Lucian of Antioch

[Brakelite]

But I am interested to hear more on your position concerning Antioch. Please share. Thanks.

So as not to divert from the main topic of your thread, "what did Jesus save us from", I chose to answer your query with a new thread. Which is bound to engender some discussion and thought of readers are willing to read. I begin with some lengthy posts, all quoting from a chapter on this precise topic in a book entitled "Truth Triumphant", a historical treatise on the development of the Christian faith outside of the mainstream of Rome and Alexandria.


Consideration having been given to the importance of Syria in conserving the original bases of the true church, (written in the previous chapter of the book aforementioned) attention is now directed to Lucian (c. A.D. 250-312). Born among the hills of Syria, this devout scholar was destined to exercise a dominating influence on the thought of men through the ages. He was gifted with an unusual spirit of discernment, which the Holy Spirit used in enlarging and strengthening the foundations laid by the apostles. For many years destructive teachings more deadly to early Christianity than the poison of serpents had been gaining ground. Lucian was called upon to face these, and although he did not succeed in completely removing them, nevertheless he did build for all a safe retreat. Lucian might be likened to the founders of the American republic. As authors of the American Declaration of Independence and that part of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights, they gave the nation written documents upon which to build the state. So Lucian, in an hour when documentary confusion was threatening chaos, defended, preserved, and passed on to other generations the true text of the Holy Scriptures. He also left a masterpiece of theology to evangelical believers. He stimulated and vivified correct church organization and method of evangelization. Although his opponents have seen to it that not much history about him has been preserved, yet they cannot rob him of his great works.

Lucian was born at Antioch, a center of Greek life and culture. In his day, Rome ruled supreme. There was no more powerful metropolis than Antioch. On the outskirts lay the glamorous grove of Daphne, celebrated above all other groves. In it the pleasure seeker could find many delights, ranging from the most luxurious and sensuous to the highest performances of classical art. Often, in his youth, Lucian looked upon these scenes of worldly folly; but his pious heart turned away from them in complete devotion to his Lord. He could wander eastward a few miles to those beautiful villages and cities, the remains of which have been described in a previous chapter. At that time they were the flourishing home of a learned, devoted Christianity, clinging closely to the early simplicity of the gospel, and refusing to adopt the unscriptural teachings and customs of heathenism which were gaining ground in some professed Christian bodies.

The early years of Lucian were years of great contrast. He quickly discerned that there were two movements taking shape in Christendom, one loose in doctrine and affiliating itself with heathenism, the other based on the deep foundations of the Christian faith. HIS BOYHOOD AND YOUTH In early boyhood an event occurred which opened his eyes to the frailty of empires. The Persians, led by the fanaticism of Mithraism, had made themselves masters of the Near Eastern world, bringing into existence an empire which would be the dreaded antagonist of Rome for five centuries. When Lucian was about ten years of age, Shapur (Sapro) I, the Persian monarch, waged successful warfare to the west, capturing the city of Antioch and taking captive the Roman emperor.2 Naturally he carried back from the region many captives, among them Syrian Christians who would labor to evangelize Persia. Antioch on the border line between Rome and Persia, the coveted prize of both empires, offered a commanding position from which the work of Lucian could exercise its influence east and west through the coming centuries. Soon the government of the Roman world passed into the hands of an energetic soldier, the emperor Aurelian, who set about vigorously to repair the damage to the imperial system done by weak predecessors. At this time a certain Paul, born in Samosata, was bishop of Antioch and had brought down upon himself the wrath of the Roman and Alexandrian churches because of his teachings. Paul was accused of believing a doctrine concerning the divinity of Christ which in the eyes of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria was considered heresy. Now for the first time Lucian heard the thunders of that struggle concerning the Sonship of our Lord which would go on until and after the first and most famous general council of the church was held at Nicaea in 325. How difficult and dangerous the situation of Lucian was may quickly be seen. The churches of Rome and Alexandria had entered into an alliance. Alexandria had, for more than two centuries before Christ, been the real capital of the Jews who were compromising with paganism. The church at Alexandria was in this atmosphere. The city of Rome had been for seven hundred years, and was still to be for some time, the world capital of paganism. This environment greatly influenced the church at Rome. Lucian grew up in the churches of Judea. Here was the divine pattern for further believers. Lucian founded a college at Antioch which strove to counteract the dangerous ecclesiastical alliance between Rome and Alexandria. How bitter the situation became and how it finally split the West and East will be clarified by the following four facts: First, the original founders of the ecclesiastical college at Alexandria strove to exalt tradition. Justin Martyr, as early as 150, had stood for this.3 He was the spiritual father of Tatian, who in turn was, in all probability, a teacher of Clement. Second, Clement, most famous of the Alexandrian college faculty and a teacher of Origen, boasted that he would not teach Christianity unless it were mixed with pagan philosophy.4 Third, Victor I, bishop of Rome, entered into a compact with Clement, about 190, to carry on research around the Mediterranean basin to secure support to help make Sunday the prominent day of worship in the church.5 Sunday was already a day exalted among the heathen, being a day on which they worshiped the sun; yet Rome and Alexandria well knew that most of the churches throughout the world sanctified Saturday as the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.6 Fourth, when Victor I, in lordly tones, pronounced excommunication on all the churches of the East who would not with him make Easter always come on Sunday, Alexandria supported this first exhibition of spiritual tyranny by the bishop of Rome. Lucian opposed Alexandria’s policies and for this has been bitterly hated and his name kept in the background.

