‘Banned from the Truth’ about church history–again!
The anti-Church of God Banned by HWA website continues to not understand nor teach the truth about a lot things, including about church history and me.
The Bible teaches:
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4-5)
Thus, sometimes I will respond to Banned posts, though most of the time I do not.
Last year, I made a post about them titled: ‘Banned from the Truth’ about church history?
Anyway, late Wednesday there was a post at the Banned site listed as being by Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix titled: Is Our Favorite Crackpot Prophet A Real Historian? The post was wrong about church history, myself, and various doctrines.
So, let’s deal with some of the assertions at Banned:
Pastor Thiel boldly proclaimed that “The Church of God has the Right Name and the Right Size.” His proof? A number of Scriptural passages from the King James Version of the New Testament which refer to Christ’s disciples as the “Church(es) of God.” Never mind that the original Greek word, ekklesia, which is translated into English as “Church” means “an assembly of people called together.” Hence, literally, the various passages which he quoted in his remarks refer to an assembly of people called together by God! In other words, the ekklesia of God describes what the Church IS – it is NOT a proper name.
Well, most scholars do believe that Church of God was a name used by Christians–and that is not limited to “the King James Version of the New Testament.” And while the term assembly could be used as well, it basically meant the same thing.
Here is an excerpt from my free ebook Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?, where I predominantly use Greco-Roman Catholic translations of scripture:
The first time we see “church of” in the Bible is in Acts 20:28, where it is called “church of God.”
Jesus said that Christians would be kept in His Father’s name (John 17:12), which most often is simply “God” in the New Testament (over 1,300 times!), hence leading to the name “Church of God.”
Many people are unaware that the predominant name of the true Church in the New Testament is “Church of God.” Variants of this expression are clearly stated in singular and plural forms in twelve different places in the New Testament (Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 10:32; 11:16,22; 15:9; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; 1 Timothy 3:5,15). The only other singular “church of” statement in scripture is a reference to the “church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23).
Throughout Christian history, the true church has normally used a version of the expression “Church of God” (or “Church/es of Christ,” cf. Romans 16:16) though often with another term, like a geographic region (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1) or another word, with it (1 Timothy 3:15).
However, critics tended to call members of the faithful Church of God other names (e.g. Acts 24:5). The true church is also called “holy” in Ephesians 5:27, though that is not used as a name.
The Church of God is not just some brand-new group, as some claim; it has continued for nearly 2,000 years, despite relocations, name variants, and organizational changes.
Since the true Church of God has continued from the time of the original apostles in Acts 2, and since the Bible teaches that ‘Philadelphia’ was to continue (cf. Hebrews 13:1, literal), the use of the name Continuing Church of God helps convey those biblical concepts and historical facts.
The Apostle Paul wrote the following mentioning the church:
2 PAUL called to be an Apostle of JESUS Christ, by the will of God, and Sothenes a brother, To the Church of God that is at Corinth, to the sanctified in Christ JESUS, called to be saints, with all that invocate the name of our Lord JESUS Christ in every place of theirs and ours (1 Corinthians 1:2, DRB).
1 PAUL an Apostle of JESUS Christ, by the will of God, and Timothy our brother: to the Church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in all Achaia (2 Corinthians 1:1, DRB).
13 … I persecuted the Church of God … (Galatians 1:13, NJB/OSB)
14 For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, (1 Thessalonians 2:14, DRB)
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to converse in the house of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15, DRB).
(Note that this author bolded the above, but did not capitalize anything–capitalization was by the translators.)
The Roman document that is commonly called 1 Clement begins with:
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (As cited in Lightfoot JB. The Apostolic Fathers, Macmillan & Co. 1891)
So yes, the first document that has been found from the Roman church referred to itself as the Church of God, not the “Catholic Church.” The term “catholic church” is not found in that 1st century document.
In the 2nd century, Bishop/Pastor Polycarp wrote from Smyrna:
Polycarp and the presbyters with him to the church of God that sojourns at Philippi. (Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians. In Holmes M. The Apostolic Fathers–Greek Text and English Translations, 3rd printing. Baker Books, Grand Rapids (MI), 1999, p. 207)
After Polycarp’s martyrdom, those in his area wrote:
The church of God which sojourns at Smyrna to the church of God which sojourns in Philomelium. (The Martyrdom of Polycarp. In Holmes, p. 227)
Thus, some of the earliest post-New Testament Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholic-accepted writings (which also tend to be accepted by Protestant scholars) clearly refer to the church as the Church of God.
There were also many references from Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) and others who used the name, translated into English as Church of God. The Church of Rome, itself, often refers to itself at the Church of God.
The Banned post also stated:
Thiel fails to mention that Jesus was a Jew, and that he HAD to fulfill the provisions of Torah! Likewise, Thiel fails to mention that Christ’s disciples, and the members of the early Church, were entirely JEWISH. In other words, we would expect to find Jews observing the provisions of Torah!
No, my writings do not fail to mention that Jesus and the early Christians leaders in Jerusalem were Jews. Here is an excerpt from my free ebook Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:
Notice what the Roman Catholic historian E. Gibbon wrote:
The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ. It was natural that the primitive tradition of a church which was founded only forty days after the death of Christ, and was governed almost as many years under the immediate inspection of his apostle, should be received as the standard of orthodoxy. The distant churches very frequently appealed to the authority of their venerable Parent, (Gibbon, p. 160)
Yes, the early Jewish bishops of Jerusalem had the STANDARD OF ORTHODOXY. That should not have been changed by any who accept Jude’s admonition to contend earnestly for the original faith (Jude 3).
The Apostle Peter wrote:
18 For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. (2 Peter 2:18-21)
Consider that when Peter wrote this, he and other Christians were “observing the provisions of the Torah” to use the words of Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix.
