Does the day of Christ resurrection tell us to worship on Sunday?

[Hobie]

Based on the gospel narratives, how can we confirm that the resurrection happened on Sunday morning as opposed to Saturday night? Both are considered the 1st day of the week.

True, but the events that happened were early in the morning of the 1st day.
Matthew 28:1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

FOR THE HONOUR RECEIVED OF HAVING BEEN THE DAY THAT GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD, AND IN IT, RESTED ON, I believe the Sabbath.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

True, but the events that happened were early in the morning of the 1st day.
Matthew 28:1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Hobie asserts: <<the events that happened were early in the morning of the 1st day.>>

Matthew 28:1 King James Version (KJV, DRB etc. etc.) recorded: "1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week."
Matthew 28:1 American Standard Version (DBT, ERV etc. etc.) recorded: "1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week."

Therefore, What Hobie ACTUALLY says, is, 'FALSE, because I say the events that happened were early in the morning of the 1st day.' ...sda.......

PS

I refer to the KJV and DRB here because the KJV is representative of Protestantism and DRB is representative of (Roman) Catholicism, so of all the Church..

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

You can stake your life on it, no SDA will speak or refer to me or mention my name. Good! Praise God for his providence.

 

[Hobie]

You can stake your life on it, no SDA will speak or refer to me or mention my name. Good! Praise God for his providence.

I know what you are and your intent.

 

[Pilgrimer]

Have you read your Bible ...

Insulting as such a question is, I will nevertheless answer it. Yes, I have read my Bible, including the parts it appears you have not read:

"Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons ..." Daniel 2:21-22

But more importantly, this is not even referring to the Sabbath. Except for one instance in Ezra, Daniel is the only one who uses this word translated "times" (Hebrew: zeman) and Daniel uses it in the context of the 70 weeks that had been decreed for the nation of Israel until the Messianic judgment upon that blood-guilty generation with the cessation of the Temple ministry and destruction of the Holy city and the land of Israel and the end of the Old Covenant, events which God had decreed generations before in His Law and for which He had long ago determined the time of it's coming to pass.

And the word "law" in the Daniel 7:25 passage you are claiming was speaking of the Mosaic Sabbath commandment was actually speaking of this "decree" of God (called the "curse of the Law" - read about it in Deuteronomy 28:15-68 and Moses' prophecy about it in Deuteronomy 31:28-32:43). God had decreed in the Law what he would do to Israel if they broke covenant with him, and the Old Testament is a testament against them, that time and time again they did in fact break covenant with God and went after strange gods to worship them, even at one time doing that abomination for which God swore in His wrath he would make them desolate ... they sacrificed their firstborn male children which they had covenanted would belong to God and they burned them alive in fire as a sacrifice to Baal. In a place called "Tophet" (meaning "to beat" for the drums the priests of Baal used to drown out the screams of the babies being burned alive). This "high place" called Tophet was located in the Valley of Hinnom, and God swore in His wrath that he would fill that place with their dead bodies so numerous they would not have room to bury them but they would be left for food for the worms and beasts of the earth and fowls of the air. And the generation that saw the coming of Jesus and the institution of the New Covenant and it's fulfillment of all the blessings promised in the Old Covenant also saw the fulfillment of all the curses in the Old Covenant upon that generation, including the Valley of Hinnom filled up with dead, rotting corpses thrown over the city walls and left unburied. What do you think all these horrors and the complete destruction of national Israel the whole Mosaic economy "at that time" was about? Coincidence? Hardly. It had all been decreed in the Law and the time had come for it all to come to pass.

But that generation of Jews who rejected the New Covenant and refused to heed the many warnings of coming judgment and disaster thought they could change the times and decree of God and rather than repenting they went about to establish a messianic kingdom of their own vain interpretation of Scripture. But the time had come and the decree could not be changed, everything that pertained to and made possible the observance of the Mosaic Law came to a firey and bloody end, which was the whole subject of Daniel's prophecies.

And I'm afraid it does you little good to quote Catholic teaching to me, I am not Catholic nor do I agree with all their doctrines or their claims about history. You must understand, the Catholic Church claims to be "the" authority of God on earth and therefore they claim that many of the doctrines and practices of Christians were authorized by them when in fact many of these doctrines and practices actually began with the Mother Church at Jerusalem and were taught and practiced by the eastern churches even before the church at Rome accepted them. Many of the doctrines that Protestants hold go back to the 1st and 2nd century writings of the churches in Palestine and the Coptic Church in Egypt, who even in the 4th century were still exercising more authority over doctrinal development and Christian practice than the church at Rome, which I might add was overruled by the Coptic and eastern churches even as late as the 4th century.

