The history of how Sunday worship came about.

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,270
4,293
USA
✟488,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I just want to point out a translation error I never noticed before. This error is found in the KJV Bible as quoted in the OP. The verse is Acts 17:30 and from the KJV. Even the Geneva Bible gets this one right which is extremely rare in these cases where the KJV mistranslates a word. Usually anything mistranslated in the KJV was taken from the Genesis Bible which reads 90% like the KJV. However, other translations, including the Tyndale, reads overlooked the ignorance and not winked at ignorance as the KJV says.

The words overlooked and winked do not mean the same thing in context. If God winked at ignorance that would be act of approval. But God never approved of sin. He simply overlooked it.

Acts 17:30, New Matthew's Bible (modern spelling and grammar of the 1537 Matthew Bible).

"And God overlooked the time of this ignorance. But now he bids all people"​

The word overlooked is used in every translation I checked out except the KJV. So in this verse another translation should be used.

To me it has the same meaning, it's how I always interpreted this verse, not that He approved (The last part of the verse seems to make this case), but "overlooked" or "winked at" if one was never told or did not have access to knowing.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gary K
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,892
1,068
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟115,558.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
KJV Leviticus 16:29-31
29 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:
30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
31 It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.

How often did the day of Atonement come around on the Jewish calendar?

Somehow I guess I missed your response in my alerts, sorry for the delay, (I just now saw this by chance). Anyway Yom haKippurim is always to fall on the tenth of the seventh month, and is always to be a Shabbat shabbaton, and a Shabbat shabbaton is a weekly Shabbat. But of course that is not possible on the modern (Hillel 2) "Jewish calendar", so this subject matter would likely be opening up a can of worms which would take a whole thread of its own to explain, because we would be getting into a full-on discussion of the correct calendar taught in the Torah. Suffice it to say that Yom haKippurim is supposed to fall on a weekly Shabbat of rest, (Shabbat shabbaton), once a year, the tenth of the seventh month.
 
Upvote 0

Ragdoll

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2022
472
159
45
Madison, WI
✟22,332.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
To me it has the same meaning, it's how I always interpreted this verse, not that He approved (The last part of the verse seems to make this case), but "overlooked" or "winked at" if one was never told or did not have access to knowing.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
In today's modern English the word winked and overlooked mean two different things. To overlook is to tolerate. To wink is to approve. Though it could be that the KJV translators chose a word that is obsolete today. The KJV translators used many words that are no longer used to mean the same thing today. Ironically, William Tyndale made better word selections than the KJV scholars used and most of Tyndale's renderings are still relevant today.

I have heard the term "God winks at ignorance" used to describe the sinner who doesn't know s/he is sinning. This is not even true of the Old Testament. Anyone can read the Torah and see that God did not tolerate ignorance in Israel. However, I realize the verse in question is not about ancient Israel and is about ancient pagan nations. God tolerated them. He did not wink at them as to approve of their ways. To tolerate something is an act of love and self-control in matters where it would be easy to not tolerate.

Finally, keep in mind that the KJV is the only translation (that I found in my search) that has winked. Even the Geneva Bible scholars got it right! Then we have the Tyndale Bibles which also agree that overlooked is correct. So the best case scenario is that the KJV scholars used a word that would quickly become obsolete. As much as I like the KJV there are many things I don't like about it. Poor word selections seems to plague the KJV. I sure hope you are not KJV Only because if you are you are in a world of hurt. I was once a lay-reader for the Anglican Catholic Church, and in that tradition a lay-reader has to know the words he's speaking and how to say them. For example, a common mistake among people is to the word "saith" which they pronounce as say-ith. The proper way to speak that word is as to say the name of Seth. Its like saying thus seth the Lord. Just one example. So the next time you read "saith" in the KJV now you know how to say the word in old English. As a lay-reader I learned a great deal about both the KJV and the Tyndale Bibles, as the Psalter was from the 1539 Great Bible. So when I read a Pslam I had to read it from the 1539 Great Bible instead of the KJV (since King James never issued a new translation for the Psalter). There are many words in the KJV no longer used today, or that mean something different today than it did back in 1611. There are phrases no longer used in today's English that meant something different back then. So the KJV is obsolete in our today's modern English. And I do like the KJV and miss being a lay-reader. I enjoyed reading for the congregation. I enjoyed the translations I read from. But its just the reality that the KJV is not a translation for everybody. In all honesty, if a person is not an Anglican they proably have no clue as to what they are reading. I wish I could have stayed an Anglican as they have the best liturgy. I love their catechism over all other churches. I only left the Anglican church because they did not remain true to the Anglican traditions and followed the modern Roman Catholic system of thought. Today I'm a traditional Lutheran and will stay that way. I'm not too much a fan of the ESV that the Lutheran Church uses but they believe what they preach and remain true to their Lutheran traditions.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,270
4,293
USA
✟488,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In today's modern English the word winked and overlooked mean two different things. To overlook is to tolerate. To wink is to approve. Though it could be that the KJV translators chose a word that is obsolete today. The KJV translators used many words that are no longer used to mean the same thing today. Ironically, William Tyndale made better word selections than the KJV scholars used and most of Tyndale's renderings are still relevant today.

I have heard the term "God winks at ignorance" used to describe the sinner who doesn't know s/he is sinning. This is not even true of the Old Testament. Anyone can read the Torah and see that God did not tolerate ignorance in Israel. However, I realize the verse in question is not about ancient Israel and is about ancient pagan nations. God tolerated them. He did not wink at them as to approve of their ways. To tolerate something is an act of love and self-control in matters where it would be easy to not tolerate.

Finally, keep in mind that the KJV is the only translation (that I found in my search) that has winked. Even the Geneva Bible scholars got it right! Then we have the Tyndale Bibles which also agree that overlooked is correct. So the best case scenario is that the KJV scholars used a word that would quickly become obsolete. As much as I like the KJV there are many things I don't like about it. Poor word selections seems to plague the KJV. I sure hope you are not KJV Only because if you are you are in a world of hurt. I was once a lay-reader for the Anglican Catholic Church, and in that tradition a lay-reader has to know the words he's speaking and how to say them. For example, a common mistake among people is to the word "saith" which they pronounce as say-ith. The proper way to speak that word is as to say the name of Seth. It’s like saying thus seth the Lord. Just one example. So the next time you read "saith" in the KJV now you know how to say the word in old English. As a lay-reader I learned a great deal about both the KJV and the Tyndale Bibles, as the Psalter was from the 1539 Great Bible. So when I read a Pslam I had to read it from the 1539 Great Bible instead of the KJV (since King James never issued a new translation for the Psalter). There are many words in the KJV no longer used today, or that mean something different today than it did back in 1611. There are phrases no longer used in today's English that meant something different back then. So the KJV is obsolete in our today's modern English. And I do like the KJV and miss being a lay-reader. I enjoyed reading for the congregation. I enjoyed the translations I read from. But its just the reality that the KJV is not a translation for everybody. In all honesty, if a person is not an Anglican they proably have no clue as to what they are reading. I wish I could have stayed an Anglican as they have the best liturgy. I love their catechism over all other churches. I only left the Anglican church because they did not remain true to the Anglican traditions and followed the modern Roman Catholic system of thought. Today I'm a traditional Lutheran and will stay that way. I'm not too much a fan of the ESV that the Lutheran Church uses but they believe what they preach and remain true to their Lutheran traditions.
I think you’re applying a modern term to wink, then what it is showing in context. Wink in other places in scripture in the KJV does not mean approve.

Here’s a couple examples..

Job 15:12 Why doth thine heart carry thee away? and what do thy eyes wink at,

Psa 35:19 Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Like I said previously, the last part of the verse makes it clear it has nothing to do with approval ‘but now commandeth all men every where to repent”. If it’s okay to do i.e. approve why would one need to repent.

God did not tolerate disobedience in Israel (just like with us) but that is different than having no knowledge of.

I wouldn’t define overlook as to tolerate either- it this context is means one is not aware of- a time of ignorance- no knowledge. That’s how I see it anyway. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: brakelite
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,396
962
Visit site
✟100,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
In today's modern English the word winked and overlooked mean two different things. To overlook is to tolerate. To wink is to approve. Though it could be that the KJV translators chose a word that is obsolete today. The KJV translators used many words that are no longer used to mean the same thing today. Ironically, William Tyndale made better word selections than the KJV scholars used and most of Tyndale's renderings are still relevant today.

I have heard the term "God winks at ignorance" used to describe the sinner who doesn't know s/he is sinning. This is not even true of the Old Testament. Anyone can read the Torah and see that God did not tolerate ignorance in Israel. However, I realize the verse in question is not about ancient Israel and is about ancient pagan nations. God tolerated them. He did not wink at them as to approve of their ways. To tolerate something is an act of love and self-control in matters where it would be easy to not tolerate.

