The Sabbath, The Mark of God, and Still Debating Where Sunday Fits In

I'm asking the question, "Does it matter which day we recognize as the 7th day?"

Strictly from a logical viewpoint, this could be equivalent to someone having class on Wednesdays, but showing up on Fridays, then saying "but I showed up!" Or it could be the same as as someone asking you to come over on Fridays, and you suggest Thursday instead; perhaps they don't mind... In either situation you are searching for the day that is most convenient for your schedule (that's why people plan after all). In today's society, it is more convenient to view Sunday as the Sabbath--its a social norm. However, I'm 99% positive it's not supposed to be about convenience. It would be convenient to lie sometimes. It would be even more convenient to steal. And it would have been extremely convenient for Meshach, Shadrach, and Abendego to pretend to bow down to the pagan god--but they didn't (see Daniel 1-3, if you are not familiar with the story).

In pursuit of an answer, someone offered this passage:

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. (Mark 2:27-28 KJV)

This is spoken by Jesus to the Pharisees, in reference to the disciples plucking corn on the sabbath. If you read from Mark 2:24, the point Jesus is making is that there are times when need will dictate working on the sabbath. Alone, I think its hard to confirm what this means exactly--a number of interpretations could be force fitted to the passage, so I prefer to start from a different point of reference to avoid misinterpretation.

Steps to a Deeper Understanding

And these word, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And though shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thin house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. (Deuteronomy 6:6-8 KJV)

Here, we see that the commandments should be a sign on our hand and frontlets between our eyes. "Frontlets between thine eyes" refers to the forehead or suggest that the commandments be kept in view. The definition of frontlets can be found at the following sources:Merriam-Webster, Dictionary, Bible-History.com. So what does that have to do with anything?

Let's skip forward in time to see the connection:

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads (Revelations 13:16 KJV)

This is in reference to the mark of the beast or the mark of antichrist, that we are constantly told to beware of. A multitude of people are out claiming that this will be a tattoo of 666 or some micro-chip embedded inside the skin, but Revelation 14:9-11 confirms that receiving the mark of the beast is unforgivable.  Those who receive the mark of the beast will be "tormented with fire and brimstone" and "they have no rest day nor night." Well a tattoo or a micro-chip can be forced upon you. All you have to do is knock me out and place the mark or chip where you wish while I'm unconscious--how can I be held accountable for that?

Notice how Revelation 13:16 parallels with Deuteronomy 6:8. God says that it is a sign (which is also a mark) on the hand and between eyes (or forehead) that you keep his commandments. Fast forward and you are told that the antichrist will have a mark (or sign) that people are to keep on their hand or in their foreheads. I'd like to point out 3 important things about this:

1. Your hands are symbolic of action and your forehead is symbolic of your mind. You accomplish things and work with your hands, while you think and make decisions with your head. Therefore it makes sense that God would say you keeping His commandments would be a sign through your hands (actions) and your forehead (thoughts). It would also make sense that He would be upset if your actions and thoughts reflected the antichrist instead of Him.


2. Many people in today's society use the word antichrist to mean opposite of Christ. They place this title on someone they consider to be the embodiment of evil. I often get the feeling people expect this to be a person who outwardly stands for everything Christ is against, but that wouldn't fool the masses as Revelations and Jesus state that the antichrist will. If you track down the Greek origin of the prefix anti (note: the New Testament was originally written in Greek), the definition is instead of, or in place of (source: Greek Origin). Satan is not just against God; his crime is that he wants to be God. He will try to take the place of God, just as the antichrist will try to take the place Jesus Christ. The antichrist will claim to be Jesus, he's supposed be fatally wounded just like Jesus, and rise again, just like Jesus (see Revelations 13:3). There are many examples of the antichrist being an imitation of Jesus (enough for a separate post actually).


