PLEASE SHARE WITH ME information you have from before 1800CE of the Resurrection of Jesus as reason for Christian Sunday keeping ?

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Given these interpretations, whether the day referred to in Leviticus 23:15-16 is a Saturday or Sunday depends on the specific Jewish tradition followed. However, in most mainstream Jewish traditions, the counting of the Omer starts on the second day of Passover, regardless of the actual day of the week it falls on.

What day of the week the day referred to in Leviticus 23:15-16 as "the morrow/day after the sabbath" was? First one must know that the word TRANSLTED 'sabbath' IS WRONG. It is wrongly interpreted to be a Nomen-Noun name of specific day-- the Seventh Day of the week which it NEVER was in ANY sense or manner because in the second place, it is wrong to render or translate the wrong interpretation with the very same incorrect and now obviously false Nomen-Noun with the very same incorrect and now obviously false name of the specific day of the week that presunably is the Seventh Day of the week. The Hebrew strictly exactly and precisely means, and must be translated with, the Verbal Noun, "rest"--"after the rest" - on whichever day of the week it might have been. "The day after the first sheaf rested" or the day after the first sheaf had been "kept-in-store" (as the LXX goes), THAT SELFSAME DAY counted day 1 of 7 x 7=49 days + 1 day = 50 days "counted"=Pentecost. So the fiftieth day / 'shavuot'/ 'pentecost' fell any day of the week and depended on which day of the YEAR the winter equinox new moon occurred and was the first day of the First Month and first day of the year for Israel.
The day after the first sheaf-"rest" / posturing / prostration / waving / laying down / being "in store", NEVER <depended on the specific Jewish tradition followed>. It NEVER was a matter of <the counting of the Omer>, it NEVER <started on the second day of Passover> but on the second day of the passover FEAST-DAYS of unleavened bread eaten. And the second day of the feast, or seven days of eating unleavened bread, always was "the sixteenth day of the First Month" <regardless of the actual day of the week it fell on>. There was never another method of synchronization of the times and laws of passover anywhere on earth or in history.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Your claim that “Sunday” did not exist before the 17th century is inaccurate, based on historical references from early Christian writings. The burden of proof for this claim, which suggests the term only appears in secret Vatican archives or obscure books, requires strong, verifiable evidence.

The onus is indeed on you to provide documentary proof from reputable sources. Without such evidence, your claim remains speculative and contrary to what we know from existing early Christian literature and practices.

I never claimed that it did not exist, but accepted that it existed just like all who always believed it always existed. I took the existence of it for granted just like you do, until the need to prove it arose and I AND NOBODY ELSE HAS FOUND ANY PROOF UNTIL THIS MOMENT. That is why I started this thread! And that is why I challenge you, provide me the evidence IN AND WITH the early Christian writings and I will retract my claims, proves and arguments and conclusions the word 'Sunday' never existed anywhere in manuscript in Greek or in Latin EXCEPT IN ONE PLACE AND INSTANCE in Greek in a sub-Vatican catacomb which reads: "day of the lord SUN". Consult Odom's book I do not remember the title, but it is archived in the library of the University of the North, Potchefstroom South Africa. It was printed and published in the USA so you may get one there. If you won't believe the book, go ask if you will be allowed to see the inscription on that grave cover in the catacomb. WHAT ELSE OR MORE PROOF do you require? I am telling you again 'Sunday' in no language exists anywhere or anyhow on earth in Christian manuscript which dates before the Counter Reformation. Take it or leave it. Truth only depends on facts of life and that it does not exist is one such fact of life. THE BALL IS IN YOUR HANDS. Play it if you can and are not some troll looking for worthless arguments! I cannot create facts or truths where or when they DO NOT EXIST! Don't be silly.
Nevertheless fact of life exists, of the LATIN AND PRINTED AND ONLY ‘COPY OF THE MANUSCRIPT’ to which I have consistently referred, WHICH AXIOMATIC FACT PRECLUDES the existence and PROVES the NON-EXISTENCE of an early Christian hand-written writing containing 'Sunday'.
With that said, I conclude my proof with irrefutable conclusive logic of fact, of the non-existence of such esoteric imaginary ‘sources’, without which your illogic claim(s) that “Sunday exists in early Christian writings”, remains speculative and contrary to what we know from existing early Christian literature and practices.
The taking for granted of the existence of the supposed ‘second manuscript copy’ of Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology To The Emperor’ which in Christian apologetics regularly is seen ‘quoted’ as proving “the day after Saturday which is Sunday on which the Lord rose from the dead”, Prima Facie is retroactively applied Ex Post Facto evidence. In other words, the practice of quoting and relying on these words in today’s paper and print books, means what is presumed is something no exhibitable evidence exists for in originals, and must be presumed in defiance of the absence of evidence whether confirming or to the contrary. The real original or a real copy of the original source in which the word Sunday presumably or supposedly would have existed, cannot be shown as it does not exist.

The truth or untruth of the assumption of the existence in early Christian writings of Sunday therefore is an assumption disprovable by Argumentum Ex Silentio – by argument/inference from silence/absence, by logic, and by predictability. In short—BY ABSENCE OF SCRIPTURE simply!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Oh I know lad.

Your claim that “Sunday” did not exist before the 17th century is inaccurate, based on historical references from early Christian writings. The burden of proof for this claim, which suggests the term only appears in secret Vatican archives or obscure books, requires strong, verifiable evidence.

The onus is indeed on you to provide documentary proof from reputable sources. Without such evidence, your claim remains speculative and contrary to what we know from existing early Christian literature and practices.

J.

Stored, saved and locked.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Don't want to share?

To your heart's desire, sir!

 

[Johann]

To your heart's desire, sir!

Please do.

J.

 

[JohnDB]

Please supply me with the source -- the historic source, not the anonymous source dated the date of this your post in reply to me.

Why?
This is not difficult information to locate.
A simple Google or duck search should pop up the answer for you.
I don't believe I can search any better than you. Although you might not like the answers.

And the REAL question is....
Is the Mosaic Covenant still in effect for us?
How about the Abrahamic Covenant where God walked the Blood Path?

Because, according to my figuring, they are completed contracts with no longer any performance required.

 

[Rita]

It would appear that , from what is being discussed, that information is being withheld from both sides.
The thread title Is about revealing info you have - so perhaps it’s more appropriate to show info rather than arguing about not showing it.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

It would appear that , from what is being discussed, that information is being withheld from both sides.
The thread title Is about revealing info you have - so perhaps it’s more appropriate to show info rather than arguing about not showing it.

<It would appear that> I don't talk about surmising, like you do right here.

<from what is being discussed, that information is being withheld> From what the thread title says, I asked for <information>, and waited for answers long enough, and when received, reacted on the posts I received. How could I 'withhold information'? The other 'side' had and gave absolutely no information; how could he -JohannDB- <withhold information> ?

<The thread title is about revealing info you have> You cannot even read, but play 'Staff Member' acting moderator obviously! The thread title courteously asks for <info> and <reveals> no <info> asked for, at all.

<so perhaps it’s more appropriate to show info rather than arguing about not showing it.> For you information, the very <appropriate> appropriation of christianityboard.com is to <argue info>. I argued not about whether or not to <show info> I had. I asked, for information I did not and still have not received from anyone. All I have received has been irrelevant cocky attempts to start arguments, like from you right here!

Staff Member Rita, I am
reporting your handling of my complaint concerning the troll JohannDB !

 

[Angelina]

Thread Locked