Finally, keep in mind that the KJV is the only translation (that I found in my search) that has winked. Even the Geneva Bible scholars got it right! Then we have the Tyndale Bibles which also agree that overlooked is correct. So the best case scenario is that the KJV scholars used a word that would quickly become obsolete. As much as I like the KJV there are many things I don't like about it. Poor word selections seems to plague the KJV. I sure hope you are not KJV Only because if you are you are in a world of hurt. I was once a lay-reader for the Anglican Catholic Church, and in that tradition a lay-reader has to know the words he's speaking and how to say them. For example, a common mistake among people is to the word "saith" which they pronounce as say-ith. The proper way to speak that word is as to say the name of Seth. Its like saying thus seth the Lord. Just one example. So the next time you read "saith" in the KJV now you know how to say the word in old English. As a lay-reader I learned a great deal about both the KJV and the Tyndale Bibles, as the Psalter was from the 1539 Great Bible. So when I read a Pslam I had to read it from the 1539 Great Bible instead of the KJV (since King James never issued a new translation for the Psalter). There are many words in the KJV no longer used today, or that mean something different today than it did back in 1611. There are phrases no longer used in today's English that meant something different back then. So the KJV is obsolete in our today's modern English. And I do like the KJV and miss being a lay-reader. I enjoyed reading for the congregation. I enjoyed the translations I read from. But its just the reality that the KJV is not a translation for everybody. In all honesty, if a person is not an Anglican they proably have no clue as to what they are reading. I wish I could have stayed an Anglican as they have the best liturgy. I love their catechism over all other churches. I only left the Anglican church because they did not remain true to the Anglican traditions and followed the modern Roman Catholic system of thought. Today I'm a traditional Lutheran and will stay that way. I'm not too much a fan of the ESV that the Lutheran Church uses but they believe what they preach and remain true to their Lutheran traditions.
I have understood since I was a kid the use of "winked at" was not an expression of approval. But by the time I was in the fourth grade I was reading an old Webster's dictionary we had that was published in the 1930s for fun so I've always had a better than average vocabulary. It was at least 10" thick. Best dictionary I've ever seen.
 
Upvote 0

Ragdoll

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2022
472
159
45
Madison, WI
✟22,332.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
I think you’re applying a modern term to wink, then what it is showing in context. Wink in other places in scripture in the KJV does not mean approve.

Here’s a couple examples..

Job 15:12 Why doth thine heart carry thee away? and what do thy eyes wink at,

Psa 35:19 Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Like I said previously, the last part of the verse makes it clear it has nothing to do with approval ‘but now commandeth all men every where to repent”. If it’s okay to do i.e. approve why would one need to repent.

God did not tolerate disobedience in Israel (just like with us) but that is different than having no knowledge of.

I wouldn’t define overlook as to tolerate either- it this context is means one is not aware of- a time of ignorance- no knowledge. That’s how I see it anyway. :)
You are trying to solve the problem in English when its a Hebrew word translated into English. I do not believe the word wink is how it translated. It seems consistent to believe that overlooked would be the better word selection in English over winked. I have studied translations and translating for years now. The only reason why I do not translate the whole Bible myself is because I will not live to see it through (as I'm too old to finish the task). I did not look at the Hebrew of this verse but I don't have to in this case. When every translation says overlooked and only one translated says something contrary to what every other translation says, that's a clear sign the Hebrew word was mistranslated or that the KJV scholars made a poor word selection which they had a tendency to do. Many words in the KJV have become obsolete solely because of poor word selections. The 1537 Matthew's Bible is still relevant English for the most part. I only found one poor word selection that became obsolete soon after the translation. In fact, all the Tyndale Bibles made better word selections. Those word selections would be upheld by modern scholars.
 
Upvote 0

Ragdoll

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2022
472
159
45
Madison, WI
✟22,332.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
It wasn't the apostles or from Christ, or any change in the Bible, so how did Sunday worship come from. Well history gives us a clue in the various descriptions I came across..

"On March 7, 321, Roman Emperor Constantine I decreed that dies Solis Invicti (‘sun-day,’ or Day of Sol Invictus, Roman God of the Sun) would be the Roman day of rest throughout the Roman Empire...

Though Sol Invictus (meaning ‘The unconquered Sun’) was indeed a pagan Roman God, and had been featured on Roman coins, Constantine coopted this pagan heritage along with the Judeo-Christian following of the 10 Commandments by granting a day to honor God and rest for man. As the Roman Empire gradually converted to Christianity, Sunday became the natural day for the Sabbath and rest since Romans were already accustomed to Sunday as their day off."March 7, 321: How Sunday Became the Christian Day of Rest - History and Headlines

"The early Romans initially adopted the earlier Greek Hellenistic religion that incorporated the worship of many deities, including Apollo and Helios—the sun god, who was known to the Romans as Sol. As time passed, Sol eventually took on the combined attributes of Apollo, Helios and Mithra. The early Roman Emperors promoted the rising cult of Sol Invictus with the addition of numerous new temples, statues, rites and festivals created in Sol's name. Like earlier solar deities, Sol's tasks included steering the sun-chariot across the sky each day, a reminder that this cult was a blending of monotheism and earlier paganism.

By promoting the cult and the consolidation of divine power into Sol, Roman emperors were able to please the military and also enhance their own power by identifying Sol as the source of imperial legitimacy; in some cases the emperors were able to promote themselves as the personification of Solon earth.

Constantine in the early 4th century advanced the pagan cult of Sol Invictus to the height of its popularity. Among his efforts was the minting of this special coin dedicated to Sol. Constantine also built his famous Arch in Rome, inscribed with several references to Sol Invictus, and positioned it carefully to align with the colossal 100' bronze statue of Sol that adjoined the Coliseum at the time. The rising popularity Christianity in Rome's rural areas was a factor in Constantine’s later adoption of Christianity as the Empire's official religious—a transition arguably made easier by the preceding, well accepted ideas embodied in and popularized by the cult of Sol Invictus." ..Biblical Artifacts Ancient Coins and Artifacts from the Holy Land

"Sol Invictus played a prominent role in the Mithraic mysteries and was portrayed as being equated with, allied with, or an epithet of Mithras, although the relationship between the public cults themselves is controversial. The New Testament scholar Helmut Koester, in his book, Introduction to the New Testament, says “Although Mithras appeared to be the most oriental god among the new deities, and although his cult was essentially celebrated in exclusive mystery associations—the Mithras cult was a “mystery religion” in the strict sense of the word—this god was received by the Romans without resistance, and at the end of the 3d century CE, as Sol Invictus he became the official god of the Roman state.” ..The Dying-and-Rising Gods: Sol Invictus

The text of Constantine's Sunday Law of 321 A.D.:
First Sunday Law enacted by Emperor Constantine -
March, 321 A.D.

On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time [A.D. 321].)
Source: Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3 (5th ed.; New York: Scribner, 1902), p. 380, note 1. ...Was The Seven-Day Weekly Cycle Created By Man?

The early believers kept Saturday as the Sabbath until March 7, 321 CE when Constantine passed his law requiring believers to worship on Sunday, the day the pagans worshiped the sun-god, Sol Invictus. Believers continued to keep Saturday as the Sabbath but gradually were swept aside as the day of the sun took root in the empire, and we see the start of serious oppression for the day of worship, and many believers began to be persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for keeping the Sabbath.

Rome had been the center of many of the pagan festivals and cults, and it was held that Mithras was born on what we now call Christmas day, and his followers celebrated the spring equinox. The Sol Invictus, associated with Mithras, was one the main pagan cult the church faced and rather than reject it let it come into the church with its sun worship. The Cybele cult also flourished in Rome on today's Vatican Hill. They held that Cybele's lover Attis, was born of a virgin, died and was reborn annually. This spring festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday, rising to a crescendo after three days, in rejoicing over the resurrection. There was violent conflict on Vatican Hill in the early days of Christianity between the Jesus worshipers and pagans who quarreled over whose God was the true, and whose the imitation. Christianity came to an accommodation with the pagan Spring festival and used it to bring in unconverted pagans.

History clearly shows how the Pagan worship of Sol Invictus and festivals got into the early church and it was never sanctioned by scripture or given by Christ and the Apostles.

Transition from Pagan to Christian

'This legislation by Constantine probably bore no relation to Christianity; it appears, on the contrary, that the emperor, in his capacity of Pontifex Maximus, was only adding the day of the Sun, the worship of which was then firmly [p. 123] established in the Roman Empire, to the other ferial days of the sacred calendar…
[p. 270] What began, however, as a pagan ordinance, ended as a Christian regulation; and a long series of imperial decrees, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, enjoined with increasing stringency abstinence from labor on Sunday.' - Source: Hutton Webster, Rest Days, pp. 122, 123, 270. Copyright 1916 by The Macmillan Company, New York.