You really shouldn't believe everything some Catholic apologists write about history, those writings show they have an agenda and that is to try to "prove" that they are the source of the doctrines and practices of Christendom because they believe it demonstrates their "authority." But Scripture, and history, say different.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

You mean the new covenant is between a NEW GOD and your church.

No, I mean the new covenant God promised He would one day make with all those who believe, both those of Israel and those of the nations, those whom He would wash with the blood of His own sacrifice, to whom He would give His own Spirit so that they might see and hear and taste and know the heavenly blessings of which the earthly blessings were but a passing shadow.

That New Covenant.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

No, I mean the new covenant God promised He would one day make with all those who believe, both those of Israel and those of the nations, those whom He would wash with the blood of His own sacrifice, to whom He would give His own Spirit so that they might see and hear and taste and know the heavenly blessings of which the earthly blessings were but a passing shadow.
That New Covenant.
In Christ,
Pilgrimer

And I mean, <<The New Covenant God promised He would one day make with all those who believe, both those of Israel and those of the nations, those whom He would wash with the blood of His own sacrifice, to whom He would give His own Spirit so that they might see and hear and taste and know the heavenly blessings of which the earthly blessings were but a passing shadow>>, IS COME IN THE PERSON AND LIFE AND SUFFERING AND DEATH AND BURIAL AND RESURRECTION AND APPEARANCE AND ASCENSION AND INTERCESSION AND SECOND ADVENT "IN THE FLESH" OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD GOD SAVIOUR : "THE ALL in all fulfilling FULLNESS OF GOD GIVEN TO THE CHURCH AS HEAD".

God bless. Your confession inspired hope in me.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I know what you are and your intent.

I am the SDA drogma destructor!

 

[Hobie]

Insulting as such a question is, I will nevertheless answer it. Yes, I have read my Bible, including the parts it appears you have not read:

"Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons ..." Daniel 2:21-22

But more importantly, this is not even referring to the Sabbath. Except for one instance in Ezra, Daniel is the only one who uses this word translated "times" (Hebrew: zeman) and Daniel uses it in the context of the 70 weeks that had been decreed for the nation of Israel until the Messianic judgment upon that blood-guilty generation with the cessation of the Temple ministry and destruction of the Holy city and the land of Israel and the end of the Old Covenant, events which God had decreed generations before in His Law and for which He had long ago determined the time of it's coming to pass.

And the word "law" in the Daniel 7:25 passage you are claiming was speaking of the Mosaic Sabbath commandment was actually speaking of this "decree" of God (called the "curse of the Law" - read about it in Deuteronomy 28:15-68 and Moses' prophecy about it in Deuteronomy 31:28-32:43). God had decreed in the Law what he would do to Israel if they broke covenant with him, and the Old Testament is a testament against them, that time and time again they did in fact break covenant with God and went after strange gods to worship them, even at one time doing that abomination for which God swore in His wrath he would make them desolate ... they sacrificed their firstborn male children which they had covenanted would belong to God and they burned them alive in fire as a sacrifice to Baal. In a place called "Tophet" (meaning "to beat" for the drums the priests of Baal used to drown out the screams of the babies being burned alive). This "high place" called Tophet was located in the Valley of Hinnom, and God swore in His wrath that he would fill that place with their dead bodies so numerous they would not have room to bury them but they would be left for food for the worms and beasts of the earth and fowls of the air. And the generation that saw the coming of Jesus and the institution of the New Covenant and it's fulfillment of all the blessings promised in the Old Covenant also saw the fulfillment of all the curses in the Old Covenant upon that generation, including the Valley of Hinnom filled up with dead, rotting corpses thrown over the city walls and left unburied. What do you think all these horrors and the complete destruction of national Israel the whole Mosaic economy "at that time" was about? Coincidence? Hardly. It had all been decreed in the Law and the time had come for it all to come to pass.

But that generation of Jews who rejected the New Covenant and refused to heed the many warnings of coming judgment and disaster thought they could change the times and decree of God and rather than repenting they went about to establish a messianic kingdom of their own vain interpretation of Scripture. But the time had come and the decree could not be changed, everything that pertained to and made possible the observance of the Mosaic Law came to a firey and bloody end, which was the whole subject of Daniel's prophecies.