3. As you could expect from #2, there is also a "sign," or seal as the exacting wording refers to it, of God to be given to His people during the end times, which is also said to be in the forehead. (see Revelation 7:3)

We already know that the mark of God is keeping His commandments.  Satan and the antichrist are trying to take the place of God and Jesus, but they don't want you to know that they've replaced the real God... They want to deceive you and mark you for their own. It stands to reason that Satan's mark would be a counterfeit of God's mark, after all, Satan is simply imitating God. Thus, following Satan or the antichrist's commandments would be the antithesis of following God's commandments and constitute the mark of the beast. Which brings us to the question, what are Satan's "commandments"?

The Switcheroo

As I mentioned earlier, people expect that Satan will appear with horns and tell you do what you know to be the wrong thing. In cartoons you always have the imagery of the devil and the angel arguing over what the character should do. Let me ask you, though, if you know it's wrong, if you can look at the Bible and clearly see that what you've been told to do is not of God, would you be fooled? The Bible says that most people will be fooled by the antichrist, and the fact that he takes over for a while proves that the majority will receive his mark. It's gotta be a really good counterfeit... Something you'd never question... Something that sounds God-like... Something very hard to see through...

In several of my posts I've been careful to make the distinction that Protestant churches and the Catholic Church have different commandments. In the last post concerning Sunday worship, I also pointed out that its the Catholic Church's commandments that reflect the change from "the Sabbath" to "the Lord's Day." So let's take a minute and look at these differences. For reference see Catholic Version of the Ten Commandments. The link provided is from the Vatican's official website and they've nicely provided the Biblical passages to the left of their interpretation. But do note that in the Deuteronomy column, the ellipsis (...) where they leave out portions, please refer to a real Bible to see what is missing.

The Differences

What we (Protestants, that is) consider to be the 2^nd commandment: to not have any graven images or likenesses of that which is in Heaven, is missing. It's also part of that ellipsis that they conveniently put there to make their version line up with the Biblical version. I guess that explains why in Catholicism they pray to Mary's statue and such... I'd like to point out that Protestants have taken to placing "pictures" of Jesus in the church as well (He's in heaven, that would make it off limits according to the 2^nd commandment). The next difference, is the wording of our 4^th commandment (their 3^rd), to keep the Sabbath day holy.  The ellipsis here, mentions that God brought the Hebrews out of Egypt "through a mighty hand" and "therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." The final difference is that they split the 10^th commandment into 2, so that it is still 10 commandments.

Seems legit?

You know at the height of the Catholic Church's power I would have been burned at the stake for pointing out this subtle difference. They would have excommunicated me from the church for "heresy" and since in Catholicism you need a priest to absolve you from your sins (wasn't that Jesus's whole purpose?) and read you your last rites (what? where'd that come from) before you die, that would be "damning my soul." You were supposed to do what the priests and the pope said, because for some reason they believe a man is infallible... Essentially, if you didn't follow their doctrine, you were ridiculed and ostracized,  possibly killed (see the Inquisition). This is in fact what spurred the Reformation. Hmm....

Still seem legit?

Answers, But More Questions

So, keeping the commandments is the mark of God and at some point in time a counterfeit law will appear. Keeping the counterfeit commandments will be the mark of the beast... What we need to answer the question of Sunday worship, is if the counterfeit law replaces God's sabbath with a day for Satan and if that day is Sunday. We know one deviation from the Biblical 10 commandments, it's subtle, still seems Godly, hard to pin as the work of the devil. Are we already being fooled by some set of commandments--the Roman Catholic deviation or some other set? Or is it still to come? One question always leads to another...

Still to be continued, I guess... (Click here for the final post)

 (In case you're wondering, I already have an answer I personally believe. I just like to pose questions to inspire you to think about and confirm what you believe.)

Rights, Beliefs, Equality, and Drawing Lines

Our country has been in a tug of war for a while now over the issue of "gay marriage"--actually the LGBT community in general. This week, its been the forefront of all things media related; there are rational arguments on both sides as well as ignorant arguments on both sides. It's a sensitive topic; it can also be a hard topic to decide where you stand if you profess certain beliefs concerning the situation. That's why it's important to differentiate what is a belief and what is a right.