'The Church made a sacred day of Sunday largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance.' Source: Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 145. Copyright 1928 by G. p. Putnams Sons, New York. ...Sunday Worship

By the time of Emperor Constantine, the Christian religion received imperial sanction and the bishop of Rome became more than just another bishop, and brought in a system of worship from another origin than Christianity.

After the fall of Rome, the Bishop of Rome served as a source of authority and continuity from the old empire but Rome had also been the center of the pagan priests and their temples during the Roman Empire, and they did not go away. The Bishop of Rome, to bring in more converts brought what they were familiar with and allowed the traditional Roman mysteries and deities of solar monism such as Mithras and Sol Invictus and idol worship back into the church, along with its Pagan doctrines, graven images and ceremonies. It renamed the mother goddess and others that were worshiped and brought them into the church at Rome, then with its influence it spread into the other centers of Christianity. So next lets take a look at the Roman mysteries and the changes to the day of worship and how they were brought in.

Christians at Rome had been faithful as they were persecuted for many years but as they became accepted and persecution stop, other challenges faced them. Greek philosophy and Gnosticism had been picked up and in Rome the old beliefs and festivals were still followed by the Romans and many Christian and leaders didnt see a problem with it. The first issue began when early in the life of the Church, disputes arose as the bishop of Rome allowed the celebration of the Pasch or Passover to continue till the following Sunday so Christians could also celebrate Spring Equinox festival as they had done before.

Now the danger of allowing the Christians to join in pagan solstice celebrations was overlooked as the new pagan 'converts' joined the church and swelled the numbers under the bishop of Rome. So you had a introduction into the early church of what many were familiar with from the tradition of ancient Rome, not from scripture and it began to spread throughout the empire.
Do you really believe this? How much of Roman history do you know? Or better yet, how much of Christian history do you know? There is no evidence that Constantine changed anything. None. That is all made up with no historical records to support the claim. Constantine also put an end to Christian persecution. Is that not a good thing? I think it is. Remember there is a prophecy from Isaiah about the gentile nations and their kings coming to the light of Christ.
Isaiah 60:3

The early Christians kept the first day of the week which they called The Lord's Day. Later, as Christianity began to spread more throughout the pagan world, they began to call it Sunday. No crime was committed. Christians worship on Sunday because that is the day Jesus finished the work of God on the cross.
John 4:34

The early Christians did not have to keep the strict observance of the 4th Commandment because that Commandment was never given to the gentiles to begin with. Do not believe for one small second that the Law of Israel was the Law of the world. That was not what God established with Israel. The only global Law God has given us is the Law of Christ. Now this Law does not condone cheap grace or lawlessness. Do not make the mistake of trying to be the mind of God on these matters. The gentiles came to Christ and they did not have the Law given to them. The disciples kept the Sabbath Law because they were in Judea and were not lawless. They knew the 4th Commandment was Law in Israel which is why they preached in the Synagogues on the Sabbath. But they also held a Sunday service. Constantine did nothing wrong. Its just as simple as Jesus' resurrection as the reason for why Christians worship on Sunday.

I think Romans 14 is the Golden Chapter of our time. Read it without commentary and let it speak to you. Do not become radical and jump to rash conclusions either. Just continue on in worship and do so with grace and humility.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,270
4,293
USA
✟488,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You are trying to solve the problem in English when its a Hebrew word translated into English. I do not believe the word wink is how it translated. It seems consistent to believe that overlooked would be the better word selection in English over winked. I have studied translations and translating for years now. The only reason why I do not translate the whole Bible myself is because I will not live to see it through (as I'm too old to finish the task). I did not look at the Hebrew of this verse but I don't have to in this case. When every translation says overlooked and only one translated says something contrary to what every other translation says, that's a clear sign the Hebrew word was mistranslated or that the KJV scholars made a poor word selection which they had a tendency to do. Many words in the KJV have become obsolete solely because of poor word selections. The 1537 Matthew's Bible is still relevant English for the most part. I only found one poor word selection that became obsolete soon after the translation. In fact, all the Tyndale Bibles made better word selections. Those word selections would be upheld by modern scholars.
There's not a problem and as shown though the KJV wink does not mean approve, nor does it mean it in the context of the scripture in question-no need to repent for something that is approved. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,270
4,293
USA
✟488,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Do you really believe this? How much of Roman history do you know? Or better yet, how much of Christian history do you know? There is no evidence that Constantine changed anything. None. That is all made up with no historical records to support the claim. Constantine also put an end to Christian persecution. Is that not a good thing? I think it is. Remember there is a prophecy from Isaiah about the gentile nations and their kings coming to the light of Christ.
Isaiah 60:3

The early Christians kept the first day of the week which they called The Lord's Day. Later, as Christianity began to spread more throughout the pagan world, they began to call it Sunday. No crime was committed. Christians worship on Sunday because that is the day Jesus finished the work of God on the cross.
John 4:34

The early Christians did not have to keep the strict observance of the 4th Commandment because that Commandment was never given to the gentiles to begin with. Do not believe for one small second that the Law of Israel was the Law of the world. That was not what God established with Israel. The only global Law God has given us is the Law of Christ. Now this Law does not condone cheap grace or lawlessness. Do not make the mistake of trying to be the mind of God on these matters. The gentiles came to Christ and they did not have the Law given to them. The disciples kept the Sabbath Law because they were in Judea and were not lawless. They knew the 4th Commandment was Law in Israel which is why they preached in the Synagogues on the Sabbath. But they also held a Sunday service. Constantine did nothing wrong. Its just as simple as Jesus' resurrection as the reason for why Christians worship on Sunday.

I think Romans 14 is the Golden Chapter of our time. Read it without commentary and let it speak to you. Do not become radical and jump to rash conclusions either. Just continue on in worship and do so with grace and humility.
Can you show me where in scripture the Lords Day is the first day without adding it to God's Word. Where in Romans 14 in the whole chapter does it say the Sabbath commandment without adding it there. We shouldn't jump to rash conclusions that are not in harmony with the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,396
962
Visit site
✟100,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Do you really believe this? How much of Roman history do you know? Or better yet, how much of Christian history do you know? There is no evidence that Constantine changed anything. None. That is all made up with no historical records to support the claim. Constantine also put an end to Christian persecution. Is that not a good thing? I think it is. Remember there is a prophecy from Isaiah about the gentile nations and their kings coming to the light of Christ.
Isaiah 60:3

The early Christians kept the first day of the week which they called The Lord's Day. Later, as Christianity began to spread more throughout the pagan world, they began to call it Sunday. No crime was committed. Christians worship on Sunday because that is the day Jesus finished the work of God on the cross.
John 4:34

The early Christians did not have to keep the strict observance of the 4th Commandment because that Commandment was never given to the gentiles to begin with. Do not believe for one small second that the Law of Israel was the Law of the world. That was not what God established with Israel. The only global Law God has given us is the Law of Christ. Now this Law does not condone cheap grace or lawlessness. Do not make the mistake of trying to be the mind of God on these matters. The gentiles came to Christ and they did not have the Law given to them. The disciples kept the Sabbath Law because they were in Judea and were not lawless. They knew the 4th Commandment was Law in Israel which is why they preached in the Synagogues on the Sabbath. But they also held a Sunday service. Constantine did nothing wrong. Its just as simple as Jesus' resurrection as the reason for why Christians worship on Sunday.

I think Romans 14 is the Golden Chapter of our time. Read it without commentary and let it speak to you. Do not become radical and jump to rash conclusions either. Just continue on in worship and do so with grace and humility.
I believe it, and I know a fair amount about Roman history. Ever read Edward Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? I have.

How about Adam Blair's History of the Waldenses? Both books have a lot of Roman history in them.

How about Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons? I've read it too.

How about D'aubigne's 1400 page tome History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century? I've read it too.

These books are all filled with the history of Rome. How much have you read?
 
  • Love
Reactions: brakelite
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ragdoll

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2022
472
159
45
Madison, WI
✟22,332.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
I believe it, and I know a fair amount about Roman history. Ever read Edward Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? I have.

How about Adam Blair's History of the Waldenses? Both books have a lot of Roman history in them.

How about Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons? I've read it too.

How about D'aubigne's 1400 page tome History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century? I've read it too.

These books are all filled with the history of Rome. How much have you read?
What do I read? I read and collect ancient documents. I do not worry about reading books written several centuries after the fact. I just get the ancient documents. All historians draw their commentary from those ancient documents.

Isaiah 60:3 is fulfilled and it had to be fulfilled by somebody? Its safe to say that Constantine was the first king to fulfill that prophecy. I would consider the prophecy fulfilled by 800 A.D. at the crowning of king Charlemagne. Then there is no argument that the verse was fulfilled by the time the United States was founded. Since the U.S has no kings its safe to say that Isaiah 60:3 was fulfilled before the founding of the United States as a country.