 

[Brakelite]

In the church struggle over Paul of Samosam, Lucian held aloof from both parties. When it appeared as if neither side would win, appeal was made to the pagan emperor Aurelian. The party led by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria could well bow its head with shame that the aid of a heathen emperor was invoked to settle a controversy over the divine Son of God. Most astonishing to relate, the emperor declined to judge the case and commanded (A.D. 270) that it should be submitted to the judgment of the bishops of Italy and Rome.7 In referring this issue to the bishop of the capital city and his associates, it was assumed that they were responsible for the whole Christian church. This came as a recognition from the pagan state to Pope Felix. It could easily be used to support the assumed primacy of Peter. What must have stirred the mind of Lucian, however, who at this time was about twenty-five years of age, were the philosophical speculations offered to sustain the theological viewpoint held by the bishop of Rome concerning the Godhead. Concerning the Christians after the Council of Nicaea, where the influence of Rome was dominant, the historian Edward Gibbon wrote, “They were more solicitous to explore the nature, than to practice the laws, of their founder.”8 As no record has been found that Lucian was a participant in this controversy, subsequent historians recognize their inability to accuse him of factionalism or instability. One must read the thorough defense of this holy man by George Bishop Bull to know the errors Lucian opposed and the excellent doctrines he taught.9 There is no record of any charge of heresy, officially or ecclesiastically, lodged against him by his contemporaries. In his early youth, Lucian was called to resist the rise and spread of two perverted types of Christianity: Manichaeism and Gnosticism.