Beliefs

As a Christian, the argument is that the Bible speaks against homosexuality. Supporters of LGBT rights have attacked Christians who stand by this belief. There are many things to be pointed out about this however. For one, just as you have the right to be Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc., I have the right to be Christian. That being said, its a two way street: just as I have the right to be Christian, you have the right to be something else. I should not be forcing my beliefs down your throat, and you should not be forcing yours down mine. We have the right to agree to disagree. Which means Christians should not be harassing members of the LGBT community (that's not Christian-ly anyway, Jesus said "love your neighbor" not "love your neighbor as long as they're just like you"). On the flip side, members of the LGBT community have to realize that everyone is not going to agree with you--this is true for all topics, not just sexuality--and you only have the right to demand people respect your rights as person not that they accept and agree with your actions.

The truth is, so-called Christians have used the Bible to rationalize and justify discrimination since the beginning of time. It was used against women, Blacks, and now the LGBT community. As a Black woman, its only natural to feel some sympathy toward the LGBT community and to question the way people interpret the Bible. I looked up the passages in the Bible that refer to homosexuality. One is in Leviticus--the same book that says you shouldn't eat pork or shellfish. Leviticus also says that a woman who is menstruating is unclean and if you touch her or anything she touches you are also unclean. The laws mentioned in Leviticus typically refer to things being unclean or clean and are mentioned separately from the 10 commandments. I've always wondered about this. If you read Leviticus, most of the things listed are followed by how long you are considered unclean after touching or eating something considered unclean. The question for Christians is, if you break a law given in Leviticus is it the same as breaking one of the 10 commandments? If so, you would interpret the Bible to say that homosexuality is a sin. You would also have to interpret the Bible as saying that eating pork (yes, bacon) is also a sin. So if you are sitting at your breakfast table eating bacon and talking smack about the LGBT community, you would definitely be a hypocrite. If it is not the same as the 10 commandments, then it is just a manner of being unclean... I suppose that would make it a suggestion? I'm not really sure, its food for thought. Either way, I'd like to call your attention to the following Biblical passage:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged" Matthew 7:1 (KJV)

According to Matthew 7 you have no right to judge anyone. If you continue reading Matthew 7, you will see that the passage is reminding you that yes, I sin but so do you. So be it a sin or simply frowned upon, as Christians we do not have the right to judge. Just like your friends (and you yourself) have done wrong (lying, cheating, stealing, premarital sex, or any of the things listed in Leviticus with homosexuality), and you don't treat them any differently, so should you be toward the LGBT community. I'm not saying that you should encourage it--I don't encourage my friends to lie, or to sleep around, or do heroin, but I'm still there for them regardless of the decisions they make and whether I agree with them or not and I still love them exactly the same.

Rights

Legal marriage and spiritual marriage are not the same thing. Legal marriage is a joining by man and gives you legal rights, such as hospital visitation, the ability to file joint taxes, immunity in court from testifying against your spouse, etc--it has nothing to do with how God views it, I'm not even sure some of these heterosexual marriages have been sanctioned by God. After all, at this moment, two heterosexual Atheists can legally marry and God would clearly not be part of their wedding.

Rights, you see, are totally different than beliefs. It seems that many have forgotten, we don't live in a Christian nation. We live in a "free" nation which has a separation of church and state. This means that our laws are not based on religious beliefs. If a preacher says he won't marry a homosexual couple, that makes sense. Based on his belief, its wrong so why would he? But if a homosexual couple goes to the court, or has someone who does not believe it is wrong perform the wedding (I think anyone can apply for a license to wed people--you definitely don't have to be a minister), why shouldn't it be allowed? The government has no reason to say its wrong, because they aren't supposed to make the decision based on belief. I don't see a reason why they shouldn't give them a marriage license. There's a lot I don't understand about a lot of things, this being one of them (I mean, who gets to walk down the aisle? Do you toss 2 bouquets?  If there is no bride, there isn't a garter to toss, so what do two grooms toss?), but honestly, it doesn't effect me. If two men decide to get married, they design their wedding however they deem fit, and the government recognizes them as husband and husband, I don't see what that has to do with me. So, why should it bother me from a legal standpoint? It doesn't.