I have found nothing that supports the idea that Constantine changed the Sabbath to Sunday. But I have found overwhelming proof that Christians were worshiping on the Lord's Day (i.e., Sunday) long before Constantine. Here are some sources that come from very reliable Christian sources who lived long before Constantine. These are documents and not commentary from some much later source.

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the Apostles in the 1st century. However, his written Epistles come from the early 2nd century in which I will be quoting from 108 A.D.

"Consequently, if the people who were given to obsolete practices faced the hope of a new life, and if these no longer observe the Sabbath, but regulate their calendar by the Lord's Day, the day, too, on which our Life rose by His power and through the medium of His death--though some deny this; and if to this mystery we owe our faith and because of it submit to sufferings to prove ourselves disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Teacher: how, then, can we possibly live apart from Him of whom, by the working of the Spirit, even the Prophets were disciples and to whom they looked forward as their Teacher? And so He, for whom they rightly waited, came and raised them from the dead" (St.Ignatius of Antioch, "Epistle to the Magnesians," Ancient Christian Writers Vol.1, p.72).

Since Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John, we now have a better understanding of what St.John meant in Rev.1:9-10:

"9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet."

The Lord's Day is what the early Christians called the first day of the week.

In 150 A.D. we would see Justin Martyr use the word Sunday for the first time in Christian history:

"And on the day called Sunday all who live in the cities or in the country gather together in one place, and memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits."

Again Justin Martyr mentions Sunday:

"But we all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God transforming darkness and matter made the universe, and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For they crucified Him on the day before Saturday, and on the day after Saturday, He appeared to His Apostles and disciples and taught then these things which we have passed on to you also for your consideration" (St.Justin Martyr, "The First And Second Apologies," Ancient Christian Writers Vol.56, pp.71-72).

The Apostles kept the Lord's Day (i.e., Sunday) from the time Jesus rose on the first day of the week. There are about 8 verses in the New Testament which show them worshiping Christ on Sunday. However, there is one verse that is often overlooked:

"Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work" (John 4:34).

Jesus finished the work of God. But what work could Jesus have finished if creation week ended on the 7th Day? This is where SDAs have a serious problem in how they understand Scripture. Mankind fell into sin (Gen.3) and thus creation was tarnished by sin and God cursed all creation on account of sin entering the world. But God was not finished. Jesus rose on the 1st day which to us Christians symbolizes the 8th Day of creation--creation through the newness of our lives in Christ' resurrection from the dead; when we, too, rose from the dead through His Power. That is the finished work Jesus completed on the cross and why there is a New Testament. This is what Ignatius of Antioch was referring to as well.

"And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising" (Isaiah 60:3).

This verse was fulfilled in what historians call Christendom. God is not losing. The Gospel did not become corrupted in the early centuries of Christianity. The Apostles didn't fail. SDAs failed.

I think it all boils down to Romans 14
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 14 - New King James Version

Do you know what day I go to church? I go on Wednesday. I work a late 2nd shift so getting up early in the morning is totally out of the question. So I go to the Wednesday night service. I also get Wednesday off from work. I just work too late to make an early morning service.
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,396
962
Visit site
✟100,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
What do I read? I read and collect ancient documents. I do not worry about reading books written several centuries after the fact. I just get the ancient documents. All historians draw their commentary from those ancient documents.

Isaiah 60:3 is fulfilled and it had to be fulfilled by somebody? Its safe to say that Constantine was the first king to fulfill that prophecy. I would consider the prophecy fulfilled by 800 A.D. at the crowning of king Charlemagne. Then there is no argument that the verse was fulfilled by the time the United States was founded. Since the U.S has no kings its safe to say that Isaiah 60:3 was fulfilled before the founding of the United States as a country.

I have found nothing that supports the idea that Constantine changed the Sabbath to Sunday. But I have found overwhelming proof that Christians were worshiping on the Lord's Day (i.e., Sunday) long before Constantine. Here are some sources that come from very reliable Christian sources who lived long before Constantine. These are documents and not commentary from some much later source.

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the Apostles in the 1st century. However, his written Epistles come from the early 2nd century in which I will be quoting from 108 A.D.

"Consequently, if the people who were given to obsolete practices faced the hope of a new life, and if these no longer observe the Sabbath, but regulate their calendar by the Lord's Day, the day, too, on which our Life rose by His power and through the medium of His death--though some deny this; and if to this mystery we owe our faith and because of it submit to sufferings to prove ourselves disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Teacher: how, then, can we possibly live apart from Him of whom, by the working of the Spirit, even the Prophets were disciples and to whom they looked forward as their Teacher? And so He, for whom they rightly waited, came and raised them from the dead" (St.Ignatius of Antioch, "Epistle to the Magnesians," Ancient Christian Writers Vol.1, p.72).

Since Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John, we now have a better understanding of what St.John meant in Rev.1:9-10:

"9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet."

The Lord's Day is what the early Christians called the first day of the week.

In 150 A.D. we would see Justin Martyr use the word Sunday for the first time in Christian history:

"And on the day called Sunday all who live in the cities or in the country gather together in one place, and memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits."

Again Justin Martyr mentions Sunday:

"But we all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God transforming darkness and matter made the universe, and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For they crucified Him on the day before Saturday, and on the day after Saturday, He appeared to His Apostles and disciples and taught then these things which we have passed on to you also for your consideration" (St.Justin Martyr, "The First And Second Apologies," Ancient Christian Writers Vol.56, pp.71-72).

The Apostles kept the Lord's Day (i.e., Sunday) from the time Jesus rose on the first day of the week. There are about 8 verses in the New Testament which show them worshiping Christ on Sunday. However, there is one verse that is often overlooked:

"Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work" (John 4:34).

Jesus finished the work of God. But what work could Jesus have finished if creation week ended on the 7th Day? This is where SDAs have a serious problem in how they understand Scripture. Mankind fell into sin (Gen.3) and thus creation was tarnished by sin and God cursed all creation on account of sin entering the world. But God was not finished. Jesus rose on the 1st day which to us Christians symbolizes the 8th Day of creation--creation through the newness of our lives in Christ' resurrection from the dead; when we, too, rose from the dead through His Power. That is the finished work Jesus completed on the cross and why there is a New Testament. This is what Ignatius of Antioch was referring to as well.

"And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising" (Isaiah 60:3).

This verse was fulfilled in what historians call Christendom. God is not losing. The Gospel did not become corrupted in the early centuries of Christianity. The Apostles didn't fail. SDAs failed.

I think it all boils down to Romans 14
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 14 - New King James Version

Do you know what day I go to church? I go on Wednesday. I work a late 2nd shift so getting up early in the morning is totally out of the question. So I go to the Wednesday night service. I also get Wednesday off from work. I just work too late to make an early morning service.
Actually, even the enemies of the Waldenses, the Roman Catholics. admitted their history and doctrines came from time immemorial and they were Sabbath keepers. They were persecuted viciously by the Catholic church for their insistence on remaining true to scripture. I don't know about you but to me a church that will have their armies burn people at the stake and kill old men, women and children by throwing them off a cliff is not to be trusted.

Here is a quote from one of my books on them.

The following quote comes from the Waldenses and Albigenses exposition on the 10 commandments.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
" SOUVIENNE toy du jour du repos, &c. Remember the Sabbath-day, " &c.
They that will keep and observe the Sabbath of Christians, that is to say, to
sanctify the day of the Lord, must be careful of four things. The first is to
cease from all earthly and worldly labours : the second, not to sin : the third, not
to be idle in regard to good works : the fourth, to do those things that are for
the benefit of the soul.
Of the first it is said ; " Six days thou shalt labour and do all thy work : but
the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any
work." And in Exodus it is said ; " Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore ; for
it is holy unto you : every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death."
And in Numbers we read that one of the children of Israel being seen to gather
sticks on the Sabbath-day, was brought to Moses, who, not knowing what course
to pursue in the matter, " the Lord said unto Moses ; The man shall be surely
put to death : all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with
stones, and he died." God wished that the Sabbath be kept with such reverence,
that the children of Israel would not dare, on that day, to gather the manna
which was given from heaven.
The second cause is, to preserve ourselves from sin, as it is said in Exodus :
" Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy ;" that is, that thou observe it by
keeping thyself carefully from sin ; and therefore saith Saint Augustine ; " It
is better to labour and to dig the earth on the Lord's day, than to be drunk, or
to commit any other sins ; for sin is a servile work, by which a man serves the
devil. "
Again, he says, that it is better to labour with profit, than to roam abroad in
idleness ; for the day of the Lord was not ordained to the end that a man should
cease from earthly good works, and give himself unto sin ; but to the end he
should addict himself to spiritual labours, which are better than earthly ; and
that the whole Sabbath throughout he reform himself of those sins he has com-
mitted ; for idleness teaches all evil. Seneca declares, “ it is the sepulchre of a
living man. "
The fourth thing is to do that which is profitable to the soul ; as to think on
God-devoutly to pray to him-diligently to hear his commandments and his
holy doctrine- to give thanks to God for all his benefits-to instruct the igno-
rant-to correct the erroneous, and to preserve ourselves from all sin ; to the
end that saying of Esay may be accomplished : " Cease to do evil : learn to do
well ;" for rest is not good if it be not accompanied with good works.
 