Jesus’ half brother Jude wrote:
1 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1-4, NKJV)
1 JUDE, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to the Gentiles who have been called and are beloved by God the Father and are protected by Jesus Christ: 2 Mercy and peace, with love, be multiplied to you. 3 My beloved, I write to you with all diligence concerning our common salvation, and it is needful that I should write and exhort you also to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. (Jude 1-3, Lamsa Bible)
1 Yehuda, the Servant of Yeshua The Messiah and the brother of Yaqob, to the Gentiles called by God The Father, beloved ones, and kept by Yeshua The Messiah. 2 Mercy, peace and love be multiplied to you. 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write to you about our common life, it was necessary for me to write to you, as I am to persuade you to compete for the faith, which was once delivered to The Holy Ones. (Jude 1-3, Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
3 My dear friends, at a time when I was eagerly looking forward to writing to you about the salvation that we all share, I felt that I must write to you encouraging you to fight hard for the faith which has been once and for all entrusted to God’s holy people. (Jude 3, New Jerusalem Bible)
Multiple translations were provided above to show that it is universally recognized that Jude wrote that the original faith was not to change.
Furthermore, consider that, Jude (and other original Christians) kept the Sabbath, the biblical Holy Days, avoided unclean meat, etc. See also: Early Christianity in Edessa and the Church of the East.
The Banned post also stated:
Bob went on to underscore the importance of the failure of the second Jewish rebellion against the Romans in 135 CE, but he ignores the traumatic events of 70 CE – when the Romans destroyed Herod’s Temple and Jerusalem and ended Jewish self-rule. Why was this such an egregious omission? Because, from that day forward, it was NO LONGER POSSIBLE to observe the commandments of Torah in the manner prescribed in those first five books of the Hebrew Bible! This was true for both Jews and Jewish Christians.
Well, that was also false–although it is true that Jews and Christians who wanted to continue to keep the Sabbath were not allowed back in Jerusalem for a time after 135 A.D. Yet, the faithful fled and continued with the original faith (see Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?). Not only do I mention 70 CE in my writings, I cite historical reports that Christians fled to Pella and then many came back to Jerusalem (see also Early Christianity in Edessa and the Church of the East). The historical fact is that until c. 135 A.D. the Christians in Jerusalem did keep the Sabbath, Holy Days, avoiding unclean meat etc. When they were not allowed to, they once again fled.
The Banned post also stated:
Baptism was a ritual which pointed to the burial of the old self and the resurrection of the new person in Christ. The ONLY Scriptures available to First Century Christians were the ones found in the Hebrew Bible – the same one which we now refer to as the Old Testament! While some of the epistles and Gospel accounts were available to some congregations during the latter half of the First Century, it is a well-established fact that the canon of the New Testament took a couple of centuries to come together in the form that we now enjoy.
Well, actually early Christian leaders also had the teachings of Jesus and the apostles to know how to baptize. Plus the New Testament was in place in the first century. And as far as the canon of the New Testament goes, historical writings point to the reality of early Church of God leaders such as Polycarp of Smyrna, Polycrates of Ephesus, and Serapion of Antioch knowing the canon of the New Testament. For details, check out my free ebook: Who Gave the World the Bible? The Canon: Why do we have the books we now do in the Bible? Is the Bible complete? Plus more on baptism is in my free ebook: About Baptism.
The Banned post questioned beliefs of the first century Christians. Here are links to some documented articles demonstrating why the position of the Continuing Church of God on them is historically and biblically accurate:
Apokatastasis was understood in a way different than what Origen seemed to propose.
Baptism was by immersion and did not include infants.
The complete Bible with the proper Old Testament and New Testament was relied on by the true Church in Asia Minor (see also Who Gave the World the Bible? The Canon: Why do we have the books we now do in the Bible? Is the Bible complete? ).
A Binitarian view, that acknowledged the Holy Spirit, was held by the apostolic and post-apostolic true Christian leaders.
Birthdays were not celebrated by early Christians.
Born-Again meant being born at the resurrection, not at the time of conversion.
Celibacy for Bishops/Presbyters/Elders was not a requirement.
Christmas was not observed by any professing Christ prior to the third century, or ever by those holding to early teachings.
Church Governance was hierarchical.
Church Services were scripturally, not ritualistically, focused, and did not resemble modern “mass.”
Circumcision, though not required, was long practiced by original Nazarene Christians.
Confession of sins were not made to priests and did not require penance.
Deification of Christians (which begins after the first resurrection) was taught by the early leaders of the Church.
Duties of Elders/Pastors were pastoral and theological, not predominantly sacramental–nor did they dress as many now do.
Easter per se was not observed by the apostolic church.
Eucharist, in the ceremonial sense, referred to Passover services and did not involve round hosts or leavened bread.
The Fall Holy Days were observed by true early Christians.
The Father was considered to be God by all early professing Christians.
The True Gospel included the kingdom of God and obedience to the law of God and was so understood by the faithful.
Heaven was not taught to be the reward of Christians.
Holy Spirit was not referred to as God or as a person by any early true Christians.
Hymns were mainly psalms, not praises to Christ.
Idols were taught against, including adoration of the cross.
Immortality of the soul or humans was not taught.
Jesus was considered to be God by the true Christians.
The Kingdom of God was preached.
Leavened Bread was removed from the homes of early Christians when the Jews did the same.
Lent was not observed by the primitive church.
Limbo was not taught by the original church.
Mary was the mother of Jesus, was blessed (Luke 1:28) and called blessed (Luke 1:48), but was not prayed to, etc. by true early Christians.
Military Service was not allowed for true early Christians.
Millenarianism (a literal thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, often called the millennium) was taught by the early Christians.
Monasticism was unheard of in the early Christian church.
Passover was kept on the 14th of Nisan by apostolic and second century Christians in Asia Minor.
Pentecost was kept on Sunday by certain Jews and was observed then by professing Christians.
Purgatory was not taught by the original apostolic church.
The Resurrection of the dead was taught by all early Christians.
The Sabbath was observed on Saturday by the apostolic and post-apostolic Church.
Salvation, was believed to be offered to the chosen now by the early Church (see also the free online booklet: Is God Calling You?), with others being called later; though not all that taught that (or other doctrines) practiced “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
God’s Six Thousand Year Plan for humankind to rule itself was believed by early professors of Christ.
Sunday was not observed by the apostolic and original post-apostolic Christians.
The Ten Commandments were observed by the apostolic and true post-apostolic Christians–and in the order that the Church of God claims they are in (see also the free online book The Ten Commandments: The Decalogue, Christianity, and the Beast).
Tithes and Offerings were given to support the ministry, the churches, the needy, and evangelical travels and gospel proclamation.
Tradition had some impact on the second century Christians, but was never supposed to supercede the Bible.