INSIDIOUS TEACHINGS MET BY LUCIAN

Manichaeism dethroned the first chapter of Genesis by rejecting creation and a miracle-working God, by demanding celibacy of its leaders, and by worshiping the sun as the supreme dwelling place of Deity.10 Imbued with the ancient Persian hatred of the Old Testament, it ridiculed the Sabbath of the fourth commandment and exalted Sunday.11 This fanatical darkness, with its own fabricated scriptures, came down upon Syria like a fog. Lucian weakened its attacks by his irresistible defense of the Scriptures and their teachings. He was next aroused to meet in the primitive church an invasion of subtle hero worship. Gnosticism was eating its way into those sections of the church which were compromising with paganism. The wrath of the papal party was brought down upon him because he refused to participate in a questionable movement to exalt on fraudulent grounds the primacy of the bishop of Rome. For more than a century previously there had appeared considerable deceptive literature giving an exalted place to Peter. In these crafty stories the impetuous apostle was brought to Rome, and with him was brought Simon the magician, whom he had rebuked. Supernatural powers were attributed to Simon. Peter, in these dishonest fables, was reputed to follow Simon, rapidly confuting his heresies and his superhuman feats, and finally destroying this pretended follower of the faith by a mighty miracle. These fabulous exploits of Peter were emblazoned abroad. “The apocryphal accounts...of Peter’s deeds at Rome leaped at once beyond all bounds of sober credibility. They may have concealed a modicum of fact beneath the fiction, but the fiction so far exceeded and distorted the fact that it is hopeless now to try to disentangle one from the other....None the less this literature cannot be overlooked by one who aims to comprehend the growth of papal prestige. Conceptions founded upon it and incidents borrowed from it were in time accepted by most of the influential writers of Roman Christendom, even by those who like Eusebius or Jerome fully realized that the literature as a whole was a web of falsehood. In particular, the figure of Simon Magus, once installed at Rome, could never be entirely exorcised, nor could Peter be deprived of the renown of being the first mighty victor over heresy as embodied in Simon’s person. In fact, it is difficult to name one of the Fathers after the third century who does not sometime allude to that famous story. Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and others...could none of them rid themselves altogether of the impression it made upon them.12

Lucian never accepted such doubtful tales. He protested against those who were championing fraudulent claims; but as they became more determined in countenancing these false stories, and so helped to make the bishop of Rome “the vicar of the Son of God,” the more hostile they grew toward Lucian.

LUCIAN’S GIFT OF THE GENUINE NEW TESTAMENT

The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch, and other languages. During the Dark Ages, the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labors of that great scholar, Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the received text was Lucian. None of Lucian’s enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian’s day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying.13 Lucian’s unrivaled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful. Mutilations of the Sacred Scriptures abounded.14 There were at least eighty heretical sects all striving for supremacy.15 Each took unwarranted license in removing or adding pages to Bible manuscripts.16 Consider how masterly must have been Lucian’s collection of the evidences which identified and protected the writings left to the church by the apostles. From that day to this the Received Text and the New Testaments translated from it are far in the lead of any other Bibles in use.

REJECTION OF THE SPURIOUS OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

Not only did Lucian certify the genuine New Testament, but he spent years of arduous labor upon the Old Testament.17 As the Greek language was the prevalent tongue in which leading works were published throughout the civilized world, he translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. He did this work so well that even Jerome, his bitter opponent, admitted that his Greek translation of the Old Testament held sway in the capital city of Constantinople and in most of the Near East.18 Jerome also entered the same field and translated the Hebrew Bible, not only into Greek, but into Latin. When the two translations of the Hebrew Bible appeared, there was a marked difference between the edition of Lucian and that of Jerome. To Jerome’s Latin edition were added the seven spurious books called the Apocrypha, which the Protestant world has continuously rejected. The responsibility cannot all be laid upon Jerome, for he did not believe in these seven spurious books. Augustine, whose fame as a father of the papal church outshines Jerome’s, favored them.19 Since, however, Jerome had been employed by the bishop of Rome to publish this translation and had received abundant money from his employer for its accomplishment, the pope took the liberty of adding the seven spurious books in question to the Latin edition of Jerome’s Old Testament. Later the Papacy pronounced it to be the authoritative Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, in many ways Lucian became a blessing to those churches which in later years designated the Church of Rome “a newcomer,” and felt themselves compelled to disagree with it, while they persevered in apostolic usages.

