>>When do you believe that occurred?<<

Firstly, let me clarify: I did not mean to imply that “Sunday” was part of the legalese (de jure) of the New Covenant (though it may have been {note: Matthew 28:1}); rather, seemingly, it was by de facto, or practice, that it is part of the New Covenant. That said,

its occurrence would have been immediately preceding Acts 15 – or shortly thereafter; with its “recognition, observance, and sanctification” ...evolving.

>>What is the earliest time in history that the Christians claimed that Sunday was a celebration of the Lord's resurrection?<<

One might proffer “...no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again.” --Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, consecrated ca AD 69 – and written, probably, the earliest years of the second century, AD.

“Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead” --Barnabas, ca AD 120

>>When was Sunday first called "the Lord's day"?<<

Notwithstanding Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day...

Revelation (referencing chapter 1 verse 10), dated approximately ca the cusp of the first and second centuries AD – would have coincided with St Ignatius and his letters, together with the Epistle of Barnabas – and may have, indeed, referred to the accepted day of the Lord’s resurrection – and to none other.

>>Question #4 and your answer, which I believe is correct, show that the Sabbath was still being kept by Christians after the beginning of the New Covenant. That is, the Sabbath, not Sunday, was being kept by Jesus' followers after His death and ascension.<<

I disagree. Acts 2:46 states that the early Xtians “continued daily with one accord” – and not, solely, either the Jewish Sabbath or its, in a manner of speaking, ‘supersession’.

>>Now Question 5:

Is there any evidence that Sunday sacredness was instituted before the day Christ was crucified?<<

'Evidence' seems to have prefigured the currently (and, seeming, de facto) commemorated Sunday – in the typical/antitypical Pentecost (one of the three Feast Days requiring a pilgrimage {big time major holiday}) – which was always to be celebrated (or find its fulfillment) upon the first day of the week – and, incorporating a wave offering of two loaves of leavened bread.

I've been over this many times. Go back and read it.

"Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest [i.e., the promised land], God would not have spoken later about another day [the heavenly promised land] . 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest [a keeping Sabbath] for the people of God [the Jews]; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest [accepts the gospel - see verse 3] also rests from his own work, just as God did from his [of redemption is the context]. 11 Let us [believers], therefore, make every effort to enter that rest [the heavenly rest], so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience [defined as unbelief in 3:19].

Again, verse 9 cannot refer to the earthly or heavenly promised land. For one the Jews were already in the earthly promised land. Secondly when a Jew entered "God's rest" he or she wasn't entering the heavenly Canaan.

Clearly, in verse 9, "God's rest" has already been established to mean the acceptance of the gospel. Let's review this once again:

4:1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest [the heavenly Canaan] still stands, let us [i.e., believers] be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we [again believers] also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did [the Jews of the Exodus]; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith [they didn't accept it by faith]. 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest....

So here's how I read it:

9 There remains, then, a keeping of the 7th day Sabbath for the Jewish people; 10 for the Jew who accepts the gospel also rests from his own work, just as God did from his work of redemption.

God rested because His work was complete. Accordingly, we are to rest because we acknowledge God's work of creation to be complete. But, in reality, His work has been ruined. Does that mean the Sabbath has no value. Yes, as it points to creation.



Is God's work "in Christ" Jesus perfect and complete? Yes! By resting on the Sabbath you are outwardly stating that I have a new humanity, "in Christ Jesus", that stands perfect before God and His law. Hence this redemptive Sabbath has full significance for today.



Note the context: The new heaven and new earth! In the future we will enter the heavenly Canaan. At that time we will have received what we had by faith when living on this sinful planet. Hence in the future the Sabbath will point to a perfect and complete recreation. This, however, has no significance now.

In terms of Matt 28: 1, I believe I know what you have reference to, but that phrase is correctly translated "the first day of the week," despite what you can find a few translations reading at that point.

The Didache, written in the early 2nd century, proves that Luke 24: 1 (and Matt. 28:1) should be translated "first day of the week." The Didache uses sabbaton-- plural noun-- for "week." (See Didache 8:1.) See NASB, NIV, NRSV, and NKJV.

Also, it should be noted that over 99% of the translations read "first day of the week," and all of the Greek lexicons do so. I don't know of a single Greek grammar text that teaches that this phrase should be translated in any other way.

In any case, it appears you believe that Sunday is not part of the New Covenant, is that right?





The letter from which the quote was taken was almost certainly written about 110 AD, because the letter was written while on his way to be martyred in Rome, and died about 110 AD.

I would like to point out two things right away: your translation does not agree with other translations. The Latin text, on which your translation was based, also does not contain anything about "keeping" or even the word "day."

Both the Latin translation and the underlying Greek text actually simply has "living according to the Lord's.... in which our life sprang up." The noun is missing after the adjective, but that is common in the Latin if the noun is used shortly thereafter. Therefore, if we supply the closest noun to the adjective, it reads, "living according to the Lord's life, in which our life sprang up."

All authorities agree that Ignatius died about 110 AD.

The phrase you quote has been variously translated:

---keeping the Lord's day

--- keeping holy the Lord's day

--- regulating their calender by the Lord's day

None of the above are accurate translations because, as mentioned already, the Latin text does not contain the word "keeping" or "regulating," nor the word, "day."

