Since placing the $10,000 challenge on the site I have received 89 (as of 5/07/06) attempts at the cash. Whenever I get an email seeking to gain the cash I respond with Scriptures that place the Truth of God back in context. That usually ends it. Sad thing is, most of the attempts are merely echoes of previous attempts. In other words, nothing original has popped up. The reason I am sharing this particular attempt at the cash (below) online is simply because it afforded me the opportunity to address most of the strange attempts echoed in the past in one fell swoop. Hopefully those seeking to use these twisted Scriptures listed below will check this page first and realize they are already proven in error. Then perhaps a deeper study of the Word will result.
On this page is a conversation between myself and a person named “Cory G****” regarding the Law of God, and the Sabbath of the Lord. As you will find by the way the email starts off, it’s an attempt to sanction “Sunday as Sabbath” in the hopes of gaining the $10,000 cash offered on this website for those that can prove God changed the Sabbath for the New Testament Christian church. My responses to Cory G****’s comments will be in BLUE...
for this opportunity. Your award was brought to my attention by a recent
convert named Jason who is quite enamoured with your site. In discussion, he
suggested that I take you up on your offer.
Before responding, it first seems that some clarification is in order.
First of all, your actual question is a straw man argument. Dictionary.com defines "straw man" as "2: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted". Wikipedia defines "straw man" as "a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a 'straw man' argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous."
point, Christians who observe the Lord's Day - Sunday worship - do not make the
argument that God changed the Sabbath. The Sabbath remains the Sabbath. Those
specific edicts outlining civil responsibilities on the Lord's Day - including
those by the Roman Catholic Church and the English Puritans - discuss a
solemnity of the Sabbath to Sunday, but not the transfer of the day itself.
First off, Sunday is not the “Lord’s day.” For it is plainly written…
Secondly, the Sabbath cannot “remain the Sabbath” by changing it to a different day of the week. For it is also written…
As for make transferring “solemnity” to a different day WITHOUT the expressed command of God, that is 100% impossible.
It is written…
the Sabbath was created, blessed, and sanctified in creation week by God, He
later carved it in stone as a COMMAND to keep holy each week. How can that
blessing or commandment be reversed? Can man in his sinful state make anything
holy himself? No he cannot, for only God can do that. However, as was
prophecied in Daniel 7:25, the beast in
The argument of Christians who observe the Lord's Day is that any particular day of worship –
As I shared earlier, according to both Isaiah 58:13, and Matthew 12:8, the “Lord’s day” is the seventh day Sabbath.
whether Saturday or Sunday - has been demphasized in favour of a more intuitive spirituality and understanding of righteousness. In short, that it doesn't matter what day you go to church on. Why we do go to church on Sunday is a development that does find its basis in the New Testament.
The Word of God plainly says…
To declare the Law of God which states IN STONE no less that the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week for all eternity, and is to be kept as a memorial of the Creator Himself, is something that is abolished is simply not true. For Christ also said,
ask you, has
That your criteria is a straw man is the first point of clarification I would like to make. The second is dealing preemptively with any possible objections to what I am going to present to you.
How can it be a “straw man” argument when in fact this attempt at changing the Law of God was prophecied to occur in Daniel’s book?
not the Roman church already claimed this change was “her mark” and her act of
authority? If prophecy has already declared this to be an act some time in the
future, your claims at it being a straw man argument are proven hopeless and
completely without merit.
It must be agreed that you are asking specifically about the Lord's Day.
Again… According to both Isaiah 58:13, and Matthew 12:8, the “Lord’s day” is the seventh day Sabbath.
Therefore, any instances in the New Testament of Jesus or the Apostles going to worship on the Sabbath is not relevant (eg: Luke 4:16; Act 13:14-52).
beg to differ, for is it not written throughout biblical jurisprudence that
Jesus Christ was OUR EXAMPLE as were the Apostles our example after they
received His Holy Spirit? Did not the Apostles keep Sabbath their entire lives?
Did not all the Christians in the church keep it for literally HUNDREDS of
fact, Jesus Himself spoke of a time 40 years AFTER His death and resurrection
as a time when New Testament Christians would be keeping the 7th day
Sabbath. In Matthew 24 Jesus prophecies about what was historically recorded as
fulfilled in 70 A.D. when
Jesus mentioned something else to the believers in His day 40 years BEFORE 70 A.D. in Matthew 24. What was it?