The Trinity was not a word used to describe the Godhead by the apostolic or second century Christians, though a certain threeness was acknowledged.
Unclean Meats were eaten by the early allegorists, but not by true Christians.
The Virgin Birth was acknowledged by all true ante-Nicene Christians.
The Banned article also stated:
Like many of the followers of Herbert Armstrong, Bob ignores the Didache, epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, writings of Justin Martyr, epistle of Barnabas, etc. and the evidence which they supply about early Christian beliefs and practices. He ignores both the Scriptural and historical evidence which points to the fact that Christians began celebrating Sunday in the First Century – in the time of the apostles.
That is flat out false. Here are two articles that touch on those topics: Another Look at the Didache, Ignatius, and the Sabbath and Justin Martyr: Saint, Heretic, or Apostate? As far as the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, Barnabas did not write it–it is a fraud that way. It is also discussed in the free ebook I wrote titled Who Gave the World the Bible? The Canon: Why do we have the books we now do in the Bible? Is the Bible complete?
The Banned post provided NO PROOF of first century Sunday worship. For documented details on Sunday, here is a link to another article I wrote: Sunday and Christianity.
Let me also add that the publication called The Catholic Mirror put out on article, The Christian Sabbath, which admitted that Sunday was a later change authorized, NOT BY THE BIBLE NOR THE APOSTLES, BUT by the Church of Rome. For additional documented information on the Sabbath, check out the article: The Sabbath in the first centuries of the Christian Church.
In post last year, I had the following statement:
Some have claimed that the Didache and Ignatius both enjoined Sunday, but this is not true. The original Greek in those ‘ante-Nicene’ writings simply do not support this conclusion. This is documented and discussed in the article The Didache, Ignatius, and the Sabbath.
Anyway, for all who may want to know more of the truth about what the Didache and Ignatius have related to this topic, here are some quotes and explanations from the article The Didache, Ignatius, and the Sabbath:
The Didache
The Didache has been cited as the earliest non-scriptural “proof” of Sunday worship by those who profess Christ [4], although it does not ever use the word Sunday nor the expression ‘first day of the week.’
However, verse 14.1 is often cited as proof of Sunday observance by promoters of Sunday observance.
The Greek expression in verse 14.1 in the Didache, is:
Κατὰ κυριακὴν δε κυριου [5].
(Transliterated as Kata kuriakin de kurion.)
The Greek term κυριακὴν is often transliterated as kuriaki/kyriake.
Here is something from a Roman Catholic priest and scholar on the meaning of κυριακὴν:
… the Greek kyriake, meaning “belonging to the Lord (kyrios),” from which the English word “church” is derived. [6]
Dictionary.com had this about the origin of the word church:
Origin of church
before 900; Middle English chir(i)che, Old English cir(i)ce ≪ Greek kȳri(a)kón ( dôma ) the Lord’s (house), neuter of kȳriakós of the master, equivalent to kȳ́ri(os ) master ( kŷr(os ) power + -ios noun suffix) + -akos, variant of -ikos -ic; akin to Dutch kerk, German Kirche, Old Norse kirkja. accessed 05/03/19
So, it is not believed that the the Greek word kyriake meant Sunday back then.
Ignoring arguments about where the word ‘church’ came from (as some believe it has a different origin), basically kuriaki means the ‘Lord’s’ or the ‘Lord’s way.’
I believe I have translated verse 14.1 in the Didache, properly below (with two options):
According to the Lord’s way, even the Lord’s.
or
According to the Lordly {way}, even the Lord’s.
However, that verse has normally been incorrectly translated by many Protestant scholars. Here are two examples:
“On the Lord’s day of the Lord,” by Kirsopp Lake [7].
“But every Lord’s day,” by Hall and Napier [8].
There are at least two reasons that the above by Lake, as well as Hall & Napier, can be shown to be mistranslated.
The first is that the translators should have realized that the Greek term for “day” (ἡμέρᾳ transliterated into English as i’me’ra) is missing in verse 14.1 [9] and is not required by the context.
The second is how each of them began the translation of this particular verse. The beginning in both translations is in error and is inconsistent with the translators other translations in this letter.
The Greek word translated in verse 14.1 as “On the” by Kirsopp Lake and “But every” by Hall and Napier (Κατὰ) truly does mean “According to” as I have translated it. Κατα should not be translated as “On the” or “But every.”
This is not simply a prejudicial choice by me.
In the same letter, the Greek word Κατὰ is translated as “according to” by Kirsopp Lake five times (1.5, 11.3, 12.4, 13.5, and 13.7 [10]) and “with respect” one time (4.10). The other times Lake used the term “on” (verses 1.4, 7.3, 8.1a, 8.1b, 11.12, 16.8 [11]), it was NOT a translation from the Greek term Κατὰ.
Also the one time the Didache uses “on” with a day (which is in the translations of both Lake and Hall/Napier), it does not use Κατὰ, but it does include the Greek term for day (verse 8.1b) [12].
It may be of interest to note that in the KJV New Testament, Κατα is translated as “according to” approximately 110 times, and the only time (Acts 8:36) it is inconsistently translated as “on” (even though “according to” would be fine) it is not translated as “on” anywhere in the NKJV or NIV.
Hall and Napier translated Κατὰ as “according to” the six other times it is translated that SAME letter (see verses 1.5, 4.10, 11.3, 12.4, 13.5, and 13.7 [13]) and never translated it as “But every.”
The one other time Hall and Napier used the term “But every” (verse 13.1) while translating the Didache it is not translated from the term Κατὰ, but from Πὰς δέ [14] (transliterated as Pas de). Also, it may be of interest to note that the KJV never translated Κατὰ as “but every.”
Hence it appears that several translators intentionally exercised bias when translating verse 14.1.
This section 14 of the Didache discusses ‘breaking of bread’ and the ‘sacrifice of the Lord’ which suggests that it would be referring to the Christian Passover.
Notice something from the Bible:
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Corinthians 11:23-29)
If not Passover, the Didache would seem to be referring to some other gathering (compare with Acts 2:42).
Only a biased, forced, and inaccurate translation could suggest Sunday (which is what many Sunday advocates push).
The belief that this Greek term kiriake refers to Passover is centuries old is not just my idea.