And I'm afraid it does you little good to quote Catholic teaching to me, I am not Catholic nor do I agree with all their doctrines or their claims about history. You must understand, the Catholic Church claims to be "the" authority of God on earth and therefore they claim that many of the doctrines and practices of Christians were authorized by them when in fact many of these doctrines and practices actually began with the Mother Church at Jerusalem and were taught and practiced by the eastern churches even before the church at Rome accepted them. Many of the doctrines that Protestants hold go back to the 1st and 2nd century writings of the churches in Palestine and the Coptic Church in Egypt, who even in the 4th century were still exercising more authority over doctrinal development and Christian practice than the church at Rome, which I might add was overruled by the Coptic and eastern churches even as late as the 4th century.

You really shouldn't believe everything some Catholic apologists write about history, those writings show they have an agenda and that is to try to "prove" that they are the source of the doctrines and practices of Christendom because they believe it demonstrates their "authority." But Scripture, and history, say different.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

So do you go by the Bible or what a Coptic or 'churches in Palestine', or eastern churches practiced or taught, as that is what it comes down to. You cannot rely on man or his ideas or traditions, you must stick to Gods word.

 

[Renniks]

Early Christians continued to pray and rest on the seventh day, and observe the Sabbath. But apostasy began to creep in the church, especially at Rome and by the 2nd century AD you start to find were some began to hold both, and soon a number of Christians affected by the spreading apostasy were observing only Sunday and not the Sabbath.

Take a look...https://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...turday-to.html
Notice they don't know why but just throw out "because the Resurrection and the beginning of Creation had both occurred on the first day of the week" But at Creation it was the seventh day that was made sanctified and made holy and clearly Christ rested on the Sabbath and then came up on Sunday.

This was the first idea that was spread around to find a way to set aside or disregard the Sabbath, and set another day. So did Christ rise and tell the Disciples something that was not in scripture or was it written down and somehow got lost, God doesnt work that way. Now people began to say 'I keep Sunday in honor of the Resurrection' or that they were told that the Apostles began keeping Sunday as the day of worship after the resurrection for a variety of reasons, but did they. No, the early church clearly kept the Sabbath.

So is there any chance the resurrection somehow cause a change to the day of worship? Well, worship is the reason for the Sabbath and it is the only day God ever gave us to worship Him on. That which God gives us is the truth and we are to believe it and obey it, especially when its straight from His Word. It tells us, "Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth."John 17:17 and we read, "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit."1 Peter 1:22.

It is not safe to refuse obedience to the obvious truths of God’s Word. "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination." Proverbs 28:9.

So what does the clear Word of God tell us when men come up with changes to what God has given us, or bring in tradition which go against Gods Law. "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29.

So does the resurrection change the day of the Sabbath, well the problem is that God never told anyone to keep Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Christ, or for any other reason. Lets go over them and see...

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes a special day does so to the Lord; he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.…

 

[Pilgrimer]

So do you go by the Bible or what a Coptic or 'churches in Palestine', or eastern churches practiced or taught, as that is what it comes down to. You cannot rely on man or his ideas or traditions, you must stick to Gods word.

I came to my beliefs from study of the Scripture long before I learned anything about the early churches and what they believed and taught.

My comments were in response to the charge that it was the Church at Rome that "changed the Sabbath," which 1) is not true, because 2) the New Covenant Sabbath is not Sunday, it is the Day of Salvation (Hebrews 4), when through faith men might enter into a New Covenant with God whereby we find rest from trusting in our own works of the law to make us right with God and instead we rest in Christ and trust in his blood for forgiveness of sin to make us right with God and to cleanse us so that God's indwelling Spirit might be our personal teacher and inspiration in living a godly life, real-time personal teaching and inspiration the Law, holy and perfect as it is, can never give us.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

the New Covenant Sabbath is not Sunday, it is the Day of Salvation (Hebrews 4)

'The New Covenant' is not any of the 3 things you mention. It is not the Sabbath; it is not Sunday; and it is not <the Day of Salvation>. The "New Covenant" is God's Covenant; is God's only ever Covenant; is God's Eternal Covenant; is God's Covenant of His Grace, Mercy, Love, Faithfulness, Power; Is God's Covenant of HIS FULLNESS. The "New Covenant" is "NEW", everlasting "NEW". It does not because it cannot get 'old' or "come near vanishing" or vanish or get replaced OR THE GOD OF THE NEW COVENANT must get old and dilapidated and "near vanishing", or must vanish or get replaced. Imagine the GOD of the NEW Covenant, replaced!? Yet no less is indispensable and conditional for a, yea for the, yea for ANY Covenant of GOD'S, to be replaced!