Jesus spoke of the 70 A.D. situation, He expressed His concern for the Christian living in
that day and told them to pray that when they had to flee to the mountains that
they should pray it doesn’t happen in Winter or ON SABBATH
That they may have ALSO gathered on the Sabbath does not negate them having gathered on the Lord's Day.
Again… according to both Isaiah 58:13, and Matthew 12:8, the “Lord’s day” is the seventh day Sabbath.
NOWHERE from Genesis to Revelation do we find a single verse declaring Sunday to be the “Lord’s day.” Yet, to evade this fact you immediately claim that it is a straw man argument, and therefore not worthy of discussion. Then, you proceed to proclaim a doctrine to me (Sunday Sabbath) which in fact was NEVER mentioned in the Word at all. Old or New Testament. If we are to follow your lead, then you are truly the one grasping at straws here. For as you will soon see, all that you share regarding a Sunday Sabbath can in now way be held up to the Light of Scripture as truth. The Sunday Sabbath is truly the straw man argument here. We have God’s Word on that.
It must also be agreed that since worship on the first-day is a New Testament development, any relevant objections to it must also come from the New Testament. The response to a practice cannot predate the practice. Therefore, to contradict evidence of New Testament Christians worshipping on Sunday, a New Testament condemnation of worship on Sunday would have to be brought forth. Such a condemnation would also have to
true. For nowhere in the New Testament does it say the Old Testament was to be
ignored, abolished, or done away with. In fact, Jesus Himself said the Law of
God would last throughout eternity. Another fact is that both Jesus and His
Apostles used ONLY the Old Testament to preach His message to the believers.
Many years later the New Testament was penned. Plus, in numerous New Testament Scriptures,
after the cross of Christ, we see the Apostles speaking of the Law of God as
still binding on the New Testament Christian further validating the Old
Testament as being valid even today. IN
Only those that keep the Law of God will enter into that city. You do realize that city is New Jerusalem, and that is the name our Father gave to His Heavenly Kingdom, right? If we need not keep the Law of God today, how shall we enter into that city?
It must be agreed, yet again, that when presenting evidence that New Testament Christians worshipped on Sunday, we are NOT saying that Sunday is to be preferred to Saturday. In fact, as I will show, the preference
of one day over another is explicitly contradicted in the New Testament. Therefore, I will say again, the criteria for your offer – demonstrating a New Testament preference for Sunday worship against Saturday worship -
is a straw man argument.
the exact opposite is true. For there are numerous Scriptures to prove the Law
if still valid. You have yet to share even one that validates your claims that
the Law of God is invalid.
It must also be agreed that we are discussing the Lord's Day specifically.
Again, the Lord’s day is Sabbath. According to both Isaiah 58:13, and Matthew 12:8, the “Lord’s day” is the seventh day Sabbath.
have yet to share a single passage claiming it to be Sunday. Nor can you. That
is the reason for the $10,000 offer. I guess it can be called a trick question,
for even EVERY DENOMINATION ON EARTH has stated there is no such verse in the
Bible. They confirm in writing that the true Sabbath is still the SE
Any tangentally-related objections are therefore not relevant. For example, the Pope may or may not be the Antichrist, but that has NO RELEVANCE to the question of whether or not New Testament Christians gathered on Sunday as a historical fact.
agree the Pope is the man of sin. (See concrete proof here -> http://www.remnantofgod.org/666-CHAR.htm
BUT, there is not a single line of Scriptural proof stating New Testament
Christians called “Sunday” holy. I have asked you for this verse, and you have
proven it is impossible to supply.
Finally, it must be agreed that any reference to the first day of the week in the New Testament is a reference to Sunday. In both the Jewish and Roman calendars, the first day of the week is Sunday.
Even though it was not called “SUNday” back then, it is called that today.
I am sure you understand that these are basic, common sense conditions for a clear, focussed, and constructive dialogue. When dealing with this sum of money, I'm sure that you appreciate clarity, as do I.
you are doing this for money and not for truth? How sad. L
Now, to the point. The first instances of Christians gathering on Sunday come in the weeks following the resurrection of Christ, which was itself on a Sunday.