Upvote 0

Ragdoll

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2022
472
159
45
Madison, WI
✟22,332.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Actually, even the enemies of the Waldenses, the Roman Catholics. admitted their history and doctrines came from time immemorial and they were Sabbath keepers. They were persecuted viciously by the Catholic church for their insistence on remaining true to scripture. I don't know about you but to me a church that will have their armies burn people at the stake and kill old men, women and children by throwing them off a cliff is not to be trusted.

Here is a quote from one of my books on them.

The following quote comes from the Waldenses and Albigenses exposition on the 10 commandments.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
" SOUVIENNE toy du jour du repos, &c. Remember the Sabbath-day, " &c.
They that will keep and observe the Sabbath of Christians, that is to say, to
sanctify the day of the Lord, must be careful of four things. The first is to
cease from all earthly and worldly labours : the second, not to sin : the third, not
to be idle in regard to good works : the fourth, to do those things that are for
the benefit of the soul.
Of the first it is said ; " Six days thou shalt labour and do all thy work : but
the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any
work." And in Exodus it is said ; " Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore ; for
it is holy unto you : every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death."
And in Numbers we read that one of the children of Israel being seen to gather
sticks on the Sabbath-day, was brought to Moses, who, not knowing what course
to pursue in the matter, " the Lord said unto Moses ; The man shall be surely
put to death : all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with
stones, and he died." God wished that the Sabbath be kept with such reverence,
that the children of Israel would not dare, on that day, to gather the manna
which was given from heaven.
The second cause is, to preserve ourselves from sin, as it is said in Exodus :
" Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy ;" that is, that thou observe it by
keeping thyself carefully from sin ; and therefore saith Saint Augustine ; " It
is better to labour and to dig the earth on the Lord's day, than to be drunk, or
to commit any other sins ; for sin is a servile work, by which a man serves the
devil. "
Again, he says, that it is better to labour with profit, than to roam abroad in
idleness ; for the day of the Lord was not ordained to the end that a man should
cease from earthly good works, and give himself unto sin ; but to the end he
should addict himself to spiritual labours, which are better than earthly ; and
that the whole Sabbath throughout he reform himself of those sins he has com-
mitted ; for idleness teaches all evil. Seneca declares, “ it is the sepulchre of a
living man. "
The fourth thing is to do that which is profitable to the soul ; as to think on
God-devoutly to pray to him-diligently to hear his commandments and his
holy doctrine- to give thanks to God for all his benefits-to instruct the igno-
rant-to correct the erroneous, and to preserve ourselves from all sin ; to the
end that saying of Esay may be accomplished : " Cease to do evil : learn to do
well ;" for rest is not good if it be not accompanied with good works.
The Waldensians and the Albigensians were neo-manichaeans. They were not even Christians! They were a branch of the ridiculous Cathari movement who are also claimed to be "reformed christians".

There is actually a great deal we know about the beliefs and practices of the Cathari/Albigensians. Here are some of their more unusual beliefs:
- Denial of the resurrection of the body
- Gnostic dualism (matter is evil, two "gods": good god and evil god, etc.)
- Denial of eternal damnation
- Endorsed suicide (especially commendable if done by starvation & ritual suicide)
- Forbade marriage, considered fornication superior.
- "Converts" were encouraged to abandon their spouse.
- Child bearing was considered evil.
- Eating meat was considered immoral.
- Belief in reincarnation.
- Christ was merely an angelic being with a phantom body
- Christ did not suffer and die for our sins, or rise from the dead
- Total denial of the redemption, Christ merely came to teach.
- Satan, the evil "god", created the physical world
- Naturally they rejected things such as the Trinity and the Virgin Birth.

Some held the following:
- The Old Testament patriarchs were all damned.
- John the Baptist was a minister of satan sent to thwart Christ's work.
Some even went so far as to reject the Old Testament completely.
When you quote from anyone during the time of the reformers understand that your quote is too late. Quoting from 16th century is not the same as quoting from early 2nd century church fathers. This is when a person needs to understand the weight of evidence. I quoted from two very well established and trusted early church fathers. And quoting from any form of Gnostic sect is not going to make your case here.
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,396
962
Visit site
✟100,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Waldensians and the Albigensians were neo-manichaeans. They were not even Christians! They were a branch of the ridiculous Cathari movement who are also claimed to be "reformed christians".

There is actually a great deal we know about the beliefs and practices of the Cathari/Albigensians. Here are some of their more unusual beliefs:
- Denial of the resurrection of the body
- Gnostic dualism (matter is evil, two "gods": good god and evil god, etc.)
- Denial of eternal damnation
- Endorsed suicide (especially commendable if done by starvation & ritual suicide)
- Forbade marriage, considered fornication superior.
- "Converts" were encouraged to abandon their spouse.
- Child bearing was considered evil.
- Eating meat was considered immoral.
- Belief in reincarnation.
- Christ was merely an angelic being with a phantom body
- Christ did not suffer and die for our sins, or rise from the dead
- Total denial of the redemption, Christ merely came to teach.
- Satan, the evil "god", created the physical world
- Naturally they rejected things such as the Trinity and the Virgin Birth.

Some held the following:
- The Old Testament patriarchs were all damned.
- John the Baptist was a minister of satan sent to thwart Christ's work.
Some even went so far as to reject the Old Testament completely.
When you quote from anyone during the time of the reformers understand that your quote is too late. Quoting from 16th century is not the same as quoting from early 2nd century church fathers. This is when a person needs to understand the weight of evidence. I quoted from two very well established and trusted early church fathers. And quoting from any form of Gnostic sect is not going to make your case here.
None of that is true about the Waldenses. I don't know much about the Albigenses but do know the Waldenses were not like that. Here is what some of their biggest persecutors said about them.

But we must not forget the Waldenses of BOHEMIA in this
century. John Leger + quotes the declaration of Reinerus
Sacco to their excellent morality, and remarks that he is not
alone in bearing such testimony ; for the book entitled Rerum
Bohemicarum Scriptores, " the writers of the affairs of Bohe-
mia, " tells us of another inquisitor formerly established
against the Waldenses, whose doctrine the Bohemians had
received, and consequently he is in opposition also to those
same people of the Valleys, as Leger demonstrates in another
place. This inquisitor begins a book against the Leonists or
Waldenses with these words : " Heretics are known by their
morals and words, but they are composed and modest in their
manners, and have no pride in dress." And again, § “ The
Leonists are chaste." And in another place, || " They avoid
whatever things defile nature, and diligently instruct in the
same things those who submit to them."

Here is their exposition on the 7th commandment.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT.

" THOU shalt not commit adultery. Lo qual commandement defend tota," &c.
This commandment forbids all unlawful lust and pollution of the flesh, as it
is said in the fifth of St Matthew : " He that looketh on a woman to lust after
her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. " And in the fifth
chapter of the Apostle to the Ephesians, it is said ; " This ye know, that no
whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, hath any inheritance in
the kingdom of God. " And in 1 Cor. vi. " Be not deceived : neither forni-
cators nor adulterers shall inherit the kingdom of God. " And in chap. v.
" If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, covetous, &c. with such an
one no not to eat." Now, as there is a corporeal whoredom, so there is a spi-
ritual ; that is to say, when a man separateth himself from God.

Here is the Waldenses and Albigenses confession of faith..

