said as being good from creation.

So I don't believe the split between Paul and Barnabas was due to Gnostic believes but moreso because of Judaizer conflicts as Barnabas was siding with Peter concerning the circumcision issue. Of course the Lord reveal to Peter that Paul was right. Peter and many others changed their view; however scriptures doesn't say that Barnabas accepted that revelation.

Whatever caused the split between Barnabas and Paul, it doesn't negate the fact that Barnabas being Jew and keen to keep the Sabbath according to former ways, his quote showed that he switched to observed Sunday like other Jews in the early Church. So here Barnabas did agree in that area.


I don't seek for you or anyone to agree with me... you should definetely check scriptures for yourself, study with prayers and give the time needed for the Holy Spirit to show you what is truth.

However, the places I have corrected you from mis-representing scriptures (like John 20; Heb 4 you saying it talks about the 7th day rest and etc...) by showing what scriptures actually say ...that you should believe what scriptures says.


Their were two main challenges to the Gospel message :
1. the Judaizers that came from the Jews that wanted to maintain the old covenant way of the law but with Jesus in the message. Today the Messianic Jews are a prominent example. But really all the denominations reverted back to interpret the law with the old covenant mindset and keeping some preferred cherry picked laws. So the Judaizer mindset is well alive today in all denominations.

2. the Gnostic theories that came from the Greeks. As the early church numbers increasingly became more Greek and less Jewish then these did creep in a lot.

Barnabas was a Jew and not a Greek.


That's not true. Most of the quotes I've brought talking about the "Lord's day"came on the 1st and some in the 2nd. You are the one that quoted some from the 3rd.


It does matters what you believe because it can disqualify you from being in the first harvest and end up gashing your teeth....and put you in the 2nd harvest after the Millennium (1Cor 3:15; Luk 12:46-49) or even some believers will reap their inheritance in the 3rd harvest with the unbelievers(Luk 12:46).


I'm sorry you view this forum as not "Adventist friendly" because some of us, Adventist or ex-Adventist, come here to study and check what we have been taught is really biblical. Actually, I personally view that this is the best place for any serious Adventist or ex-Adventist to come to do serious Biblical studies to check what they have been taught all their live stands on scriptures.

It's too bad that those in the Church that are so dedicated to the Church or EGW interpretation don't want us here and get personally offended when their erroneous views are being pointed out by plain scriptures while the discussion maintain a cordial & civil disposition.

Actually --
I see many of your views as highly erroneous, a spiritualizing away of plain utterances of scripture.



Your so called "corrections" were not totally correct, they were YOUR INTERPRETATIONS, your opinion of what scripture says.

One example especially the "evening" issue.

John 24:31 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

You call me a liar -- and then with many assumptions you presented your interpretation of the text in an attempt to prove it. I really don't see that as cordial dialogue.

The text says they arrived in Emmaus when the day was "far spent". We see the two urging Jesus not to go any further, it was too late to do that, but rather to stay with them.

You suggest a whole family awaiting them with food ready -- (still fairly early in the afternoon) none of that is even hinted at in the text. No hint that anyone else was present. No hint that there were still several hours before dark. Rather we sense an urgency that it was too late to do any more traveling.
The text suggests a "tarrying time" from when they entered the house, till "it came to pass" that they sat down for a simple meal.
What meal did people eat "when the day was far spent"?

The text fits MUCH BETTER to the account I shared, then to your interpretation.
I also see EGW's comments are in harmony with the scripture.

Hebrews three and four.
Somehow it appears you did not really read what I was saying, but assumed I said the whole issue of "rest" in those chapters was a narrow legalistic view of the Sabbath.

However, I compared the two words used -- the rest, as well as it's relationship with the Sabbath.
I've done quite a bit of study on those chapters, they are rich with meaning.




Yes, the account of Israel being turned back into the wilderness and not being allowed to enter Canaan is a vital part in the chapter. Their disobedience and unbelief resulted in being turned back into the wilderness. They were on the borders of Canaan, eagerly anticipating a rest from their wilderness wanderings. But they had no faith.