 

[Brakelite]

EXPOSURE OF THE ALLEGORIZING THEOLOGIANS



Clement (c. A.D. 194) and Origen (c. A.D. 230) of the metaphysical school of Alexandria, in the days immediately preceding Lucian, welded into an alluring and baffling system the method of allegorizing the Bible. They taught the supremacy of the bishop of Rome and declared that there was no salvation outside the church. Clement played to the applause of the populace by advocating the affinity of Christianity with paganism and of sun worship with the Sun of Righteousness. John Mosheim testifies to this as follows: “He [Clement] himself expressly tells us in his Stromata, that he would not hand down Christian truth pure and unmixed, but “associated with, or rather veiled by, and shrouded under the precepts of philosophy”... the philosophy of the Greeks.”20 While Clement, with Pantaenus, mixed Christianity with paganism at Alexandria, Lucian founded at Antioch a school of Syrian theology. The profound difference between his teaching and that of the north African allegorizing theologians, Dr. Williston Walker thus describes: “With Antioch of this period is to be associated the foundation of a school of theology by Lucian, of whom little is known of biographical detail, save that he was a presbyter, held aloof from the party in Antioch which opposed and overcame Paul of Samosata, taught there from c. 275 to 303, and died a martyr’s death in 312.... Like Origen, he busied himself with textual and exegetical labors on the Scriptures, but had little liking for the allegorizing methods of the great Alexandrian. A simpler, more grammatical and historical method of treatment both of text and doctrine characterized his teaching.”21 It was a critical hour in the history of the church in the days following the efforts of Clement, Origen, and Tertullian — the mystical teachers of north Africa — to substitute new foundations for Christianity. In that time God raised up a tireless champion of truth, Lucian. Speculation within the church was tearing to pieces the faith once delivered to the saints. The very foundation of the gospel itself was at stake. Because of the immense contributions made by Syrian Christianity in the following centuries, later generations are indebted to Lucian. At this time the words of the psalmist were appropriate: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”(Psalm 11:3.) It was at this time, according to a historian acceptable to the Roman Church, who lived in the same century with Lucian, that the martyr drew up a confession of faith.22



DENOUNCING TRADITION ABOVE THE BIBLE



The apostle Paul had prophesied that after his departing men would arise from the ministry, speaking perverse things and entering like grievous wolves among the flock.(Acts 20:29, 30.) Paul said it would come; Lucian in his day could say truly that it had come. Within a hundred years after the death of Paul there can be found in the writings of authors who now stand high in the Roman Catholic Church the exaltation of tradition to the level, if not above the level, of the Holy Scriptures. Tertullian (A.D. 150235), who lived in the same century as did Lucian, after explaining the oblations for the dead, the sign of the cross upon the forehead, and the dipping of candidates in the water three times for baptism, writes: “If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as the strengthener, and faith as their observer.23 The Church in the Wilderness believed the Bible to be supreme. Its members believed that the Holy Spirit and the word agreed, and they remembered that Jesus met each test Satan put against Him in the hour of temptation with the words, “It is written.” To hold the Holy Scriptures as an infallible guide to salvation excludes the admission of any other authority upon as high a level. To exalt tradition and place it on the level with the Bible throws the door open to admit all kinds of writings as bearing the seal of divine authority. Moreover, it places an impossible burden upon believers to verify a wide range of literature. The Protestant and the Catholic worlds both teach that the Holy Scriptures are of God. There is a difference, however, for the Protestants admit the Bible and the Bible only, while the Papacy places the church traditions on an equality with the Scriptures. The Council of Trent, 1545, whose decisions are supreme authority on doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, speaks as follows on written and unwritten tradition: The sacred and holy, oecumenical and general Synod of Trent,...following the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, — seeing that one God is the author of both, and also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church.24 That this principle still prevails in the Roman Catholic Church is shown by the words of the celebrated Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, who was long the leading exponent of his church in the United States. Thus he writes: A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.25 Lucian was obliged to take his stand against the tide of error that was rising in his day. He was diametrically opposed to the school of theology at Alexandria, whose teachings exalted tradition. Tertullian took the same stand as did other early north African authors directly or indirectly favored by the Papacy.26 Lucian encountered the contradictory teachings concerning the binding obligations of the Ten Commandments. The same inconsistency is manifest in papal doctrine today, for The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. 6, can. 14) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.”27 This directly contradicts the teachings of Thomas Aquinas regarding the fourth commandment.28 And it is to be remembered that the Roman Church ranks him first as an expositor of papal doctrine.