After postulating it, I came across a writing by the British orientalist (studier of the orient, including the Near East) F. Coneybeare who reported that was a belief of the c. 7th century Paulini:
But the Paulini also keep the feast of the Pascha on the same day (as the Jews), whatever be the day of the full moon, they call it Kuriaki, as the Jews call it Sabbath, even though it be not a Sabbath. [15]
It may be that since the Protestant translating scholars of the Didache did not observe an annual Christian Passover and tended to be Sunday observers, this may explain why they did not translate kuriaki literally.
Notice also the following:
20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.
(1 Corinthians 11:20)The Greek term translated as “Lord’s” is κυριακòν Transliterated into English as kuriakon/kyriakon.
Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians
The other major claim in favor of early Sunday worship is from Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians.
Here is what the Greek shows Ignatius wrote in verse 9.1:
Εί ούν οί έν παλαιοîς πράγμασιν άναστραφέντες είς καινότητα έλπίδος ήλθον, μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, άλλά κατά κυριακήν ζώντες, έν ή καί ή ζωή ήμών άνέτειλεν δι’ αύτού καί τού θανάτου αύτού, <öν> τινες άρνούνται, δι’ ού μυστηρίου έλάβομεν τò πιστεύειν, καί διά τούτο ύπομένομεν, ïνα εύρεθώμεν μαθηταί ‘Iησού Χριστού τού μόνου διδασκάλου ήμών· [16]
Here is a fairly typical 19th Century translation of verse 9.1, by Dr. J.B. Lightfoot:
If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny — a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher [17].
But is that translation correct or giving an improper understanding?
It should be noted that the word for ‘day’ is not in the Greek text.
Interestingly, like Lake and Hall/Napier, Dr. Lightfoot also failed to translate Κατα, which is in the text [18] as “according to.”
Yet, Lightfoot did translate Κατα as “according to” in three other places in this same letter (verses 3.1,10.1, 13.2 [19]). He also failed to correctly do so in his translation of the Didache, where he began verse 14.1 with “And on” [20]–an apparently intentional and improper translation as discussed above (Lightfoot translated κατά as “according to” five other times in the Didache [21]).
It is sad that these translators, all born in the 19th century, all decided to selectively change the meaning of a word.
Why?
Well, in order to support Sunday worship.
Yet, noted 20th century scholar Fritz Guy concluded that the text in Ignatius is too ambiguous to be used to support Sunday worship:
“in the study of the ‘Lord’s day’ in the early church … {it} cannot at the present time properly be introduced as evidence indicating its [Sunday] observance” [22].
The 19th century theologian John Kitto understood that neither the context nor the Greek required adding the word day. Thus he translated a highly relevant part of it correctly as follows:
… living according to our Lord’s life …[23].
John Kitto also made the following comments about the passage from Ignatius:
Now many commentators assume (on what ground does not appear), that alter κυριακήν [Lord’s] the word ἡμέραν [day] is to be understood … The defect of the sentence is the want of a substantive to which αύτού {that} can refer. This defect, so far from being- remedied, is rendered still more glaring by the introduction of ἡμέραν … the passage does not refer at all to the Lord’s day … it cannot be regarded as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term ‘Lord’s day’ (for which it is often cited), since the word ἡμέραν [day] is purely conjectual [24].
Yet, almost all anti-Sabbath websites I have visited have ignored the scholars that understand the truth about Ignatius’ writings as they cite the mistranslations as “proof” of early Sunday observance–even though the actual Greek text does no such thing.
While in Greece, I was able to verify that the word in koine Greek translated as “Lord’s Day” in both the Didache and the Letter to the Magnesians, κυριακὴν, should not be translated as “Lord’s Day” as the Greek word for day is not present in the texts nor required by the contexts for either.
In Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians, like in the Didache, κυριακὴν would be better translated as “Lord’s way” or combined with the Greek word that follows it, ζωντες [25] (transliterated into English as Gontes), “Lord’s way of life” or “Lord’s living.” This is also consistent with what Paul wrote:
4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory (Colossians 3:4).
1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).
It was the custom of Jesus:
16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. (Luke 4:16)
It was also Paul’s practice to regularly keep the Sabbath:
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2).
The Sabbath was part of the Lord’s way of life, and Paul imitated Christ that way. Understanding Jesus’ life is critical to understanding Ignatius.
Furthermore, to better understand Ignatius’ letter, we should look at more of the context and not just verse 9.1. out-of-context, as some Sunday advocates have.
A more literal (though not grammatical) translation of the relevant portion from Ignatius’ letter appears to be:
8.1 Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless.
8.2 For if even unto this day we live according to the manner of Judaic concepts, we admit that we have not received grace: for the godly prophets lived after {the manner of} Christ Jesus. For this cause also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to the end that they which are disobedient might be fully persuaded that there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word that proceeded from silence, who in all things was well-pleasing unto Him that sent Him.
9.1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer keeping sabbaths contrariwise according to the Lord’s way of life, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny – a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher –
9.2 if this be so, how shall we be able to live apart from Him? Seeing that even the prophets, being His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher through the Spirit. And for this cause He whom they rightly awaited, when He came, raised them from the dead.
According to a scholar of koine Greek who I consulted with, Dr. Theony Condos (a non-Sabbathkeeper, who at the time was a professor at UCSB who taught ancient Greek, and later was the President of the Greek Orthodox Church in that area), the first portion of 9.1 would grammatically be better translated as:
“If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer {Judaically} keeping sabbaths but according to the Lord’s way of life…” [26]
This is because she insisted that the term ‘but’ (or ‘contrariwise’ as translated earlier above) had to refer to the “Lord’s way” instead of the Sabbath.
There are at least two reasons for this. The first is that the godly prophets had been keeping the seventh day Sabbath. And the second is since the portion of the Greek term translated as the first part of “no longer” is a ‘qualified negative’ [27] the context supports that the ‘Judaic concepts’ (verse 8.2) are part of the qualification. It may be of interest to note that the terms first, day, or Sun are not in the above passages.
Dr. Condos confirmed with me that this section is certainly speaking about the same ancient prophets throughout, hence since they actually kept the Sabbath (and not Sunday), she felt that the idea of Judaically would have had to been in Ignatius’ mind. And that this type of reference was required in English to properly understand what Ignatius was writing (and I also had this confirmed by others with a working knowledge of koine Greek).