Yet-- the rest spoken of -- was NOT really the entry into the land of Canaan. For Israel DID enter Canaan under Joshua, but did not find the rest. Why? Because of unbelief.
Heb. 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

In his farewell address (Joshua 23) he warns the Israelites that their rest was totally dependent upon "cleaving to the Lord" and living according to His will. Thus the sad history shows, that even though this rest was experienced by individual men and women of faith, the true rest for the nation eluded them because of unbelief and rebellion.

The rest we have in Christ comes only when we yield ourselves to Christ. That gospel is being preached to us. But it was ALSO preached to Israel way back then.

Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].

The Israelites didn't enter that rest because, even though their whole sanctuary services were to teach them of a coming Savior from sin, they lacked faith. They were constantly bucking against God and His will for them.

Yet that rest was available to them, just as much as it is available to us today. This "rest" comes when the life is submitted to God.

The appeal is made through KING DAVID,
The Psalms is actually the original from which the author of Hebrews quotes:

"Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts" Ps. 95:7-11 (like those in the wilderness who did not enter God's rest)

If God's rest becomes available only when the so called "Jewish Sabbath" "faded away" or was "transferred" to the "Lord's Day" why would God appeal to the Israelites through their king to have this rest experience back THEN, many years BEFORE Christ's incarnation? People throughout the Old Testament who believed and had faith experienced that "rest".

NOTE: Scripture calls the 7th day Sabbath God's holy day, He is Lord of the Sabbath, it's never called the "Jewish Sabbath" in scripture.


When God offered "rest" to the children of Israel, He offered His holy Sabbath with it. And if BOTH WERE OFFERED TO ISRAEL AT THE SAME TIME, then one can't be a shadow of the other. It is no different today, Christ is still offering His rest, as well as His Sabbath! One is not a shadow of the other.


Yes, the Sabbath rest is the physical experience, which the author of Hebrews draws upon to illustrate the spiritual rest a person in Christ experiences as they find salvation in Him.
Today -- harden not your heart. Today, come to Christ to find that rest.

If the Christian community, on reading Hebrews three and four, would have been thinking of the Sabbath as bondage, something to get rid of, they would of lost the whole point of the discussion, for how could something burdensome be the prime example of resting in Christ.
No-- the Sabbath rest is a delightful physical reality of resting with our God and Savior, and it's fullness is totally dependent upon the spiritual reality of resting in Christ.

That rest comes from a vibrant FAITH and heartfelt obedience to God. Yet I agree, it also points forward to a time when faith becomes sight and the fullness of this rest will be realized when we reach that place where God will wipe away all tears from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. Rev. 21:4


However, what you seemed to be trying to do in your "correction" was to try to do away with the text that specifically states that "Sabbath observance remains".
It is no "correction" to try to sweep it away as if Hebrews didn't use the word that specifically means "Sabbath observance" (sabbatismos) remains.

The Sabbath remains. The verb "remains" is "(apoleipetai) which literally means "has been left."

The Greek word translated "rest" in every other passage throughout Hebrews 3 and 4 is "katapausis." which is "rest" or "place of rest". Yet "katapausis" is NOT used in Hebrews 4:9

There the word is (sabbatismos). The term (sabbatismos) is seen in the writings of Plutarch, Justin, Epiphanius, and others, and each time the term denotes the observance of the Sabbath. Therefore the text is saying, that Sabbath observance remains for the people of God. Later the author tells us what has been abolished BUT FIRST he confirms the SABBATH REST remains behind for the people of God.

Therefore a Sabbath Rest Remains for the people of God. (Hebs. 4:9)

The call goes out repeatedly in those chapters: Today if you will hear my voice do not harden your heart in rebellion, as in the day of trial in the wilderness.
Hebrews 4:11 "Let us be diligent to enter that rest lest anyone fall in the same way, by disobedience."

That rest is found only in Christ.
And the Sabbath is His DAY of rest given as a blessing to us.