Footnotes
1 Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, p. 362.
2 Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World vol. 3, ch. 4, p. 283.
3 Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 720.
4 Mosheim, Commentaries, cent. 2, vol. 1, p. 341.
5 See the author’s discussion in Chapter 9. 6 See later on this same chapter.
7 Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient Church History, p. 227.
8 Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 47, par. 1.
9 Bull, Defence of the Nicene Faith, vol. 1, pp. 344-351.
10 M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclopedia; also The New International Encyclopedia, art. “Manichaeism”
11 Milman, The History of Christianity, vol. 2, p. 270. See also M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, and The New International Encyclopedia, art. “Manichaeism”
12 Shotwell and Loomis, The See of Peter, p. 122.
13 Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, b. 1, cent. 3, pt. 2, ch. 3, pars. 5-10. 14 Gilly, Vigilantius and His Times, p. 116. 15 Fisher, History of Christian Doctrines, p. 19.
16 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, b. 5, ch. 28, found in Nicene and PostNicene Fathers.
17 The Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Lucian.”
18 Nolan, The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 72.
19 Killen, The Old Catholic Church, p. 153; Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared, p. 4.
20 Mosheim, Commentaries, cent. 2, vol. 1, p. 341.
21 Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p. 106.
22 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, b. 3, ch. 5, found in Nicene and PostNicene Fathers.
23 Tertullian, The Chaplet or De Corona, chapter 4.
24 Buckley, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17, 18.
25 Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 111, 112, 63d ed.; p. 86, 76th ed.
26 Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, Second Period, par. 196, pp. 822-824.
27 The Catholic Encyclopedia, art. “Commandments of God.”
28 Cox, The Literature of the Sabbath Question, vol. 1, pp. 370, 371.

PS. The above is not the entire chapter. But it is sufficient I think to provide context historical significance to the work of Lucian in producing the Greek Bible from which the KJV was derived.

 

[Brakelite]

If anyone would like to further investigate the above and read more on this most fascinating topic, I would highly recommend the book, Truth Triumphant, and another book by the same author,
Our Authorised Bible Vindicated. Both are available free online in PDF format.

 

[St. SteVen]

PS. The above is not the entire chapter. But it is sufficient I think to provide context historical significance to the work of Lucian in producing the Greek Bible from which the KJV was derived.

But, wasn't the Received Text based on the canon (approved book list) of the Latin church? (Rome)

Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.25 Lucian was obliged to take his stand against the tide of error that was rising in his day. He was diametrically opposed to the school of theology at Alexandria, whose teachings exalted tradition. Tertullian took the same stand as did other early north African authors directly or indirectly favored by the Papacy.26 Lucian encountered the contradictory teachings concerning the binding obligations of the Ten Commandments. The same inconsistency is manifest in papal doctrine today, for The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. 6, can. 14) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.”27 This directly contradicts the teachings of Thomas Aquinas regarding the fourth commandment.28 And it is to be remembered that the Roman Church ranks him first as an expositor of papal doctrine.

It appears that the author is Adventist. (SDA) Quote above from the end of post #3. Was Lucian a Sabbatarian?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.

This claim is highly debatable. Sabbath observance was part of the law, which we are no longer under.

Galatians 3:23-25 NIV
Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law,
locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

[

 

[Brakelite]

Was Lucian a Sabbatarian?

History reveals that churches throughout the world continued to observe the Sabbath, just as the apostles had throughout the Book of Acts.

"From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observance of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it." "Sunday a Sabbath." John Ley, p.163. London: 1640.

"It was the practice generally of the Easterne Churches; and some churches of the west...For in the Church of Millaine (Milan);...it seems the Saturday was held in a farre esteeme... Not that the Easterne Churches, or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Iudaisme (Judaism); but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Iesus (Jesus) Christ the Lord of the Sabbath." "History of the Sabbath" (original spelling retained), Part 2, par. 5, pp.73, 74. London: 1636. Dr. Heylyn.

"Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, said that when he was in Milan he observed Saturday, but when in Rome observed Sunday. This gave rise to the proverb, 'When you are in Rome, do as Rome does.'" Heylyn, "The History of the Sabbath" (1612)

"The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day...It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival...Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same." "Antiquities of the Christian Church," Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.