No. IV.-A CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE WALDENSES
AND ALBIGENSES.
A. D. 1120.
I. Nos cresen, e firmament tenen tot quant se conten en li doze Articles del Symbolo
loqual ès dict de gli Apostol, tenent esser Heresia tota cosa loqual se discorda, e non
ès convenent à doze Articles, &c.
I. We believe and firmly hold all that is contained in the twelve articles of
the Creed which is called the Apostles, holding to be heresy every thing which
differs and does not agree with the said twelve Articles.
II. We believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
III. We acknowledge for Holy Canonical Scriptures, the books of the Holy
Bible, namely, that of Moses, otherwise called Genesis ; that of Moses, called
Exodus ; that of Moses, called Leviticus ; that of Moses, called Numbers ; that
of Moses, called Deuteronomy ; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel,
1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, 1 Esdras ( or Ezra), Nehemiah,
Esther, Job ; the Book of the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes,
otherwise the Preacher, the Song of Solomon, the Prophecy of Isaiah, the Pro-
phecy of Jeremiah, the Lamentation of Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Ozea, Joel,
Ammos, Abdias, Jonas, Michea, Nahum, Abacuck, Sophonia, Aggea, Sacharia,
Malachia.
Here follow the Apocryphal books which are not received of the Hebrews,
but we read them, as says Jerom in the preface of the Proverbs, for the instruc-
tion of the people, not to confirm the authority of the ecclesiastical doctrines,
namely, the third of Esdras, the fourth of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Sapientia,
Ecclesiastic, Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremia, Esther, from the tenth chap-
ter to the end, the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, the History of
Susanna, the History of the Dragon, the first of the Machabees, the second of
the Machabees, the third of the Machabees.
Now follow the books of the New Testament : the Gospel of St Matheo, the
Gospel of St Marc, the Gospel of St Luc, the Gospel of St Joan, the Acts of
the Apostles, the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans, first to the Corinthians,
second to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians,
to the Colossians, first to the Thessalonians, second to the Thessalonians, first
to Timotheo, second to Timotheo, to Tito, to Philemon, to the Hebrews, the
Epistle of S. Jaco, the first Epistle of S. Peire, the second Epistle of S. Peire,
the first epistle of S. Joan, the second Epistle of S. Joan, the third Epistle of
S. Joan, the Epistle of St Juda, the Apocalis of S. Joan.
IV. The books above said, teach thus, that there is one God almighty, all wise,
and all good, who has made all things by his goodness. For he formed Adam
according to his own image and similitude, but by the envy of the devil, and the
disobedience ofthe said Adam, sin entered into the world, and we are made sin-
ners in Adam, and by Adam.
V. That Christ was promised to our fathers who received the law, that thus
by the law knowing their sins, unrighteousness, and their insufficiency, they
might desire the coming of Christ to satisfy for their sins, and accomplish the
law by himself
VI. That Christ was born at the time appointed by God his Father, that is to
say, at a time when all iniquity abounded, and not for good-works only, for
all were sinners ; but to the end that being faithful, he might cause (fè) grace
and mercy to us.
VII. That Christ is our life, and peace, and righteousness, and pastor, and
advocate, and sacrifice, and priest, who died for the salvation of all those that
believe, and rose for our justification.
VIII. We, in like manner, firmly hold, that there is no other Mediator and
Advocate with God the Father, but only Jesus Christ : but that the Virgin
Mary is holy, humble, and full of grace : and we believe the same thing of all
the other saints, that they in heaven hope the resurrection of their bodies at the
judgment.
IX. We also believe, that after this life, there are only two places, the one for
the saved, which is called by name paradise, and the other for the damned, which
we call hell, altogether denying purgatory, which is a dream of antichrist, and
invented against the truth.
X. We have always believed all the inventions of men to be an unspeakable
abomination before God, such as the feasts, and the vigils of the saints, and the
water which they call blessed, abstinence from flesh on certain days, and the like
things, and principally the masses.
XI. We abominate all human traditions as being antichristian, by which we
are troubled, and which are prejudicial to the liberty of the Spirit.
XII. We believe that the sacraments are signs or visible forms of holy things,
holding it to be good that the faithful do from time to time use these signs or
visible forms, if it can be done. But we do, notwithstanding believe and hold,
that the foresaid faithful can be saved, when they have not place nor means to
use them.
XIII. We do not acknowledge any other sacrament, but baptism and the
eucharist.
XIV. We owe honour to the secular power in subjection, in obedience, in
promptitude, and in tribute.

As you can see your assertions against both the Waldenses and Albigenses are not true.

BTW, this book was written by a Protestant minister, Adam Blair, and published in 1829.

Here are the comments by the publisher on a newly published copy of this book on the Thriftbooks site.

History of the Waldenses: With an Introductory ...​

by Adam Blair
Edition Description
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,477
847
Midwest
✟163,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Actually, even the enemies of the Waldenses, the Roman Catholics. admitted their history and doctrines came from time immemorial and they were Sabbath keepers. They were persecuted viciously by the Catholic church for their insistence on remaining true to scripture. I don't know about you but to me a church that will have their armies burn people at the stake and kill old men, women and children by throwing them off a cliff is not to be trusted.

Here is a quote from one of my books on them.

The following quote comes from the Waldenses and Albigenses exposition on the 10 commandments.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
" SOUVIENNE toy du jour du repos, &c. Remember the Sabbath-day, " &c.
They that will keep and observe the Sabbath of Christians, that is to say, to
sanctify the day of the Lord, must be careful of four things. The first is to
cease from all earthly and worldly labours : the second, not to sin : the third, not
to be idle in regard to good works : the fourth, to do those things that are for
the benefit of the soul.
Of the first it is said ; " Six days thou shalt labour and do all thy work : but
the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any
work." And in Exodus it is said ; " Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore ; for
it is holy unto you : every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death."
And in Numbers we read that one of the children of Israel being seen to gather
sticks on the Sabbath-day, was brought to Moses, who, not knowing what course
to pursue in the matter, " the Lord said unto Moses ; The man shall be surely
put to death : all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with
stones, and he died." God wished that the Sabbath be kept with such reverence,
that the children of Israel would not dare, on that day, to gather the manna
which was given from heaven.
The second cause is, to preserve ourselves from sin, as it is said in Exodus :
" Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy ;" that is, that thou observe it by
keeping thyself carefully from sin ; and therefore saith Saint Augustine ; " It
is better to labour and to dig the earth on the Lord's day, than to be drunk, or
to commit any other sins ; for sin is a servile work, by which a man serves the
devil. "
Again, he says, that it is better to labour with profit, than to roam abroad in
idleness ; for the day of the Lord was not ordained to the end that a man should
cease from earthly good works, and give himself unto sin ; but to the end he
should addict himself to spiritual labours, which are better than earthly ; and
that the whole Sabbath throughout he reform himself of those sins he has com-
mitted ; for idleness teaches all evil. Seneca declares, “ it is the sepulchre of a
living man. "
The fourth thing is to do that which is profitable to the soul ; as to think on
God-devoutly to pray to him-diligently to hear his commandments and his
holy doctrine- to give thanks to God for all his benefits-to instruct the igno-
rant-to correct the erroneous, and to preserve ourselves from all sin ; to the
end that saying of Esay may be accomplished : " Cease to do evil : learn to do
well ;" for rest is not good if it be not accompanied with good works.
You offer this quote, but I am not sure what this quote you offer is supposed to prove. Perhaps it's supposed to be in reference to your assertion they were Sabbath keepers, but if so, the quote doesn't provide evidence of that--at least, not of the Saturday Sabbath. Right at the start of your quote, it says:

"They that will keep and observe the Sabbath of Christians, that is to say, to sanctify the day of the Lord, must be careful of four things."

"Sabbath of Christians" would be an odd way to refer to the Saturday Sabbath; it is clearly specifying as such to differentiate it from the Jewish Sabbath. Even if someone were to try to say this wasn't a differentiation of day, but a differentiation in the manner of observation, all doubt on the point is thrown out by its additional specification that it refers to "the day of the Lord", a term used for Sunday. Thus your quote says they are to sanctify Sunday.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ragdoll

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2022
472
159
45
Madison, WI
✟22,332.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
None of that is true about the Waldenses. I don't know much about the Albigenses but do know the Waldenses were not like that. Here is what some of their biggest persecutors said about them.

But we must not forget the Waldenses of BOHEMIA in this
century. John Leger + quotes the declaration of Reinerus
Sacco to their excellent morality, and remarks that he is not
alone in bearing such testimony ; for the book entitled Rerum
Bohemicarum Scriptores, " the writers of the affairs of Bohe-
mia, " tells us of another inquisitor formerly established
against the Waldenses, whose doctrine the Bohemians had
received, and consequently he is in opposition also to those
same people of the Valleys, as Leger demonstrates in another
place. This inquisitor begins a book against the Leonists or
Waldenses with these words : " Heretics are known by their
morals and words, but they are composed and modest in their
manners, and have no pride in dress." And again, § “ The
Leonists are chaste." And in another place, || " They avoid
whatever things defile nature, and diligently instruct in the
same things those who submit to them."

Here is their exposition on the 7th commandment.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT.

" THOU shalt not commit adultery. Lo qual commandement defend tota," &c.
This commandment forbids all unlawful lust and pollution of the flesh, as it
is said in the fifth of St Matthew : " He that looketh on a woman to lust after
her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. " And in the fifth
chapter of the Apostle to the Ephesians, it is said ; " This ye know, that no
whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, hath any inheritance in
the kingdom of God. " And in 1 Cor. vi. " Be not deceived : neither forni-
cators nor adulterers shall inherit the kingdom of God. " And in chap. v.
" If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, covetous, &c. with such an
one no not to eat." Now, as there is a corporeal whoredom, so there is a spi-
ritual ; that is to say, when a man separateth himself from God.

Here is the Waldenses and Albigenses confession of faith..