Yes, Christ arose on Sunday because both He and His Father RESTED on the Sabbath. Even the New Testament Christian women REFUSED to anoint the body of Christ AFTER HIS DEATH (when you say the Sabbath changed) because the true Sabbath drew nigh…
Truth is, they waited till Sabbath PASSED before returning to anoint His body in the grave…
John 20:1 - The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Yes, I know it’s the “first day of the week” here. I just shared that they waited for Sabbath to PASS before returning on “Sunday” to anoint Him. This does not in ANY WAY declare we are now to keep Sunday holy. It does however prove they still kept Sabbath (day 7) holy after Christ died because they were going to anoint His body after Sabbath broke.
John 20:19 - Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
NOWHERE in this passage does it say we are to keep Sunday holy. There is not a single shred of evidence that this is a “religious” gathering, or even a “worship” service in any way shape or form. It does say the “disciples were assembled” but it says they were gathered together because of “fear of the Jews.” If this is a church gathering, why are the doors SHUT? Would they not be wide open to allow for free and easy access as the great commission declares is our duty to mankind? Are we now supposed to worship ONLY behind locked doors? Truth is, they were hiding together for fear of their lives because their leader, Christ Jesus, was just murdered. That is biblical historic fact. And as was always the case, they felt they were next. And again, as is always the case in human nature, they felt there was safety in numbers.
john - And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Following this, the early Christian community seemed to retain the practice of meeting on the "eighth day", or the first day of the week.
That is simply not true. You appear to have purposely twisted what was written here. First off, historic record proves that early Christians always kept the seventh day Sabbath holy for hundreds of years after Christ ascended. It wasn’t until Roman Catholic Emperor Constantine tried to force Sunday worship on Christians as a way to show hatred for the Jews. Even though it was never a Jewish Sabbath in the first place. Biblical fact is, the Sabbath was instituted by God, 2500 YEARS before a Jew was ever born. They just happened to be the longest known race of people to keep it is all. They were not the first to keep it. (For hundreds of historic sources proving this as historic fact, click here -> http://www.remnantofgod.org/sabhist.htm )
As for your twisting of Scripture here. Nowhere does the Word of God say the “eight day” is to be considered a sign for Sabbath on Sunday or any other day for that matter. Can you show me a verse that confirms that doctrine? For the Word also says…
You cannot base a doctrine on one verse or an opinion. It must be validated as Isaiah stated all would be. The Word of God always compliments itself with valid agreements.
You said it says the, "eighth day", or the first day of the week.” However, if you read it again you will see it CLEARLY SAYS, “eight days” later Jesus came back to deal with Thomas’ doubt. Reading in context, we see the story line continues on from verse 19 which was, as you already agreed, to have started on a SUNDAY when Jesus appeared to the disciples behind closed doors the first time. Adding EIGHT DAYS to that Sunday He visited them, you will see that by adding EIGHT DAYS to the calculation that we now come to MONDAY! Your math is simply wrong here.
Acts 20:7 - And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
NOWHERE in this passage does it say this is a church service. If this is a church service, are we now to assume because Paul broke bread on the first day of the week and preached unto them that this must be a church service? According to Genesis 1:5,8 etc... Each day begins at sundown and ends at the next sundown. So... The dark part of the day comes first. This meeting was held on the beginning sundown of Sunday, or on what we today refer to as Saturday night. (the New English Bible = on the Saturday night in our assembly...Acts 20:7) this would also explain the "...many lights in the upper chamber..." in verse 8 correct? Now are we to assume that we must hold our church services at night? Or is it a church service because they broke bread? What of Acts chapter 2?
So if it's a church service because of the breaking of bread, Must we also assume that we should have a church service every day because Paul broke bread everyday? NOTICE THIS as well…
Keeping Acts 20:7 in context we see quite a different story now don’t we? Since you have defined this as a church service back in verse 7. This must be the fellowship that we must emulate...all the way till the break of day?
If Acts 20:7 is defining a church service then we must...
you hold religious services EVERY DAY Cory? And if you do, do you do so at
NIGHT and ALL NIGHT LONG till Sun up? If not, why not? You are preaching Act’s
20:7 stated this meeting was a church service to emulate. If you do not do as
you first suggested you preach confusion. Have you ever investigated the
definition of the word “
right! The word
1 Corinthians 16:2 - Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
NOWHERE does this imply in any way shape or form this is a church worship service.