My Honest, Ugly, Bottom Line Truth

No, I don't want to walk into a restaurant and see two men or two women making out. You know what, I don't want to see a man and a woman making out in a restaurant either. If I'm in a restaurant I just want to see food. I want to have conversations about march madness and what to eat for lunch, not who you choose to sleep with.  I don't want to talk to my heterosexual friends about who they sleep with either. 

I'd rather live in a society, where the LGBT community feels free to express themselves, than a society where they hide. I don't want to have to ask "Is my boyfriend/husband secretly gay?" I don't want to have to ask "Was he actually born a woman and lying to me?" I want to get to know people exactly for who they are are, not who they think I want them to be.    I want you to be you, whoever that may be and I want you to be happy and content being you.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - Eleanor Roosevelt

The Friend Zone

The internet is often a-buzz with chatter about "the friend zone." I've seen countless memes, tweets, and Facebook statuses that have sent me into convulsions of laughter and even more that have caused me to instantly do a face palm. As a girl with a slightly antisocial personality and a lot of male friends, when I first heard of the concept I thought it was absurd. Interactions between people, especially across genders gets so tricky after we hit puberty--everything gets complicated. 

Honestly, I find most of my close guy friends attractive--some of them I'd even have to admit having had a crush on at some point during the friendship.  In fact, I can say for certain that I only became friends with one of them because I was interested in him. This happened, that happened, I was always busy, he was always busy, and now we're good friends. The blame could fall on me, it could also fall on him, but at the end of the day it is what is. Neither of us stepped out of our comfort zone to "make a move" so nothing ever happened. That in a nutshell summed up by opinion of the friend zone. Two people that obviously get along and have some chemistry, but are either afraid to admit their feelings or scared to ruin the friendship they already have.

How Sunday and the Sabbath Became Intertwined

In the post entitled "Sunday Church--to go or not to go," I started with the beginning of the question "why do Christians attend church on Sunday." Unfortunately, the answer to that question just brings up more questions. Thus, I decided to continue discussing the history of this tradition.

History: Tradition vs. Truth

The subject of Christians migrating from Saturday to Sunday worship is a very hotly debated topic among theologians but generally most agree on the same point in history. In my research on the topic I've seen several explanations concerning implications and ramifications of this event, however none of them seem to have solid evidence or concrete proof that it is in fact how the tradition started. By solid evidence/proof, I mean I haven't been able to find what I consider a valid source (yet) to confirm the speculation, but let's take a look at the idea, shall we?

The Council of Laodicea

The general consensus is that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday during the Council of Laodicea in 321 AD. The Council of Laodicea was a meeting of clerics in which it is said that many of our current traditions were discussed, debated, and decided upon.  Sources NewAdvent.org and Reluctant-Messanger.com both claim to have the complete canons of the council--canons being the agreed upon terms/rules that came out of the council. Both of these lists appear to be the same, and almost every article I find about the Council of Laodicea either sites one of these sites or simply refers to the canons as though they are common knowledge. (As I said, concrete sources are hard to find--though I'm sure these canons are displayed in a library somewhere and probably written in Greek). Canon 29 (XXIX) from these sources states:

"Christians must not judaize by resting on the sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ." 

This wording can be traced into modern times via the Catholic version of the ten commandments, which commands that the "Lord's Day" be kept holy and does not mention the Sabbath of the Bible.

Now there are three possibilities:

1. The Sabbath was changed to Sunday at the council by divine will
2. The Sabbath was changed to Sunday at the council by man
3. The Sabbath was not changed to Sunday at the council