This assessment is also consistent with later testimony from the Catholic saint and doctor of their church, Jerome, who mentioned that the Sabbath-keeping Christians he ran into did not adhere to the Jewish traditions–in other words, although they kept the Sabbath, the Nazarenes did not keep the Sabbath Judaically:
Jerome declares:
“On Isaiah 9:1-4
“The Nazarenes, whose opinion I have set forth above, try to explain this passage in the following way: When Christ came and his preaching shone out, the land of Zebulon and Naphtali [the region of Galilee] first of all were freed from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of the JEWISH TRADITIONS. Later, however, the preaching became more dominant, that means the preaching was multiplied, through the gospel of the apostle Paul who was the last of all the apostles. And the gospel of Christ shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world, which earlier walked or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the gospel” (p.64).
In this passage, we find that the Nazarene Christians — like Yeshua the Messiah, Peter, James, John and especially Paul — rejected Jewish traditionalism, invention, and additions to the Torah or Old Testament. They referred to them as the “very heavy yoke of the Jewish traditions.” [28].
Thus, instead of proving Sunday and disproving the Sabbath, Ignatius (and indirectly even Jerome) seems to be warning against incorrectly observing the Sabbath as certain Pharisaical Jews insisted, with their antiquated fables.
Or in other words, Ignatius was condemning the observance of traditions of men over the Bible. (Ignatius also held views on the godhead that appear to differ from mainstream “Christianity,” please see the article Binitarian View).
Alfred Edersheim, a 19th century scholar, observed:
“In not less that twenty-four chapters {of the Mishna}, matters are seriously discussed {regarding Sabbath observance} as of vital religious importance, which one would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain.” [29]
Note that these are mainly restrictions that are not found in the Bible (I have read many of these restrictions in the Mishna and some of them do seem to be absurd). Jesus also taught that Pharisaical Jews had improper concepts about the Sabbath (e.g. Luke 13:10-17).
Dr. Noel Rude, a self-described “grammar-freak” and linguist, felt that perhaps the following would be even more grammatically correct for the first part of verse 9.1:
“If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer (Judaically) keeping sabbaths but living according to the lordly way…”[30]
And that seems to be consistent with how I feel this verse should be translated.
In his Letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius was teaching that the godly prophets, who lived in ancient times, lived in accordance to the ways of Jesus Christ, and not after improper Judaic concepts.
There is no doubt that the ancient prophets (such as Isaiah) kept the Sabbath on the day now known as Saturday.
Around 167 BC, which is after the Old Testament was written, the Pharisees rose up. One of the way they were distinguished from the Sadducees is that the Pharisees placed great value on what they termed the ‘oral law’–or as we might call it now, Jewish tradition–in order to attain type of ‘holiness’ [31]. In other words, the party of the Pharisees relied on traditions outside of the Bible–which is something Jesus condemned them for (Matthew 15:3-9).
The Bible records that the Old Testament prophets knew how to keep the Sabbath (and not Barnabas’ eighth day) properly, as a delight for them to be in the LORD (e.g. Isaiah 58:13-14). Since the ancient prophets did that, Ignatius may be saying that Christians need to keep the Sabbath in accordance with Jesus’ example of doing good on the Sabbath and not be unduly focused on non-biblical restrictions—for, Ignatius says, we are to not live apart from Jesus. Jesus, of course kept the Sabbath, as part of His way of life.
It is also possible that mainly what Ignatius was doing was the same type of thing that Paul warned about in Colossians 2:16–he was telling Christians to let the “body of Christ” and not others (like those advocating extra-biblical Jewish practices) tell them how to keep the Sabbath.
He may have simply written this section to help differentiate Christians from Jews in the eyes of both the Christians and the Gentile governments that they tended to be under (distancing Christians from Jews would have been physically advantageous for many Christians at that time).
Yet regardless of his intended point, Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians does not advocate doing away with the biblical Sabbath, nor does it show that the Sabbath was being replaced by Sunday prior to the time of the Smyrna church era’s prominence.
It may also be of interest to note how the less-accepted “longer” version of Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians was translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers as follows:
Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner … [32]
The text here seems less ambiguous, hence a more accurate translation is essentially provided. It is quite consistent with a proper translation of the shorter version for this section.
Furthermore, the ‘longer’ version adds:
But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. [33]
Since there would have been no incentive for the Greco-Romans to tamper with the “longer” version of Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians to support keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, it is likely that this version is the correct one. And it is consistent with the translation that I (after consultation with various experts) proposed.
Ignatius was not teaching that the Sabbath was done away and replaced by Sunday. The above version seems to be more consistent with the meaning than how most others have translated the more “accepted” version.
It should be understood that Ignatius’ other writings show that he did not try to do away with the sabbath commandment. Notice what else he wrote in his Letter to the Magnesians:
It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment. [34]
The commandment that involves meeting together is the fourth commandment. It is the commandment that says to:
8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (Exodus 20:8).
Part of the way the Sabbath day is kept holy is by meeting together for church services (referred to as “an holy convocation” in Leviticus 23:1-3). There is no direct statement anywhere in the Bible requiring a weekly convocation on Sunday.
While some Sabbatarians, and others, have questioned the authenticity of Ignatius writing the subject letter, any who have truly looked into this matter can affirm that the word ‘day,’ as in the expression “Lord’s day,” is missing from the Greek there and in the Didache [35] –I have both documents in Greek and can also do so.
A Critic Gets it Wrong
A Sabbath-keeper sent me a link to an article by someone who was critical of some of my statements and conclusions in this article. Here are the most relevant portions:
The Lord’s Day not the Sabbath
The most concrete reference Ignatius makes to such a Jewish practice is in Magnesians 9.1: “If then they who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer living for the Sabbath, but for the Lord’s Day, on which also our life sprang up through him and his death.” Groups like the Seventh Day Adventists who believe Christians should still observe the Sabbath on Saturday tend to reinterpret this passage (e.g., Bacchiochi, 1977, p. 213-23; Thiel, 2010). For example, Bob Thiel suggests that kyriakē refers to the Lord’s “way” rather than to the Lord’s day.Such attempts however are clearly motivated by prior theological commitments rather than from the most natural reading of the text (e.g., Schoedel, 1985, pp. 123 n.3). On the one hand, it is true that a verb sabbatizo is used rather than the noun for Sabbath (e.g., Thiel, 2010). However, the cumulative case that it refers to observance of the Jewish Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is strong.