Lets look at the verses preceding and trailing to get the real meaning of what is being said here. Placing verses IN CONTEXT has always been the best method by which to expose spurious doctrine. We must always do this because the enemy will always "yank" a verse out of context this way to get you to believe his or her explanation to the verse. This method works especially well today because as was prophecied (Amos ) very few Christians read or trust Bibles today. So they won’t know it’s being pulled out of context.
When we share verses with others we must also be aware that the verse we quote IS in context with what is being said before and after it. It's kind of like walking into a conversation that has already started and catching the tail end of the conversation. You can get an entire different meaning from it by doing so. Let me explain...
You walk into a room where you see a friend talking to another friend. As you walk in you here them say. "Marijuana is good for you". Imagine your surprise?! You just heard your friend say that marijuana is good for you! You get angry and stomp out of the room convinced they are dope smoking drug dealers! However, if you were to step in 10 seconds earlier you would have heard your friend say. "I heard if you have Glaucoma that marijuana is good for you". Understand? Now let’s look at the verses that precede and follow I Corinthians 16:2 to see what is really being said or done here.
Verses covered are… I Corinthians 16:1-5
Since you claim this is a church service...is Paul ordering them to tithe?
As I said earlier, there is absolutely no reference whatsoever of a public meeting for when Paul arrives. Also notice that Paul is asking for that to be given from what "God hath prospered him." Is this normal tithing practices of a church service, to give from what God has prospered that which has been laid in storage -or- savings?? Is not Luke 18:12 rather plain???
Moving on to the next verse …
Because you claim this to be a church service, are we to assume liberality now means tithing? And are we also to assume that Paul is making it a normal practice to travel on the Sabbath doing business of the Church? Peering into the "Strong's concordance". You will no doubt find that the word, liberality actually means...
Again... Is this normal tithing practice of a church service, to give from what God has prospered that which has been laid in storage -or- savings? Is not Luke 18:12 rather plain??? ...I give tithes of ALL that I possess.
(To find real reason for this liberality see Romans , & Acts 11:26-30)
Again...because you claim this to be a church service that Paul is coming to, are we to assume that Paul is traveling on the Sabbath, and doing BUSINESS on Sabbath as well? Are we to assume that Paul does this EVERY Sabbath?
Furthermore, implicit permission is
given for Christians to worship on any day that they feel is pleasing to God,
Colossians -17 - Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
"sabbaths" mentioned here are not the weekly Sabbath of the Lord.
This passage calls these "sabbath days" (plural) as a "shadow of things to come."
The weekly Sabbath (singular) of the Lord can in no way be a shadow of
something future. The "shadowy" things appeared AFTER sin came into
the world. It was a way to deliverance from sin. All the "shadowy
things" pointed forward to the arrival of Jesus as Saviour to the cross as
an offering for sin. It was after sin started that the Lord declared these “shadows”
were necessary for man to perform. These sabbaths were to be an evidence that
the people believed the Messiah would come to permanently wash away their sins.
But the weekly 7th day Sabbath was instituted at the end of creation week IN
Read Leviticus 23:24-38 and you will find that the sabbaths mentioned in Colossians chapter 2 are the "annual sabbaths" that acknowledged certain events. Make special note that it even says in Verse 38 of Leviticus 23 that these annual sabbaths are BESIDES the Sabbath of the Lord. Jesus said Himself...
· Matthew , "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
He cannot “fulfill” a weekly Sabbath because it points back to creation. You cannot “fulfill” an event already passed. But He can fulfill an annual sabbath that pointed to the future event of His death on that cross.
The simplest way I know to explain it is… The children of God were symbolically keeping the ordinances in the past looking forward to Jesus where He would actually fulfill them in reality. The lamb sacrifice was FULFILLED when the Lamb of God actually died on the cross. Those sheep killed in the past were “shadows” of the true event in the future.
Notice the "sabbaths" of Leviticus...Count them and you will find they come way too frequently to be considered WEEKLY Sabbaths.
· Hebrews 9:1,10 "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."
