Posted by Xavier Sweetwater on April 03, 1998 at 15:39:38:
In Reply to: Yes, but... posted by Kevin Kamberg on April 02, 1998 at 09:04:39:
:
: what I find interesting is that the historical documents of the primative Christian church are silent regarding a Monday Resurrection.
: With virtually every single heresy introduced by the Roman church we find dissention mentioned directly or indirectly in the earliest documents. We see this with the Roman attempt to change the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday, we find this also with the institution of Roman-Easter in place of the Passover. Infact the Roman Bishop (Pope)Victor excommunicated all of the Asian Bishops for their refusal to depart from what they had been taught by the Apostles John and Phillip, which was the Jewish Passover on Nisan 14. Same with the Greek (Platonic primarily)philosophical nonsense, etc., etc.... There is always a record of it somewhere. Where is the record for this?
Firstly, there is no 'monday' resurrection. He rose the third day according to the scriptures. Do you understand the difference? Do you know what Paul meant when he wrote it? It means what it says and you must consult ALL the scriptures that refer to 'the third day' and see how they fit together as the Holy Spirit reveals them, which understanding by the way will not confuse a Jew because the only scriptures available when Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15:4 was the Old Testament.
The source for historical proof of this is to be found in the Apostle's Creed which is quoting 1 Cor. 15: 1-4 verbatim. True believers meeting in the catacombs during the persecutions of the Caesars identified themselves as having faith in a third day resurrection, because those who loved their lives more than the truth were selling out to 'Sunday worship', which included apostate leaders who wanted to appear as faithful but would compromise on this strategic issue rather than be martyred for the faith, ands these are often called 'the church fathers'. Well maybe they are the fathers of the 'church' but Yeshua is the author and finisher of the ekklesia, and the two are not the same. Since haSatan has always sought to destroy truth would you really expect to find proof easily available when organized religion has been in control of manuscripts and libraries ever since? We are told to know truth by the anointing that comes from God, and that anointing is Yeshua. Truth is established by relying upon the Holy Spirit to bring all things that we are taught to our remembrance and establishing by multiple witnesses from the bible itself. This technique, if one can call it that, is responsible for every major revival and move of the Holy Spirit throughout the church age. No revival started with the rulers of the church repenting but all of them came as God raised up a man in oppostion to the rulers, a man who would prayerfully search the scriptures. New truths would come forth to that person and ideas like 'the just shall live by faith', 'holiness', 'the baptism of the Holy Spirit' and 'sabbath' all had tyheir start in a similar fashion and provided the church with 'seasons of refreshing'. An utter reliance upon 'church fathers' and 'church history' to tell the truth about doctrine and the past will always lead one astray for this very reason: the anointing that teaches us all things is not being relied upon. Men cannot mediate salvation for anyone. Pastors and teachers who are the only ones continually interpreting scriptures for everybody are just providing them a private interpretation of scripture. We are adjured to be continually being renewed in the spirit of our minds because that is how we are transformed; by the renewing of our minds. The wineskin of our mind must be renewed continually by the constant exposure to the word of God, not someone telling us what the word of God means. That will happen as the Holy Spirit leads and guides all believers into the truth. Many of the revered 'church fathers' and heroes were noted anti-semites, Chrysostum, Luther, and Calvin included. Yeshua said that by the keeping of tradition, the commandment of God is made of no effect. This is spoken to Jewish apostate religious system in the first century and invovles commentary on the fifth commandment. Can you honestly think of how much more this applies to all of christianity which has forsaken the fourth commandment for 'Sunday' worship which is so steeped in ancient 'Sun worship'? At what point do the blinders come off and free acknowledgment of the truth begin? Thy word is settled forever in the heavens; and, I am the Lord, thy God, I change not; along with He is the same yesterday, today and forever; and many other scriptures contradict a change of the worship day and nowhere in the New Testament itself is such an auspicious declaration to be found. The reason being it simply does not exist. So, reasonable men, of whom we are all to be, still need to check out these things against the bible alone to see if they are so, even if the changes were made by man 1,776 years ago. Many will refuse to do so unless they see the crowd going all in the same direction. But the current direction of that flock is precipitously nearing the edge...
: To the careful student of the historical records there is always a way to directly or indirectly show that these various changes were not without their disenters! We find that the descendants of the Jerusalem church resisted strongly the change from Sabbath to Sunday up to the 4th century for example!
: Yet, I know of no place that the Sunday Resurrection is questioned in any way by the early Church. That to me is significant!
: I will look into the archives as you suggested. But I would really like you to show me where this issue of Sunday/Monday Resurrection was questioned by the early church, even if it is only one church or Bishop who is doing the questioning.
: If those who lived during and shortly after Christ's Resurrection didn't question a Sunday Resurrection, then are we sure that we, living two thousand years after the fact, are not reading into Scripture more than it actually says?