First, we have the background context of Philadelphians 6 and the immediate literary context of Magnesians 8 pointing us toward interpreting sabbatizo in relation to a specifically Jewish practice. Second, it is fairly clear from Revelation 1:10 that the kyriakē is a day, not a way. John of Revelation is in the Spirit on a particular day. It thus makes sense that to sabbatizo is to do something different from living according to the kyriakē, a different day. Finally, the allusion to the resurrection, “on which also our life sprang up through him and his death” (9.1), confirms a reference to Sunday, since it is clear in all the gospels that Jesus rose on the first day of the week (e.g., Matt. 28:1).
Conclusion
We conclude that tension continued to exist over whether Christians should observe the Jewish Sabbath or not into the second century AD. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, not only opposes observance of the Jewish Sabbath, but his language is very pejorative toward such individuals, who apparently were Gentile rather than Jewish believers in his context. His language treats them as marginal within the church. Further, Ignatius does not reinterpret the Sabbath as Sunday. He dispenses with it entirely as a Jewish practice. [36]While the critic is entitled to his opinion, that opinion is wrong on several fronts.
First of all, it was God who made the Sabbath (Genesis 2:2-3) and there is nothing in scripture that says He made it as a Jewish practice.
Second of all kyriakē absolutely does mean, with the most natural reading of the text, Lord’s way–it most certainly does not refer to the “Lord’s day”–it is calling it the “Lord’s day” that is the result of “prior theological commitments.”
When I asked Dr. Theony Condos (Professor of Classical Greek at UCSB, as well as later President of the Greek Orthodox church for that region) the “natural reading,” she concurred with Lord’s way [26].
Thirdly, yes, the faithful were keeping the Sabbath into the second century–and there are other records that demonstrate that.
Fourthly, yes, Ignatius did not consider/reinterpret the Sabbath as Sunday.
Fifthly, like Jesus, Ignatius objected to non-biblical Jewish interpretations of scripture related to Sabbath observance.
Sixthly, notice the following from the Catholic Mirror, September 23, 1893:
References to “Day of the Lord” or “Lord’s Day”
The first text of this class is to be found in the Acts of the Apostles 2:20: “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord shall come.” How many Sundays have rolled by since that prophecy was spoken? So much for that effort to pervert the meaning of the sacred text from the judgment day to Sunday!
The second text of this class is to be found in 1 Cor. 1:8: “Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” What simpleton does not see that the apostle here plainly indicates the day of judgment? The next text of this class that presents itself is to be found in the same Epistle, chapter 5:5: “To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The incestuous Corinthian was, of course, saved on the Sunday next following!! How pitiable such a makeshift as this! The fourth text, 2 Cor. 1:13,14: “And I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.“
Sunday or the day of judgment, which? The fifth text is from St. Paul to the Philippians, chapter 1, verse 6: “Being confident of this very thing, that He who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ.” The good people of Philippi, in attaining perfection on the following Sunday, could afford to laugh at our modern rapid transit!
We beg to submit our sixth of the class; viz., Philippians, first chapter, tenth verse: “That he may be sincere without offense unto the day of Christ.” That day was next Sunday, forsooth! Not so long to wait after all.
The seventh text, 2 Peter 3:10: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.” The application of this text to Sunday passes the bounds of absurdity.
The eighth text, 2 Peter 3:12: “Waiting for and hastening unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire, shall be dissolved,” etc. This day of the Lord is the same referred to in the previous text, the application of both of which to Sunday next would have left the Christian world sleepless the next Saturday night.
We have presented to our readers eight of the nine texts relied on to bolster up by text of Scripture the sacrilegious effort to palm off the “Lord’s day” for Sunday, and with what result? Each furnishes prima facie evidence of the last day, referring to it directly, absolutely, and unequivocally.
The ninth text wherein we meet the expression “the Lord’s day,” is the last to be found in the apostolic writings. The Apocalypse, or Revelation, chapter 1:10, furnishes it in the following words of John: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day“; but it will afford no more comfort to our Biblical friends than its predecessors of the same series. Has St. John used the expression previously in his Gospel or Epistles?—Emphatically, NO. Has he had occasion to refer to Sunday hitherto?—Yes, twice. How did he designate Sunday on these occasions? Easter Sunday was called by him (John 20:1) “the first day of the week.”
Again, chapter twenty, nineteenth verse: “Now when it was late that same day, being the first day of the week.” Evidently, although inspired, both in his Gospel and Epistles, he called Sunday “the first day of the week.” On what grounds, then, can it be assumed that he dropped that designation? Was he more inspired when he wrote the Apocalypse, or did he adopt a new title for Sunday, because it was now in vogue?
A reply to these questions would be supererogatory especially to the latter, seeing that the same expression had been used eight times already by St. Luke, St. Paul and St. Peter, all under divine inspiration, and surely the Holy Spirit would not inspire St. John to call Sunday the Lord’s day, whilst He inspired Sts. Luke, Paul, and Peter, collectively, to entitle the day of judgment “the Lord’s day.” Dialecticians reckon amongst the infallible motives of certitude, the moral motive of analogy or induction, by which we are enabled to conclude with certainty from the known to the unknown; being absolutely certain of the meaning of an expression, it can have only the same meaning when uttered the ninth time, especially when we know that on the nine occasions the expressions were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Nor are the strongest intrinsic grounds wanting to prove that this, like its sister texts, containing the same meaning. St. John (Rev. 1:10) says “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day“; but he furnishes us the key to this expression, chapter four, first and second verses: “After this I looked and behold a door opened in heaven.” A voice said to him: “Come up hither, and I will show you the things which must be hereafter.” Let us ascend in spirit with John. Whither?—through that “door in heaven,” to heaven. And what shall we see?—”The things that must be hereafter,” chapter four, first verse. He ascended in spirit to heaven. He was ordered to write, in full, his vision of what is to take place antecedent to, and concomitantly with, “the Lord’s day,” or the day of judgment; the expression “Lord’s day” being confined in Scripture to the day of judgment exclusively.