No. IV.-A CONFESSION OF FAITH OF THE WALDENSES
AND ALBIGENSES.
A. D. 1120.
I. Nos cresen, e firmament tenen tot quant se conten en li doze Articles del Symbolo
loqual ès dict de gli Apostol, tenent esser Heresia tota cosa loqual se discorda, e non
ès convenent à doze Articles, &c.
I. We believe and firmly hold all that is contained in the twelve articles of
the Creed which is called the Apostles, holding to be heresy every thing which
differs and does not agree with the said twelve Articles.
II. We believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
III. We acknowledge for Holy Canonical Scriptures, the books of the Holy
Bible, namely, that of Moses, otherwise called Genesis ; that of Moses, called
Exodus ; that of Moses, called Leviticus ; that of Moses, called Numbers ; that
of Moses, called Deuteronomy ; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel,
1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, 1 Esdras ( or Ezra), Nehemiah,
Esther, Job ; the Book of the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes,
otherwise the Preacher, the Song of Solomon, the Prophecy of Isaiah, the Pro-
phecy of Jeremiah, the Lamentation of Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Ozea, Joel,
Ammos, Abdias, Jonas, Michea, Nahum, Abacuck, Sophonia, Aggea, Sacharia,
Malachia.
Here follow the Apocryphal books which are not received of the Hebrews,
but we read them, as says Jerom in the preface of the Proverbs, for the instruc-
tion of the people, not to confirm the authority of the ecclesiastical doctrines,
namely, the third of Esdras, the fourth of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Sapientia,
Ecclesiastic, Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremia, Esther, from the tenth chap-
ter to the end, the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace, the History of
Susanna, the History of the Dragon, the first of the Machabees, the second of
the Machabees, the third of the Machabees.
Now follow the books of the New Testament : the Gospel of St Matheo, the
Gospel of St Marc, the Gospel of St Luc, the Gospel of St Joan, the Acts of
the Apostles, the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans, first to the Corinthians,
second to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians,
to the Colossians, first to the Thessalonians, second to the Thessalonians, first
to Timotheo, second to Timotheo, to Tito, to Philemon, to the Hebrews, the
Epistle of S. Jaco, the first Epistle of S. Peire, the second Epistle of S. Peire,
the first epistle of S. Joan, the second Epistle of S. Joan, the third Epistle of
S. Joan, the Epistle of St Juda, the Apocalis of S. Joan.
IV. The books above said, teach thus, that there is one God almighty, all wise,
and all good, who has made all things by his goodness. For he formed Adam
according to his own image and similitude, but by the envy of the devil, and the
disobedience ofthe said Adam, sin entered into the world, and we are made sin-
ners in Adam, and by Adam.
V. That Christ was promised to our fathers who received the law, that thus
by the law knowing their sins, unrighteousness, and their insufficiency, they
might desire the coming of Christ to satisfy for their sins, and accomplish the
law by himself
VI. That Christ was born at the time appointed by God his Father, that is to
say, at a time when all iniquity abounded, and not for good-works only, for
all were sinners ; but to the end that being faithful, he might cause (fè) grace
and mercy to us.
VII. That Christ is our life, and peace, and righteousness, and pastor, and
advocate, and sacrifice, and priest, who died for the salvation of all those that
believe, and rose for our justification.
VIII. We, in like manner, firmly hold, that there is no other Mediator and
Advocate with God the Father, but only Jesus Christ : but that the Virgin
Mary is holy, humble, and full of grace : and we believe the same thing of all
the other saints, that they in heaven hope the resurrection of their bodies at the
judgment.
IX. We also believe, that after this life, there are only two places, the one for
the saved, which is called by name paradise, and the other for the damned, which
we call hell, altogether denying purgatory, which is a dream of antichrist, and
invented against the truth.
X. We have always believed all the inventions of men to be an unspeakable
abomination before God, such as the feasts, and the vigils of the saints, and the
water which they call blessed, abstinence from flesh on certain days, and the like
things, and principally the masses.
XI. We abominate all human traditions as being antichristian, by which we
are troubled, and which are prejudicial to the liberty of the Spirit.
XII. We believe that the sacraments are signs or visible forms of holy things,
holding it to be good that the faithful do from time to time use these signs or
visible forms, if it can be done. But we do, notwithstanding believe and hold,
that the foresaid faithful can be saved, when they have not place nor means to
use them.
XIII. We do not acknowledge any other sacrament, but baptism and the
eucharist.
XIV. We owe honour to the secular power in subjection, in obedience, in
promptitude, and in tribute.

As you can see your assertions against both the Waldenses and Albigenses are not true.

BTW, this book was written by a Protestant minister, Adam Blair, and published in 1829.

Here are the comments by the publisher on a newly published copy of this book on the Thriftbooks site.

History of the Waldenses: With an Introductory ...​

by Adam Blair
Edition Description
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
Gnostics do not share in Christian honesty and in the Gnostic realm lying is part of the faith. A mission statement by a Gnostic means nothing. Its a lure and thst's it. Neither of those groups are Christian. What you posted is just a lure on the surface of their information to get you to join. I've been a cult before so I have nothing to do with unorthodox sects.
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,396
962
Visit site
✟100,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You offer this quote, but I am not sure what this quote you offer is supposed to prove. Perhaps it's supposed to be in reference to your assertion they were Sabbath keepers, but if so, the quote doesn't provide evidence of that--at least, not of the Saturday Sabbath. Right at the start of your quote, it says:

"They that will keep and observe the Sabbath of Christians, that is to say, to sanctify the day of the Lord, must be careful of four things."

"Sabbath of Christians" would be an odd way to refer to the Saturday Sabbath; it is clearly specifying as such to differentiate it from the Jewish Sabbath. Even if someone were to try to say this wasn't a differentiation of day, but a differentiation in the manner of observation, all doubt on the point is thrown out by its additional specification that it refers to "the day of the Lord", a term used for Sunday. Thus your quote says they are to sanctify Sunday.
Why not quote the rest of it?

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
" SOUVIENNE toy du jour du repos, &c. Remember the Sabbath-day, " &c.
They that will keep and observe the Sabbath of Christians, that is to say, to
sanctify the day of the Lord, must be careful of four things. The first is to
cease from all earthly and worldly labours : the second, not to sin : the third, not
to be idle in regard to good works : the fourth, to do those things that are for
the benefit of the soul.
Of the first it is said ; " Six days thou shalt labour and do all thy work : but
the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any
work." And in Exodus it is said ; " Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore ; for
it is holy unto you : every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death."
And in Numbers we read that one of the children of Israel being seen to gather
sticks on the Sabbath-day, was brought to Moses, who, not knowing what course
to pursue in the matter, " the Lord said unto Moses ; The man shall be surely
put to death : all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with
stones, and he died." God wished that the Sabbath be kept with such reverence,
that the children of Israel would not dare, on that day, to gather the manna
which was given from heaven.
The second cause is, to preserve ourselves from sin,
as it is said in Exodus :
" Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy ;" that is, that thou observe it by
keeping thyself carefully from sin ; and therefore saith Saint Augustine ; " It
is better to labour and to dig the earth on the Lord's day, than to be drunk, or
to commit any other sins ; for sin is a servile work, by which a man serves the
devil. "
Again, he says, that it is better to labour with profit, than to roam abroad in
idleness ; for the day of the Lord was not ordained to the end that a man should
cease from earthly good works, and give himself unto sin ; but to the end he
should addict himself to spiritual labours, which are better than earthly ; and
that the whole Sabbath throughout he reform himself of those sins he has com-
mitted ; for idleness teaches all evil. Seneca declares, “ it is the sepulchre of a
living man. "
The fourth thing is to do that which is profitable to the soul ; as to think on
God-devoutly to pray to him-diligently to hear his commandments and his
holy doctrine- to give thanks to God for all his benefits-to instruct the igno-
rant-to correct the erroneous, and to preserve ourselves from all sin ; to the
end that saying of Esay may be accomplished : " Cease to do evil : learn to do
well ;" for rest is not good if it be not accompanied with good works.

I don't see what the issue is with this? It's not what you believe, but who cares? It was written more than a thousand years ago.
 
Upvote 0

Gary K

an old small town kid
Aug 23, 2002
4,396
962
Visit site
✟100,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Gnostics do not share in Christian honesty and in the Gnostic realm lying is part of the faith. A mission statement by a Gnostic means nothing. Its a lure and thst's it. Neither of those groups are Christian. What you posted is just a lure on the surface of their information to get you to join. I've been a cult before so I have nothing to do with unorthodox sects.
So as far as you're concerned both the Waldenses and the minister who wrote the book are dishonest?
 