Council Laodicea - A.D.365

"Canon 16-On Saturday the Gospels and other portions of the Scripture shall be read aloud." "Canon 29-Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honor, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day." Hefele's "Councils," Vol. 2, b. 6.

Sabbath Truth
Sunrise over the mountains
Sabbath History
Sabbath Through the Centuries
Home Sabbath History Sabbath Through the Centuries

5th Century Sabbath History
"The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria." —Socrates, "Ecclesiastical History," Book 7, chap.19.
The World

"For although almost all churches throughout The World celebrated the sacred mysteries (the Lord's Supper) on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Allexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this." The footnote which accompanies the foregoing quotation explains the use of the word "Sabbath." It says: "That is, upon the Saturday. It should be observed, that Sunday is never called "the Sabbath' by the ancient Fathers and historians." Socrates, "Ecclestical History," Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289.

 

[St. SteVen]

History reveals that churches throughout the world continued to observe the Sabbath, just as the apostles had throughout the Book of Acts.

That's another debatable statement.
Believers in Jesus were not welcome in the synagogues. Nor were the gentile believers.
The Apostle Paul, as Saul of Tarsus, went to Damascus to take Jewish believers in Jesus away in chains.

The matter came to a head in Acts chapter 15. To which Peter replied:

Acts 15:10 NIV
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles
a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?

John 12:42 NIV
Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him.
But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith
for fear they would be put out of the synagogue;

[

 

[Brakelite]

That's another debatable statement.
Believers in Jesus were not welcome in the synagogues. Nor were the gentile believers.
The Apostle Paul, as Saul of Tarsus, went to Damascus to take Jewish believers in Jesus away in chains.

The matter came to a head in Acts chapter 15. To which Peter replied:

Acts 15:10 NIV
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles
a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?

John 12:42 NIV
Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him.
But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith
for fear they would be put out of the synagogue;

[

There did come a time when Christian Jews were banned from the synagogues. The rabbis created prayers that included curses against Jesus. When some didn't recite those prayers, they were exposed as Christians, and expelled. But that didn't stop Christians from observing the Sabbath. Outside of Israel the Jews, such as were in Syria and Decapolis, they weren't so strict and extreme as the Pharisees in Israel. And you don't need a synagogue to keep Sabbath. In those towns Paul visited where there was no synagogue, they met at the riverside or in homes. (Acts 16:13; 18:4;19:8;But there is no evidence anywhere in scripture that Paul considered the weekly Sabbath as defunct. He didn't all of a sudden start mending his tents on Saturday, and rest Sundays.
In Acts 13, Paul was at liberty to preach in the synagogue at Antioch. Gentiles present wanted to know more. They didn't ask Paul to preach the next day on Sunday, why not? Many claim Sunday was by that time the established day of worship for Christians. Why would the gentiles of all people ask Paul to come back the next Sabbath? And what happened? Nearly the entire city showed up to listen to what Paul had to say. Which of course caused an uproar with the jealous Jews, but nevertheless, Sabbath was still there day for coming together, prayer, and hearing the word of God. And as the above historical sources reveal... And I could add many many more... The Sabbath was observed currently throughout Christendom except in Rome for 400 years at least, and much longer in those places such as Ethiopia, the church of the east, and the Celtic church in Britain, where the papal tyranny had no influence.

As for the "burden" the council of Jerusalem sought to avoid placing on the gentiles, what was that burden? Be honest now. Did they suggest that the gentiles could compromise on matters of morality or worship?

One more point. In Acts 23, Paul is brought before the Sanhedrin once again in Jerusalem. In verse 9, the scribes, who were on the side of the Pharisees in matters of law and right living, arose in the middle of great contention with the Sadducees, and said, "we find no evil in this man". Now ask yourself a question. Paul, himself a Pharisee, had been teaching the way of Christ for many years to those point, so how could a group of scribes who were partly responsible for the crucifixion and thus had no desire to befriend Paul or advocate for his faith, say that Paul was innocent of being an enemy to the Jews if he had been preaching Sunday sacredness and not observing the Sabbath?