We have studiously and accurately collected from the New Testament every available proof that could be adduced in favor of a law canceling the Sabbath day of the old law, or one substituting another day for the Christian dispensation. We have been careful to make the above distinction, lest it might be advanced that the third (6) commandment was abrogated under the new law. Any such plea has been overruled by the action of the Methodist Episcopal bishops in their pastoral 1874, and quoted by the New York Herald of the same date, of the following tenor:
“The Sabbath instituted in the beginning and confirmed again and again by Moses and the prophets has never been abrogated. A part of the moral law, not a part or tittle of its sanctity has been taken away.” The above official pronouncement has committed that large body of Biblical Christians to the permanence of the third commandment under the new law. We again beg to leave to call the special attention of our readers to the twentieth of “the thirty-nine articles of religion” of the Book of Common Prayer; “It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s written word.“
CONCLUSION
We have in this series of articles, taken much pains for the instruction of our readers to prepare them by presenting a number of undeniable facts found in the word of God to arrive at a conclusion absolutely irrefragable. When the Biblical system put in an appearance in the sixteenth century, it not only seized on the temporal possessions of the Church, but in its vandalic crusade stripped Christianity, as far as it could, of all the sacraments instituted by its Founder, of the holy sacrifice, etc., retaining nothing but the Bible, which its exponents pronounced their sole teacher in Christian doctrine and morals. Chief amongst their articles of belief was, and is today, the permanent neces. [37]
The preceding was part of a series on articles in the Catholic Mirror which explained that the seventh-day Sabbath, on the day we now call Saturday, is the only scripturally defensible day of rest. More from the Catholic Mirror is in the article The Sabbath in the Early Church and Abroad. The full text of the Catholic Mirror series is found in the article The Christian Sabbath.
Seventhly, which day does the Bible say was the Lord’s day?
Which day did Jesus teach He was Lord of?
Look at what Jesus said,
27 And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28).
8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8).
The verses in Mark and Matthew are also consistent with the Old Testament which show that the Sabbath was God’s day:
8 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made (Genesis 2:3)
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:11).
13 If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable (Isaiah 58:13).
So, if we look into the verses of the entire Bible, it is clear that the Bible supports the idea that the Lord’s Day would be the seventh day of the week, or Saturday, and never Sunday
Furthermore, the fact that Ignatius did not attempt to “do away” with the Sabbath and other commandments can also be verified by looking at some of his other writings.
Ignatius’ Other Writings
In his Letter to the Romans, Ignatius observed that true Christians kept the commandments:
I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments [38].
But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world, lest at any time being conquered by his artifices, ye grow weak in your love [39].
Notice that Ignatius is once again complaining about Judaic customs that are not from the Bible. How do we know that the practices that Ignatius is referring to are not from the Bible? Because Ignatius is clearly saying to avoid snares from “the prince of the world.”
The prince Ignatius is referring to is Satan:
2 … the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2)
Now since the Sabbath did not come from Satan, as it came from God (see Genesis 2:1-3), Ignatius would not refer to something that God made as wicked.
Furthermore, notice that Ignatius mentioned about keeping “every one of His commandments,” thus this is not simply an admonition to love, but to keep all the commandments.
In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius wrote about false Christians:
But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact,] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me. Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us [40].
Since he writes that some of the false Christians do not have “the law of Moses” it is reasonable to conclude that Ignatius believed that he did have the “law of Moses,” in regards to the ten commandments, including the Sabbath commandment.
It may be of at least of passing interest to note that Ignatius referred to the church as the “church of God” four times in his writings [41].
I would also add that it is not proper to teach that Ignatius associated the ‘cross’ “with the power of the Holy Spirit” as the late Cardinal Danielou said he did [42] and many mistranslators have. Ignatius used the word staros/stake, not the word cross, in his writing in his letter to the Ephesians, Chapter IX. More on the ‘cross’ can be found in the article What is the Origin of the Cross as a ‘Christian’ Symbol?
Other Confirmation
The idea that those that professed Christ had a more positive, and less ceremonial attitude toward the Sabbath than did most of the Jews can also be found in an anonymous document titled the Epistle to Diognetus (probably written in the late second century). Specifically, in the following portion where the writer claims that the Jews:
4:3 And again to lie against God, as if He forbad us to do any good thing on the sabbath day, is not this profane? [43]
This is simply additional evidence that the way of sabbath emphasis of those who professed Christ was different from that held by many of the Jews then (an article of related interest may be The Sabbath in the Early Church and Abroad). True Christians understood Jesus’ teachings that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath (e.g. Matthew 12:12).
[4] Slater T. Sunday. Transcribed by Scott Anthony Hibbs. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[5] The Didache. Verse 14.1. In: Holmes M. The Apostolic Fathers–Greek Text and English Translations, 3rd printing 2004. Baker Books, Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 250-269
[6] Pixner B. Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion. Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1990: 16-35,60
[7] The Didache. In Apostolic Fathers. Kirsopp Lake, 1912 (Loeb Classical Library) © 2001 Peter Kirby
[8] The Didache. Translated by Isaac Hall and John Napier. Revised by K. Knight. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight. Note: The Greek is from Holmes, above.
[9] The Didache. Verse 14.1. In: Holmes, p. 266
[10] The Didache, Verse 14.1. Lake.
[11] Ibid
[12] The Didache. Verse 8.1. In: Holmes, p. 258
[13] The Didache. Hall Napier.