Upvote 0

Ragdoll

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2022
472
159
45
Madison, WI
✟22,332.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
So as far as you're concerned both the Waldenses and the minister who wrote the book are dishonest?
I think you are trying to distract from the much older sources like the early church fathers. You are aware that the early church fathers are not the reformers, right? We are talking several centuries apart. The early church fathers make up the first centuries of Christianity. I'm at the stage in my life where I want nothing to do with modern Christianity. I won't dive into all those reasons but there are many legitimate reasons why I will have nothing to do with any Christian sects past Luther or Tyndale. All the other names of reformers outside of the Luther and Tyndale camp were heretics as far as I'm concerned. When you study the first centuries of Christianity you see the modern world of Christianity as gone astray, run amok, no longer keeping to orthodoxy. When you meet people like me don't plan on changing our minds. We won't change our minds. We are orthodox Christians who hold modern Christianity of little to no value. There is no reaching us. There is no changing our minds. We are the literate Christians who put in our time and years into searching for the true doctrines of that the early church recognized as pure and holy. Will I change my mind about Waldenses? Not a remote chance. His teachings are not recognized by the early church as genuine. You can quote from modern books and it will have no sway on me. Pretty much anything quoted beyond the 5th century is heresy to me (except a few works produced beyond that or by Luther who tried to return to orthodox Christianity).
Seventh Day Adventism and the doctrines thereof are not recognized by the early church as sound doctrine. And this is something you will have to accept because orthodox Christians listen to nobody. We hear the words, see them on paper, and completely ignore them. We have our sources and our sources are ancient. The ecclesiastical lineage goes back to the disciples of Jesus. So when I see change in modern denominations I go the other way because I will not be taken in by some foreign doctrine that the early church did not recognize as their own. So with people like me there is no persuading us. We already did the research and took all that research to the end conclusion. To change our conclusions is to try and cause us to apostate which we will not. We recognize heresy faster than you can snap your fingers (and that is no exaggeration). So in conclusion, I am not a Puritan nor do I walk into a Puritan church or accidentally look at a Puritan church while driving. I drive by a Puritan church and advert my eyes. For I understand that from the Puritans came all the ills Christians face today. There is only one Protestant church left in the world and that is the traditional Lutheran Church. The Anglican church is gone and has become part of the modern Roman Catholic church who's doctrines the early church would not recognize as their own.
I do not know if you can understand me but this is as straight forward as I can put it, Maybe you think its your mission to convert me to your denomination because you might think I am unsaved or even a sun worshiper. And I say again, I pay no attention to modern Christianity for reasons such as that. I will try to enlighten you with ancient truths but I'm sure you are not interested in that since the ancient church is at odds with your denomination. This places you in a very hard position to try to rewrite history to fit the narrative of your denomination. I do not have that problem. I do not ever feel compeled to rewrite history, like ever. I do not blame Constantine for the short comings of my beliefs. I don't have to do that. I do not look at Christians who worship on Sunday as evil dark beast people. I refuse to accept doctrines like that and then try to pawn that off to others as love. So I am not going to hold a debate. Why should I? I dropped off some real history from the real early church and that is where I will stop. What you do with that information is up to you. You are free to accept or reject that information. Just remember that Romans chapter 14 is the most unpracticed chapter in the entire Bible among Christians today. With that said, I refuse to dive into long debates with those who have rejected orthodoxy Christianity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,477
847
Midwest
✟163,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why not quote the rest of it?

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
" SOUVIENNE toy du jour du repos, &c. Remember the Sabbath-day, " &c.
They that will keep and observe the Sabbath of Christians, that is to say, to
sanctify the day of the Lord, must be careful of four things. The first is to
cease from all earthly and worldly labours : the second, not to sin : the third, not
to be idle in regard to good works : the fourth, to do those things that are for
the benefit of the soul.
Of the first it is said ; " Six days thou shalt labour and do all thy work : but
the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any
work." And in Exodus it is said ; " Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore ; for
it is holy unto you : every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death."
And in Numbers we read that one of the children of Israel being seen to gather
sticks on the Sabbath-day, was brought to Moses, who, not knowing what course
to pursue in the matter, " the Lord said unto Moses ; The man shall be surely
put to death : all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with
stones, and he died." God wished that the Sabbath be kept with such reverence,
that the children of Israel would not dare, on that day, to gather the manna
which was given from heaven.
The second cause is, to preserve ourselves from sin,
as it is said in Exodus :
" Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy ;" that is, that thou observe it by
keeping thyself carefully from sin ; and therefore saith Saint Augustine ; " It
is better to labour and to dig the earth on the Lord's day, than to be drunk, or
to commit any other sins ; for sin is a servile work, by which a man serves the
devil. "
Again, he says, that it is better to labour with profit, than to roam abroad in
idleness ; for the day of the Lord was not ordained to the end that a man should
cease from earthly good works, and give himself unto sin ; but to the end he
should addict himself to spiritual labours, which are better than earthly ; and
that the whole Sabbath throughout he reform himself of those sins he has com-
mitted ; for idleness teaches all evil. Seneca declares, “ it is the sepulchre of a
living man. "
The fourth thing is to do that which is profitable to the soul ; as to think on
God-devoutly to pray to him-diligently to hear his commandments and his
holy doctrine- to give thanks to God for all his benefits-to instruct the igno-
rant-to correct the erroneous, and to preserve ourselves from all sin ; to the
end that saying of Esay may be accomplished : " Cease to do evil : learn to do
well ;" for rest is not good if it be not accompanied with good works.

The rest seems fairly irrelevant once it is clearly established from the beginning it refers to Sunday. Again:

"They that will keep and observe the Sabbath of Christians, that is to say, to sanctify the day of the Lord, must be careful of four things."

This is not the verbiage one would use if they were referring to Saturday; there would not be a need to differentiate it from the Jewish Sabbath nor would they say "day of the Lord" (a phrase used for Sunday). In regards to the parts you bolded, none of that contradicts the point I made. Yes, parts are quoted from the Old Testament referring to the Sabbath as the seventh day, but that does not mean they considered it to apply to Saturday in the present. Why bother with the specification of "Sabbath of Christians" and "day of the Lord" if it was just the same day as the Jews?

However, if that is still not enough to persuade someone, the ultimate clincher is in the French. The explanation of the Ten Commandments you've been quoting from is, after all, an English translation of a French document. What does the original say? It took a bit of work to find, but I managed to hunt it down. It is found in the first volume of the 17th century work "Histoire generale des eglises evangeliques des vallees de Piemont" by Jean Leger, and one can see it here. It has been reproduced in some subsequent works, but that is as far as I can tell the earliest one.

The text provided that corresponds to the above sentence is:

"Ceux qui veulent garder & observer le Sabath des Chrêtiens, c’est à dire, Sanctifier le jour du Dimanche, ont besoin de prendre garde à quatre choses."

The bolding corresponds to the bolding above. Now, this is French from centuries ago so some things are spelled or capitalized a little differently, but it's still recognizable. And here we see waht seems like it eliminates all doubt: The text for "day of the Lord" says "le jour du Dimanche."

What does Dimanche mean? Sunday. And yes, just to be sure there wasn't a shift in meaning or anything, I looked at a 17th century French dictionary (see here) and it confirms it means Sunday (it explicitly says "premier jour de la semaine", meaning first day of the week) Translating it as "day of the lord" as it does in English isn't quite unwarranted, because Dimanche (as with other Romance languages) actually derives from the word for lord, as it was so commonly called the Lord's day. Still, Dimanche corresponds to the day we in English call Sunday.

And so, it is clear that they held Sunday as sacred and considered the Fourth Commandment to apply to that day.

Dimanche is also used for the later "day of the lord" references in it. Namely:

"and therefore saith Saint Augustine; "It is better to labour and to dig the earth on the Lord's day, than to be drunk, or to commit any other sins; for sin is a servile work, by which a man serves the devil."
Again, he says, that it is better to labour with profit, than to roam abroad in idleness; for the day of the Lord was not ordained to the end that a man should cease from earthly good works, and give himself unto sin"

The French that this is translated from reads, as best as I can make it out:

"Et pourtant S. Augustin dit: qu'il vandroit meieux labourer ou fossoyer la terre le Dimanche, que de s'enyurer ou commettre d'autres pechés; car le peché est une oeuvre servile, en laquelle on sert au Diablo. Item, il dit: qui il vaut mieux labourer avec utilité que de vagabonder en oysiveté: Car le jour du Dimanche n'a point été ordonné afin que l'homme cesse des bonnes oeuvres terriennes, & s addonne à peché."

Again we see Dimanche. It is very clear that they viewed Sunday (Dimanche) as the sacred day.

I don't see what the issue is with this? It's not what you believe, but who cares? It was written more than a thousand years ago.
The issue is that you're apparently pointing to this as evidence they kept the Sabbath on Saturday even though it says they did so on Sunday. That's the problem.

Also, the Ten Commandment commentary was unlikely to have been written a thousand years ago, for it makes clear references to the chapters of the Bible. For example, in its description of the Third Commandment, it says "In this commandment we are forbidden to swear falsely, vainly, and by custom, as it is written, Leviticus xix." But the chapter numbering system for chapters we use was first devised in the 13th century, and obviously took a while to get popular enough that someone could just drop it as it done in a commentary and assume the reader would understand it.
 
Upvote 0