Now for <the Day of Salvation> to be .. no, as you say, to become, the New Covenant in place of the alleged <old covenant>, the very same qualities or rather weaknesses of the Covenant MUST BE TRUE OF THE GOD of the Covenant.

 

[Pilgrimer]

'The New Covenant' is not any of the 3 things you mention. It is not the Sabbath; it is not Sunday; and it is not <the Day of Salvation>. The "New Covenant" is God's Covenant; is God's only ever Covenant; is God's Eternal Covenant; is God's Covenant of His Grace, Mercy, Love, Faithfulness, Power; Is God's Covenant of HIS FULLNESS. The "New Covenant" is "NEW", everlasting "NEW". It does not because it cannot get 'old' or "come near vanishing" or vanish or get replaced OR THE GOD OF THE NEW COVENANT must get old and dilapidated and "near vanishing", or must vanish or get replaced. Imagine the GOD of the NEW Covenant, replaced!? Yet no less is indispensable and conditional for a, yea for the, yea for ANY Covenant of GOD'S, to be replaced!

Now for <the Day of Salvation> to be .. no, as you say, to become, the New Covenant in place of the alleged <old covenant>, the very same qualities or rather weaknesses of the Covenant MUST BE TRUE OF THE GOD of the Covenant.

My apologies but I have difficult time trying to follow your reasoning. Perhaps because you do not offer an actual reasoned argument but simply make statements as though they are undeniable.

The Old Covenant promised blessings that were all fulfilled by the coming and work of Christ and are freely given to those who enter into the New Covenant.

The Old Covenant also promised curses that were also fulfilled by the coming and the work of Christ which brought to an end everything God had provided for the observance of the Old Covenant. The Temple, the sacrificial system, the priesthood, the sabbaths, the feasts, seedtime and harvest, the holy city of Jerusalem, and the nation of Israel, all were destroyed in the days of Christ's coming because all those things were types and shadows of God's heavenly kingdom and Jesus having torn the veil between earth and heaven and brought God's Kingdom to men, all those old earthly types and shadows were fulfilled (what they typified, foreshadowed, symbolized, foretold, exemplified, stood for, prefigured) and they all passed away. That's why there is nothing left of the Old Covenant things, that old world now lies buried deep beneath the rubble of war and desolation, a land swept clean by the unforgiving winds of time.

Had every jot and tittle of that Old Covenant not been completely fulfilled, no power on earth could have destroyed those things that God had provided that made observance of the Law possible.

And as Daniel foretold, this is the confirmation that God has made the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah ... the Old Covenant and everything that pertained to its observance passed away, and at the set time and in the exact manner decreed in the Law and foretold by all the Prophets.

Else how do you explain the very destruction decreed in the Law down to the last jot and tittle of everything that God had provided for the observance of the Law? And that in the generation that saw the coming of Jesus and the institution of the New Covenant?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

you do not offer an actual reasoned argument but simply make statements as though they are undeniable.

The Old Covenant promised blessings that were all fulfilled by the coming and work of Christ and are freely given to those who enter into the New Covenant.

Now let's see, you simply make a statement as though it is undeniable, <<The Old Covenant promised blessings that were all fulfilled by the coming and work of Christ and are freely given to those who enter into the New Covenant>>.

<The Old Covenant promised blessings>?? Please offer an actual reasoned argument, or better, please simply offer Scripture?? Because <an actual reasoned argument> may still be deniable, but Scripture always is undeniable.

Please try to understand, the 'old covenant' was the PEOPLE'S promises which they fulfilled none of and for which they received no blessings but by which they only earned just condemnation.

It was God's NEW Covenant Promises about the coming and work of Christ which were freely given to those with whom God entered into Covenant, which New Covenant Promises He not once did not keep but fulfilled through and in and for the sake of Christ FAITHFULLY TO THE LAST.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The Old Covenant also promised curses that were also fulfilled by the coming and the work of Christ which brought to an end everything God had provided for the observance of the Old Covenant. The Temple, the sacrificial system, the priesthood, the sabbaths, the feasts, seedtime and harvest, the holy city of Jerusalem, and the nation of Israel, all were destroyed in the days of Christ's coming because all those things were types and shadows of God's heavenly kingdom and Jesus having torn the veil between earth and heaven and brought God's Kingdom to men, all those old earthly types and shadows were fulfilled (what they typified, foreshadowed, symbolized, foretold, exemplified, stood for, prefigured) and they all passed away. That's why there is nothing left of the Old Covenant things, that old world now lies buried deep beneath the rubble of war and desolation, a land swept clean by the unforgiving winds of time.