Obviously not as you pooled three different Barnabases into one.

1. Biblical Barnabas

He was an active leader in the very early days of the church. A Jewish Levite from Cyprus,(Acts 4:36) who fully believed in the gospel of Christ, preaching and sharing it with others, (Acts 11:24) He teamed up with Paul on their first missionary journey, taking his nephew (cousin?), John Mark along. (Acts 12:24-13:4) John Mark however, found the hardships of mission work too trying, and while they were in Pamphylia, he left and went home.
Why did Paul and Barnabas split up? (Acts 15)

It was over John Mark
.
Barnabas wanted to give his nephew another chance and take him with them on a second missionary trip. Paul was adamant that he did not want John Mark along again.
So Paul chose Silas as his mission partner and Barnabas took John Mark and sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 15:35-40)
From this point, scripture is silent as to what happened to Barnabas. Probably the accounts from the church in Cyprus are the most reliable, which indicate that Barnabas was martyred in 61 A.D. in Salamis, Cyprus.

John Mark grew spiritually under Barnabas' guidance, and later we see John Mark reconciled to Paul, and being prophetable to Paul and his ministry.(2 Tim. 4:11) (But Barnabas is not mentioned again)

2. The Epistle of Barnabas

Next we have the writer of the epistle named "The epistle of Barnabas". This epistle was written after the Biblical Barnabas was dead. It was written sometime after Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, and during a time when it seemed a temple was about to be rebuilt. Some suggest this was around 130 A.D.
The person who wrote it, was NOT the Barnabas from the Bible. He was from the Alexandria area. From both chronological and doctrinal reasons it is now clear to most scholars that the Biblical Barnabas was not the author of the "epistle of Barnabas".
This author had gnostic theology woven into his epistle. He turns much of the OT into allegorical understanding, including God's commands, and disconnects the Jews as ever having been God's covenant people. Israel, he maintains, destroyed that idea with the golden calf.

3. The gospel of Barnabas
This one wasn't written by the Biblical Barnabas either. Nor was it written by the same man who wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. This so called gospel, some say was written about 1000 years later.
There is a Gospel of Barnabas and an Epistle of Barnabas. These are two very different books. The Gospel of Barnabas is the book promoted by Muslims today, for indeed it favors Islamic teachings. While the "Epistle of Barnabas" moves into the gnostic idea of "spiritualizing" realities in scripture into abstract interpretations.

On the other hand the Biblical Paul and Barnabas have a good balance between the realities of salvation and the Christian life, and the more abstract concepts of faith and worship.

I do not see any mention of sanctity being given to a weekly Sunday. Having a "holy convocation" once a year that happens to fall on a Sunday is NOT sanctifying a weekly Sunday.

I am the one that said "by the third century the phrase "Lord's Day" was adopted by the Sunday movement. You did not show any proof it meant Sunday prior to that.

THE FIRST QUOTE from the Didache --

"“On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together and break bread and give thanks, adding confession of your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.”

There is absolutely NO mention of the "first day" or "resurrection day" -- any supposition that the phrase "Lord's Day" is speaking of Sunday observance is pure assumption.

The use of this quotation proves nothing for Sunday worship, even if it does date from 90 AD, a date that is by no means certain. Two points can be made:

1.The Greek word for "day" does not even appear in the passage. It has been added by the translators.

2. The translation of this verse is disputed in other ways:
The verse just previous (13:7) ends with "Kata ten entolen" (according to the commandment)
The verse itself (14:1)begins with "Kata Kuriaken Kuriou" (According to the Lord's Lord???) The noun or subject is missing. Remember the word "day" was NOT in the original.

It is very possible the author is continuing his reference to the "commandments" "entole" mentioned just previous, thus a more accurate translation may be --

Didache 14:1 According to the Sovereign command of the Lord, gather together and break bread and give thanks, adding confession of your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.”

And no -- I did not make up that translation, it can be found in literature on the Didache.