---fashioning their lives after the Lord's day

If you check the Wikipedia, you will find: " ...no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him...."

None of the above, then, are accurate translations, for even the Wikipedia supplies the word "day" where it is lacking in the Latin text (which was translated from the original Greek text).

The Bishop James Usher published a Latin edition in 1642 that is now accepted as the genuine epistles of Ignatius. After consulting the Greek manuscripts, Usher translated it as "according to the Lord's life living..."




It was probably written closer to about 130 AD, and it contains many things contrary to the rest of the Bible. For instance, it teaches that the Jews were never in a covenant relationship with God, and he also teaches that the Romans were going to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This "Barnabas" was under the influence of Gnosticism, for his epistle is an attempt to teach his gentile readers about the "gnosis," a special knowledge linked to the gnostic religions. The genuineness of the letter is questioned by virtually all authorities. It is certain that it was not written by the Barnabas mentioned in the book of Acts.

But in any case, all that your quote shows is that there were some believers in Christ who were "keeping" Sunday, and this is something all knowledgeable Christians realize. However, it is indisputable that the majority of Christianity outside of Rome and Alexandria were keeping the Sabbath. In much of the world, by the second century, Christians kept both days. Well-recognized 5th century historians, Socrates and Sozomen, both wrote that "almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week." (See Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 19; and book 5, chapter 2. Also The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 2, p. 132.)

All this establishes is that there were Christians about 150 years after the time of Christ who were keeping Sunday as well as the Sabbath, and that in Rome and Alexandria, the Christians fasted on the Sabbath and kept the first day of the week.





As shown above, Ignatius' letter does not contain the word "day," or "Lord's day," and Barnabas' letter also does not mention "the Lord's day," either. Clement of Alexandria (about 190 AD) is the first sure reference that we have to Sunday as the Lord's day.

Acts 2: 46 does not mean that the Christians at that time saw every day of the week as the same. The fact that they studied the Bible or "continued daily with one accord," does not contradict the plain evidence that Christians went to the synagogues on Sabbath and worshipped with the Jews. See Acts 13: 42, 44.

Archelaus, bishop of Cascar, in Mesopotamia, writing about A.D. 277 or later, states, "Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished, we deny that He has abolished it plainly; for He was Himself also Lord of the Sabbath." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 217.) Archelaus makes no allusion to the first day of the week.

The Apostolical Constitutions says, "Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 17, p. 66.)

The same book, p. 88, says, "But assemble yourselves every day, morning and evening, but principally on the Sabbath day."

Book 5, chapter 20, p. 143 says, "Every Sabbath day excepting one, and every Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice."

So by about 200 AD, Christians in many parts of the world were keeping both Sabbath and what was referred to as "the Lord's day."

However, in the book of Acts, the first day of the week is not portrayed as a day being kept by the Christians. It was viewed as one of the work days and was a day on which Paul traveled, according to Acts 20. The Sabbath was still the day held sacred by the Christians of Paul's time.

Even if we were to say that some Christians were holding services on the first day of week as early as the time of Paul, it would make no difference for the purposes of what we are discussing. We can hold a service any day of the week, and it does not make it sacred or mean that God has either abolished or changed the Sabbath.

The point here is simply that Christians continued to keep the Sabbath and to worship with the Jews in their synagogues. There is no evidence that they believed at that time that Jesus had abolished or changed the weekly Sabbath.

Besides the writers quoted above, we have the evidence of Luke 23: 56, which says plainly that after Jesus' death, the women followers closest to Jesus "returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment."





The Feast of Weeks, or the festival of the first fruits, did not always fall on the first day of the week. It came at the end of the grain harvest, which was on 6 Siwan (Third Month), our May or June, depending on the year. It did fall on the first day of the week at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, and so Jesus was raised from the dead on Pentecost. It was one of the ceremonial sabbaths. For the Jews, "the morrow after the sabbath" meant the 16th of Nisan, the day after the ceremonial sabbath that began the Feast of Unleavened Bread following the offering of the Passover lamb on the 14th of Nisan. (See Exodus 23: 16; 34: 22; Lev. 23: 15-21; Numbers 28: 26-31; and Deut. 16: 9-12.)

Is there any other evidence that you see that Sunday was a part of the New Covenant prior to the death of Christ?

Boy...I have a feeling very few, maybe the extremely intelligent, are going to make it to heaven. I mean it seems that no one has the correct translations here on CA and you (John) have to set them straight. Well, while I agree that paraphrased Bibles are opinions at best, no one as all truth (e.g. see 1 Corinthians 13:9-12).

If you check out other translations, you will see that the quote being referred to is translated very differently even in those sources that you can access on the Internet. I am not saying anything that I do not offer evidence for. I am not asking anyone to simply take my word for it, but I cite documentation, as here:

If you check the Wikipedia, you will find: " ...no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him...."

My point is, that the above is much different from the following:

“...no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again.”

I am not talking about "people making it to heaven." I don't believe this has anything to do with people's salvation. I am talking about accuracy of translation. It often matters for our understanding of what the texts actually say.