Had every jot and tittle of that Old Covenant not been completely fulfilled, no power on earth could have destroyed those things that God had provided that made observance of the Law possible.

And as Daniel foretold, this is the confirmation that God has made the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah ... the Old Covenant and everything that pertained to its observance passed away, and at the set time and in the exact manner decreed in the Law and foretold by all the Prophets.

Else how do you explain the very destruction decreed in the Law down to the last jot and tittle of everything that God had provided for the observance of the Law? And that in the generation that saw the coming of Jesus and the institution of the New Covenant?

Little and much could be said. Little if simply you would understand <<The Old Covenant...>> NOTHING! Not good or bad! The old covenant is the fickle oath of mortal sinner man any time anywhere on earth.

Much if one might look to less important detail, most of which from the nature of the case won't help anyone much at this stage to better understand God's New Covenant.

 

[Enow]

True, but the events that happened were early in the morning of the 1st day.
Matthew 28:1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Sabbath ended at sunset Saturday and the first day of the week started at sunset Saturday.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

So does the resurrection change the day of the Sabbath, well the problem is that God never told anyone to keep Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Christ

Typical way to frustrate truth.
The Resurrection of Christ changed the nature of the Sabbath Day. All Scripture tells of the Divine change Jesus' Resurrection would bring about as reason for being of the Sabbath Day. Sunday NEVER was relevant or involved or earmarked or blessed or hallowed or marked or signed in any way for WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON AND IN AND WITH AND TO "the day, The Seventh DAY Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD". <<God never told anyone to keep Sunday in honor of the Resurrection of Christ>>, but God always told "the People of God" that "because I brought you up out of Egypt" and "up from the Red Sea" and "up through the River Jordan .. THEREFORE you shall remember the Sabbath". "If JESUS GAVE them rest, remembering the Sabbath THEREFORE for the People of God remains mandatory."

 

[Enow]

Typical way to frustrate truth.
The Resurrection of Christ changed the nature of the Sabbath Day. All Scripture tells of the Divine change Jesus' Resurrection would bring about as reason for being of the Sabbath Day. Sunday NEVER was relevant or involved or earmarked or blessed or hallowed or marked or signed in any way for WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON AND IN AND WITH AND TO "the day, The Seventh DAY Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD". <<God never told anyone to keep Sunday in honor of the Resurrection of Christ>>, but God always told "the People of God" that "because I brought you up out of Egypt" and "up from the Red Sea" and "up through the River Jordan .. THEREFORE you shall remember the Sabbath". "If JESUS GAVE them rest, keeping Sabbath THEREFORE for the People of God remains mandatory."

How do you apply Matthew 12:1-7 to the topic for why believers are guiltless for not keeping the sabbath?

Matthew 12:1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Could it be because Jesus Christ is in us and our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit for why we are guiltless now for not keeping the sabbath?

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Does the new reality in Christ being in us and with us always is why we are guiltless for profaning the sabbath day?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

How do you apply Matthew 12:1-7 to the topic for why believers are guiltless for not keeping the sabbath?

First, kindly, improve my statement / translation, 'keeping Sabbath', with 'remembering the Sabbath' from 'apoleipetai' Hebrews 4:9. Thanks.

Your question is one of the most meaningful that could be asked 'concerning' the Sabbath - Hebrews 4:4.

It usually gets asked to <prove Jesus broke the Sabbath>, but that cannot be farther from the truth.

WHY?! HOW?! is it untrue? Did not the priests WORK in the temple on the Sabbath?

They absolutely did work. Their JOB was a Sabbath's WORK OF DUTY.

Just like the Sabbatharian legalists the Sunday legalists in eternity will not, can not, and SHALL not admit that GOD'S WORK ON THE SABBATH DAY WAS HIS ALMIGHTY REST OF THAT DAY, "finished", "blessed" and "hallowed".

"For thus God concerning the Seventh Day [Sabbath of the LORD GOD] SPAKE" : "concerning the Sabbath spake, Then God the Day The Seventh Day from ALL, HIS, WORKS, RESTED."

Undeniable this is an uninterrupted New Testament reference to the Creation Saga, specifically to the Scripture Genesis 2:2,3 CONTINUED AND FINISHED in 3:8-24.

For THIS, I have for the greater part of my life been made the laughingstock and gallows pole, rope and hanged by Saturdayists and Sundayists alike despite I called upon many great Christians who believed Sunday is the Christians' day to worship as witnesses to the truth that, within the unity of Genesis 2:2,3 and 3:8-24 God's REST IS God's WORK and vice versa.