[14] The Didache. Verse 8.1. In: Holmes, p. 266
[15] Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. clii
[16] Holmes, p. 154
[17] Ignatius. Letter to the Magnesians, Verse 9.1. Translated by J.B. Lightfoot. Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation. © 2001 Peter Kirby
[18] Ignatius. Letter to the Magnesians. In: Holmes M. pp. 150-159
[19] Ibid
[20] The Didache. Translated by J.B. Lightfoot. Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation. © 2001 Peter Kirby
[21] Ibid
[22] Guy F. Lord’s Day in the Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians. AUSS 2, 1964: 17 Cited in Bacchiocchi S. Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday, p. 93
[23] Kitto J. The cyclopaedia of Biblical literature, Volume 2. American Book Exchange, 1881. Original from Harvard University, Digitized. Jan 31, 2008 p. 270
[24] Ibid
[25] Ignatius. Letter to the Magnesians. Verse 8. In: Holmes M. The Apostolic Fathers–Greek Text and English Translations, 3rd printing 2004, p. 154
[26] Condos, Theony. Meeting with Dr. Thiel regarding Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians. Santa Barbara, California. July 31, 2005 (in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011, Dr. Condos also served as the parish president for Saint Barbara Greek Orthodox Church)
[27] Strong J. Words 3371 & 3361 in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, Abington, Nashville, 1890 , p.48
[28] The Mysterious Relationship of The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism. http://hope-of-israel.org/nazarene.htm 02/24/16
[29] Edersheim A. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Volume 2. Longmans, Green, and Company, 1883, p. 775
[30] Rude N. Emails to COGwriter, 2/23/11 and 03/03/2011
[31] Hoogsteen T. The Tradition of the Elders: The Way of the Oral Law. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014, pp. 2-4
[32] Ignatius (Pseudo). The Epistle to the Magnesians (longer recension). Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1999 printing, p.62
[33] Ibid
[34] Ignatius. Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter III. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight
[35] Lewis A.H. A Critical History of the Sabbath and the Sunday in the Christian Church. American Sabbath Tract Association, Plainfield (NJ), 1903, pp. 8-10
[36] Ignatius, the Sabbath, and the Lord’s Day. October 25, 2010. http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2010/10/ignatius-sabbath-and-lords-day.html retrieved 02/22/19
[37] The Christian Sabbath. Catholic Mirror, September 23, 1893, pp. 8-9
[38] Ignatius. Letter to the Romans, Chapter I. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight
[39] Ignatius. Letter to the Philadelphians. Chapter VI. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight
[40] Ignatius. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapters IV-V. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885.
[41] Ignatius. Letter to the Philadelphians 0:0, 10:1; Letter to the Trallians 2:2; Letter to the Smyrnaeans 0:0.
[42] Danielou, Cardinal Jean-Guenole-Marie. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John A. Baker. The Westminister Press, 1964, p. 278
[43] The Epistle To Diognetus. Translated by J.B. Lightfoot. In Apostolic Fathers. Lightfoot & Harmer, 1891 translation, Online version © 2001 Peter Kirby
So the Banned poster’s three sources (Didache, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr) were all addressed. Not one of them prove, “Sunday was a day highly regarded by ALL Christians by the close of the First Century” which a previous post at Banned asserted.
That said, perhaps it should also be mentioned that a 2nd century collection of writings (which contains some erroneous doctrines), related to the Apostle John, has the following:
John … on the seventh day, it being the Lord’s day, he said to them: Now it is time for me also to partake of food. …
John went to Ephesus, and regulated all the teaching of the church, holding many conferences, and reminding them of what the Lord had said to them, and what duty he had assigned to each. (Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. Translated by Alexander Walker. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe)
While the above is not scripture, notice that it identifies the “Lord’s Day” as the seventh day of the week. And the idea that the seventh day if the Lord’s Day is consistent with Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:8 Mark 2:28, and Luke 6:5 stating He is “Lord of the Sabbath” day.
Sadly, many have “banned themselves” from the truth about church history.
The historical fact is that Sunday came about because of compromise and cowardice–see also The Sabbath in the Early Church and Abroad.
The false assertions at Banned brought the following scripture to mind:
15 The lazy man is wiser in his own eyes
Than seven men who can answer sensibly. (Proverbs 26:16)
Nearly all my theological writings are highly documented with scriptural and historical references. Lazy people can make false statements, but their erroneous accusatory statements are still false.
Satan is the accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10) and has many minions doing his work (cf. John 8:43-44).
The Banned post also makes the following false statement related to me:
He also ignores the clear evidence that the “Gospel” or “Good News” was all about Jesus Christ and salvation through him – that his purpose was to save all of humanity!
No, I do not ignore salvation, Jesus, nor the gospel message. The fact is that Jesus came to proclaim the gospel message:
14 … Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (Mark 1:14)
While Jesus is part of the message, He was not the entire message. Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom of God as the New Testament clearly states. I not only do that as well, but in the Continuing Church of God, we have striven to get the gospel out in as many languages as we can (see Preaching the Gospel in Over 1500 Languages).
Now, as far as God’s plan of salvation goes, we have a referenced free book available. Here is a link: Universal OFFER of Salvation, Apokatastasis: Can God save the lost in an age to come? Hundreds of scriptures reveal God’s plan of salvation. God’s plan of salvation is not something most who post at Banned understand.
Those at Banned and elsewhere who wish to believe falsehoods should consider that Jesus warned:
15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. (Revelation 22:15)
Anyway, the truth about church history is out there for those who will sincerely respond to God’s call and believe it.
Don’t be one “who loves and practices falsehood”–do not allow yourself to be “banned from the truth.”
Jesus said:
11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:11-12)
Throughout history, true prophets have been reviled and had all kinds of evil against them falsely said. So, it is no surprise the same would happen to a true prophet in the 21st century (see also 21st Century Church of God Prophets).
Jesus also said:
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, (Matthew 5:44)
Those who post against the truth at the Banned site remain in my prayers.
Jesus also said:
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God. (John 8:45-47)
Hopefully, you are of God and are one who will believe (as well as act upon) the truth. See also: Why is there a Philadelphian remnant of the true Christian Church of God?
As far as church history goes, the following documented information is available free online:
Continuing History of the Church of God This pdf booklet is a historical overview of the true Church of God and some of its main opponents from Acts 2 to the 21st century. Related sermon links include Continuing History of the Church of God: c. 31 to c. 300 A.D. and Continuing History of the Church of God: 4th-16th Centuries and Continuing History of the Church of God: 17th-20th Centuries. The booklet is available in Spanish: Continuación de la Historia de la Iglesia de Dios, German: Kontinuierliche Geschichte der Kirche Gottes, French: L Histoire Continue de l Église de Dieu and Ekegusii Omogano Bw’ekanisa Ya Nyasae Egendererete
Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History; The First Protestant, God’s Command, Grace, & Character; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God’s Plan; Seventh Day Baptists/Adventists/Messianics: Protestant or COG?; Millennial Kingdom of God and God’s Plan of Salvation; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats; The Godhead and the Trinity; Fleeing or Rapture?; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences.
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
 |
Tweet |
|