However, the conclusion is clear -- this quote cannot be used to prove the early Christians were keeping Sunday, or that they were calling Sunday the "Lord's day" -- it just is NOT there.


THE SECOND QUOTE from the "epistle of Barnabas".

The epistle of Barnabas, is highly disputed!!! As I've already pointed out.
First, the supposed "signature" of Barnabas is pure legend. The codexes upon which it was supposedly found were produced centuries later during the time of Constantine. They are not the original apostolic writings.
There is NOTHING in scripture that says Barnabas was the "gospel scribe" How could he be when the gospels other than the gospel of Matthew, were most likely written AFTER Barnabas was martyred in 61 AD.

Yet even the pseudo author of the epistle of Barnabas does not link the phrase "Lord's Day" with Sunday. He doe not mention the phrase "Lord's Day" in that quote. He's into the 8th day stuff. Probably the one that started that line of thought against God's sanctified day.
The author of that epistle is highly anti Semitic, and presenting a lot of gnostic type beliefs.


QUOTE FROM IGNATIUS

At least Ignatius was a real historical figure, a disciple of the apostle John. But what did he REALLY write, that is the big question.

Did he write this?
"no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death….” (ch. IX)"

The quote is said to be from 107 AD and supposedly comes from Ignatius' epistle to the Magnesians.
However there are two epistles claiming to be this epistle to Magnesians. Some think possibly the shorter one could be genuine, but the longer form is generally felt to be a forgery written long after the time of Ignatius.

Regarding the shorter form, its genuineness is by no means certain, and it is highly probable that what we have today does not represent what this student of John, actually believed.


I hardly think we can base our beliefs on such shaky grounds. What is obvious is that at a later time SOMEONE was very eager to manufacture proof to enforce Sunday keeping. Eager enough to manufacture fraudulent documents.


JUSTIN (2nd century)

He does not use the phrase "Lord's Day"
He does talk about "the day of the sun" Sunday. The heathen term.


TERTULLIAN (moving into the 3rd century)

Still no mention of Lord's Day.

Obviously those who "were making Sunday a festival" a "day of rejoicing" were being accused of worshipping the sun. Tertullian writes:
"we devote Sunday to rejoicing, from a far different reason than Sun-worship,"
He maintains that they are no more worshiping the sun, than Saturday observers are worshipping Saturn.

While we do see a movement toward Sunday early on, the "chain of proofs" is very flimsy and suspect that tries to link it back to the apostles.

It really was NOT until the 3rd century that we have any reliable proof that Christians actually began calling Sunday the "Lord's Day".

For years (How many? I've been here 10 years so maybe the 7 latest years we started to exchange?) I was nice by saying something like "no, scripture doesn't say that"... This time I felt I needed to be more direct and gently breaking it by saying "I hate to say this but "liar liar pants on fire"" because you actually lied by saying "It was already evening, or beginning of dusk, when they arrived in Emmaus." when Luke 24:31 clearly doesn't say that.

Again I repeat myself what time of the day the expression it was "getting towards evening[sunset]...the day nearly over" is used by a Jewish population who counted the end of the day at sunset? Unless we have some historical accounts about the expression of those days, without them, we can only speculate based on what we know how they accounted a day. How many hours before sunset would they use that expression. We don't know. Let's suppose it was after 3ish that day -- already 9 hrs of the 12 hrs of daylight or 21 hrs of the day has past...maybe in those days they considered having 3 hrs before sunset that it was considered "getting towards evening" having "the day nearly over". That's within reason.

But this expression definitely doesn't mean "it was already evening or dusk" like you said dedication. That's outside of reason with an agenda in mind to prove EGW interpretation to be right contrary to whatever scriptures says.


This "urging" could be due because the next town on that road was too far away to make it at a descent time before sunset.