 

[St. SteVen]

Consider the significant things that happened on the first day of the week.

1) The resurrection
2) Jesus' appearance to the disciples after his resurrection (they were together)
3) Jesus appears again a week later (they were together)
4) The outpouring at Pentecost (they were all together)
5) The revelation of John came on the Lord's Day
6) The Acts 20 gathering (together again)
7) There must be one more that I am missing (to make 7) - LOL
Perhaps the 1 Corinthians 16:2 reference below?

1 Corinthians 16:2 NET
On the first day of the week, each of you should set aside some income[a]
and save[b] it to the extent that God has blessed you,[c] so that a
collection will not have to be made[d] when I come.

[

 

[Brakelite]

) The resurrection

The day before Jesus rested even in the grave. And the women also rested "according to the commandment" refusing to prepare His body for burial.

2) Jesus' appearance to the disciples after his resurrection (they were together)

They were together yes, and the scripture tells you why. To honour Sunday? To celebrate the resurrection they knew nothing about? No. Because they were terrified they were going to suffer the same fate. They were cowering in fear of the Jews.

4) The outpouring at Pentecost (they were all together)

Pentecost was a one offa event that took place 50 days after the Passover. It could have been any day.

5) The revelation of John came on the Lord's Day

Yes. But the Lord's Day has never been described in scripture as Sunday, or the first day of the week. The day that Jesus is the Lord of, making it His day, is and always was since creation when He established it, the Sabbath.

6) The Acts 20 gathering (together again)

"On the first day of the week" they were together to break bread. To share a meal in other words. This was the dark part of the first day, therefore Saturday night. The disciples therefore had observed the Sabbath, and now that sunset had come and the Sabbath was past, they were having a farewell meal with Paul because he was travelling to Troas the next day. Paul preached until midnight, and left the next morning. Walking a long distance to the next town. Not a Sabbath activity, so his plan was to do that after the Sabbath so as not to disrupt the opportunity to minister to his church.

Sorry. No-one of those were sufficient reason to exalt another day and make it superior to and replace the day God had blessed and sanctified and placed in there heart of His law. A law Jesus said would never change so long as the earth existed. And on whose authority are those reasons proffered as sufficient to change a commandment? The church? The apostles? Since when did such authority belong to man to change one of God commandments?

 

[Dan Clarkston]

History reveals that churches throughout the world continued to observe the Sabbath, just as the apostles had throughout the Book of Acts.

In the New Testament the Apostles are shown to have met on Sunday numerous times.

But let's not let what the New Testament shows to get in the way of claiming one is not saved unless they go to church on Saturday

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
5) The revelation of John came on the Lord's Day

Yes. But the Lord's Day has never been described in scripture as Sunday, or the first day of the week. The day that Jesus is the Lord of, making it His day, is and always was since creation when He established it, the Sabbath.

True, not described in scripture. However...
Writings of the early church clearly identify "the Lord's Day" as Sunday, the first day of the week, the day of Jesus' resurrection, the queen of days.

[

 

[Brakelite]

St. SteVen said:
5) The revelation of John came on the Lord's Day

True, not described in scripture. However...
Writings of the early church clearly identify "the Lord's Day" as Sunday, the first day of the week, the day of Jesus' resurrection, the queen of days.

[

And from whence did their authority come to presume too change God's holy day from one day to another?

 

[St. SteVen]

And from whence did their authority come to presume too change God's holy day from one day to another?

The Sabbath points to creation, not the other way around.

God gave the Sabbath to the Israelites alone through Moses.
There was no change of days. (except in Catholicism)
The whole law was put aside when Christ came.

In Exodus chapter 16 God gave the Sabbath to the Israelites as part of the manna collection.
The Israelites had never observed it before. There is no biblical evidence of
anyone observing the Sabbath before Exodus chapter 16.