One more point must be stressed here. It stated this in Colossians 2:17, "...Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ"
Let me ask you
this... when I stand in front of a light source, I cast a shadow correct? Now,
if you find that shadow I cast and follow it you will eventually come to my
body, correct? Does my shadow continue on behind me? No, it stops at the body
does it not? All those feast days are shadows of things that Jesus did in
reality much later on when He visited the planet. When you follow those shadows
you will eventually come to rest before the body of Jesus Christ on
the cross. There is no shadow beyond the cross because the
"ordinances" were nailed to that cross. He did
Galatians 4:9-11 - But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
The Galatians were at one time Pagans, and thereby used to ritualistic forms of worship. The Jewish converts to Christianity, like those in the book of Colossians, wanted to continue on with feast days and the like. Their legalistic form of worship appealed to the Galatians because of their Pagan roots and had to be dealt with.
Like today with the feast
day Sabbath keepers and other spin offs of true Christianity, they sought to
mix the ceremonial Law of Moses into New Testament worship. This ceremonial law
was only till the time of reformation as I shared earlier. By causing the
Galatians to fall for this error they were able to eclipse the atoning work of
If you are a true Christian and one that does all Christ declared in example and command, you would investigate prophecy on this as well. Even Christ declared reading Daniel’s prophecies to be a necessity. (See Matthew 24:15)
Prophecying of Christ, Daniel said…
Study your prophecies and you will see that when Christ came He concentrated on preaching mainly to Jews during those 3.5 years. And after He ascended the Apostles continued for 3.5 years more to finish the prophetic week and also only preached to Jews. As we all know Jesus was crucified in the “midst of the week” when that covenant message was to be confirmed. At that cross the sacrificing of the lamb in evening oblation services for the forgiveness of sin CEASED! He was the prophecied Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (John )
That is why you no longer see animal sacrifices, or feast days observed (observing of days, months, new moons) to atone for sins. Christ said CLEARLY just before He died for our sins…
· John “…it is finished.”
And once again I must ask
you to prove your point with Scripture. For you stated that because it stated
in this passage, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years..” That it
must mean we no longer need to keep the seventh day Sabbath. But I ask you WERE
does it say that? For the truth of the matter here is plain. This is NOT
speaking about the weekly Sabbath at all. It is plainly speaking of the “days..
months… times.. & years…” in that
passage. WHERE I ask in the 4th Commandment does it speak of “days..
months… times… & years?”
Romans 14:5-6 - One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
NOWHERE in this passage does it say we should keep Sunday as Sabbath. This is speaking of the annual holy-days with all their feasts (eating) that some of the Jews felt compelled to keep. New converts to Christianity were not required to keep such “days”. Some of the Jews simply had difficulty in giving up life long tradition.
A good way to compare this with today is some Christians want to keep a “holy-day” (holiday) like Christmas, where others do not see the importance in that annual celebration with all its feasting and merrymaking. If they truly see no wrong in this act we are not to judge them. We can try to warn them of course, but that’s where I job ends. We cannot force or “persuade” them beyond our loving statements. That is why it clearly states, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” in that passage. That fact alone proves it is NOT speaking of the Sabbath commandment because the Commandment is a COMMAND of God Himself. A COMMAND does not have such a stipulation that declares mankind can make such a decision “in his own mind” on this. The COMMAND of God is not to be considered trivial. If it was, why was it written by God’s own hand and IN STONE? A command is our duty…
Another way to look at is this. In the Old Testament we see Moses being instructed by God that if a man breaks the Sabbath he must be stoned to death…
And then suddenly in the New Testament the Lord “who never changes” says that a man can keep it or not, it’s up to him to make the decision in his mind? THAT is contradictory to what is written, and both the Old and the New Testament confirm that to sin means a breaking of the LAW.
And if you sin you must DIE right?
So, why would the Lord say about His Sabbath, which is of the Law, (commandment #4) that in one instant you will die if you break it, and the next it’s no big deal? Impossible. This passage is CLEARLY speaking about the Jewish feast days.
Thank you. For the purposes of third party accountability and responsibility to the whole Church, I will post my letters to you and your letters to me, verbatim, on my LiveJournal. It can be found at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I will watch for this to be posted in its entirety. I pray you were blessed by all that was shared here.
Thank you once again! In Christ,
In Christ I Remain