I tried to find a good map, the best I could find is this one:
http://www.seetheholyland.net/emmaus/
This map suggest that if this Emmaus was "Abu Gaus" as town names changed ovef the years. Over the years, there was a lot of dispute among scholars which town Luke meant. But most today consent to this "Abu Gaus" that was 11 km(7miles) away from Jerusalem. The next town "Amwas" was another 18.5km(11miles) away from "Abu Gaus". Perhaps it would of been too close to sunset when Jesus would of gotten there. Not that the Father intended for Jesus to go there, but He created this situation so that Jesus would be invited.


Scriptures is silent about a lot of details in this story; so when
I spoke of that family I was clear it was only a speculation -- a probability.

All know the following from scriptures :

#1. John 20:1 Mary Magdelene found the stone rolled away from the door "the first day of the week...when it was yet dark".

#2. John 20:13-17 Jesus appeared and talked to her

#3. Luke 24:13-32 the Story of two disciples going to Emmaus. When they recognized Jesus when he broke the bread and He vanished afterwards, at once they went back to Jerusalem

#4. Luke 24:33 These two disciples were not part of the eleven as when they arrived the 11 was locked in the upper room.

#5. Luke 24:34, 35 suggest that one of these disciples were Simon. I would say that it was not the same person as Peter because of Luke 24:33, but more likely Joseph's, Jesus mother Mary's husband, youngest brother.

The link above with the maps suggest that it was Mary's husband Joseph Brother Cleophas and the younger brother Simon that were the two disciples going to Emmaus. The wife of Cleophas, also named Mary, was mentioned several time in the gospels. Being relatives, these two ladies were very close and I even read somewhere that after Joseph's death(sometime before Jesus' death) that Mary might stayed with Cleophas family. I didn't do any investigation into this so I don't know how true it was. But we know from scriptures that it was "Mary the wife of Cleophas" (John 19:25) that comforted Mary the mother of Jesus at Jesus death on the cross. So it is very plausible that the two brothers, Cleophas and Simon, were going to Emmaus at their home to tell the household of the hot news that Jesus had resurrected that very same day.

#6. John 20:19 "Then the same day at evening[G3798opsios], 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. "

Again, contrary to your interpretation of that text (that it was well after sunset late at night that meant it was the 2nd day of the week) , opsios can mean two things :

1. The evening when the sun goes down from the horizon at dusk. It is not possible to be this "evening" as it was not after the sundown on Saturday night which is when the first day of the week begins. Jesus was not resurrect yet.

2. The evening when the sun goes down from Noon to dusk. This fits better what John meant here with this text. It was the first day of the week sometimes between noon and before sunset. From the events of the story it was more closely to Sunset.

But you dedication, you want to say that John(or scripture) doesn't mean what he(it) said. You said it was AFTER SUNSET on the 2nd day of the week. Are you calling John a liar or saying he was enable to communicate properly what day and time it was? That you know better what time it was because EGW(or one of her writers) said it was very late in the night when they arrive in Jerusalem than what John has communicated?


No Ellen White is not totally in harmony with scriptures and conflicts with John 20:19 and missed out that Cleophas had a wife that was close to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

She added a lot of details that is not in scriptures; but I like that she pointed out that they (Cleophas & another) were returning to their home. What EGW (or whoever did the research and wrote these passages with EGW approval) missed out is that Cleophas was Mary's in law and Mary, the mother of Jesus, was with Cleophas' wife the day before. EGW or the researcher didn't make that link. If they would of, I'm sure the story would of been written differently.

I had a hunch they were going to Emmaus to tell the news of Jesus' resurrection to someone important but I haven't linked Cleophas and Simon to this story until doing further research a few days ago and saw that it was more probable that they went to Cleophas' house who was the in-laws of Jesus that most likely Mary the mother of Jesus was there visiting as she was with Cleophas' wife the day before. So Cleophas was probably anxious to go to home to give the good news to these important ladies.

So yes, my hunch that these "unknown disciples" without knowing who they were yet... were expected somewhere and the ladies of the house already had a meal ready was more plausible than your interpretation dedication that they arrived in some empty house where they had to prepare the meal themselves that costed some additional time on the clock before they sat down to eat.