Furthermore, the Sabbath was a sign between God and the Israelites alone.

Exodus 31:13 NIV
“Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you
for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy.

Ezekiel 20:12 NIV
Also I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the Lord made them holy.

Ezekiel 20:20 NIV
Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God.”

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Further evidence.

Deuteronomy 5:1-4 NIV
Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today.
Learn them and be sure to follow them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the Lord made this covenant,
but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.

[

 

[Brakelite]

In the New Testament the Apostles are shown to have met on Sunday numerous times.

But let's not let what the New Testament shows to get in the way of claiming one is not saved unless they go to church on Saturday

Define "numerous". Then give all the examples you can find.
Not saved except they go to church on Saturday? Interesting concept. I do understand however why you would think that. After all, the Sabbath commandment is a law right? And one can appreciate, from scripture, that murderers, adulterers, liars, and idolators won't be saved either, because they also are transgressions against the very same law. So I understand how you would mistakenly believe that only Sabbath keepers will be in heaven. But you would be wrong.

“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. ”
James 4:17 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

Three question one must ask, is that do you know it is good that you refrain from adultery? Is it good to refrain from murder, unjustified anger? Lust? Covetousness? Idol worship? Lying? Do you know these things? Do you know it is good to observe the Sabbath? If not, then God will not condemn you for profaning it.
On the other hand, if you do know the Saturday Sabbath is a part of that law which Jesus's never said would be set aside, the law written with His own finger on tables of stone emphasizing it's permanence, but you ignore that commandment anyway, then to you it is sin. And yes, sinners who have not forsaken all sin, will not be saved.

“8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. ”
Revelation 21:8, 27 KJV
Unfeigned Bible

So you have a choice. Choose to remain ignorant and refuse to sincerely investigate whether the Sabbath is relevant or not, or study to show yourself approved. BTW there is no excuse for ignorance when means to education and enlightenment is readily available.

 

[Brakelite]

The Sabbath points to creation, not the other way around.

God gave the Sabbath to the Israelites alone through Moses.
There was no change of days. (except in Catholicism)
The whole law was put aside when Christ came.

In Exodus chapter 16 God gave the Sabbath to the Israelites as part of the manna collection.
The Israelites had never observed it before. There is no biblical evidence of
anyone observing the Sabbath before Exodus chapter 16.

Furthermore, the Sabbath was a sign between God and the Israelites alone.

Exodus 31:13 NIV
“Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you
for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy.

Ezekiel 20:12 NIV
Also I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between us, so they would know that I the Lord made them holy.

Ezekiel 20:20 NIV
Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God.”

[

Further evidence.

Deuteronomy 5:1-4 NIV
Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today.
Learn them and be sure to follow them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the Lord made this covenant,
but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.

[

Are not Christians spiritual Israel? Is not the promise made to spiritual Israel that God's law is written upon the heart and mind? The very same law as written on stone?

“2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. ”
2 Corinthians 3:2-3 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

“6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: ”
Hebrews 8:6-10 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

BTW. God gave the Sabbath to Adam. He wasn't Jewish. When God reintroduced the Sabbath to a people long held in slavery, He said remember. That had forgotten. The law wasn't a new thing created for Israel on Sinai. Abraham kept God's commandments. Joseph knew that adultery was a sin against God. You don't think Adam taught his children the way off P obedience after all he had been through? And you are still struggling to find the authority for changing God's commandment. None of what you've quoted above shows justification for changing God's laws. Only God can do that, yet He never did because He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. "I am the Lord, o change not". The moral law was never meant for just one ethnic people. They were to be an example of holiness and obedience. Their failure, not ours to obey, doesn't mean God chose to cast His laws aside. What is a government with law?

 

[St. SteVen]

BTW. God gave the Sabbath to Adam.

Adam was created on the sixth day.
What day was the seventh day sabbath for him? (six days of work before)
Was it the day that the Lord God made holy? (nope)

[

 

[Brakelite]

What day was the seventh day sabbath for him? (six days of work before)

Let me guess. Sunday?