SAVED BY GRACVE - APPENDIX #1

 SAVED BY GRACE - APPENDIX #1

HUMILITY: Recommended Books - Fruits Of The Spirit, A Shepherd Looks At Psalm 23 -  A Gardener Looks at the Fruits of the Spirit  by Phillip Keller. The books are reproduced on this website under  "Miscellaneous"    WHAT IS YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS LAW? Recommended reading - Digest Of The Divine Law  by Howard Brand, LL.B. published by Destiny Publishers, Merrimac, Mass. 01860. Digest Of The Divine Law points out the fact that we face the rule of Law or chaos. It sets forth the justice, equity and righteousness of the Law of the Lord. A Lawyer looks at the beauty of God's Laws. REAL REPENTANCE Dr.Herbert Lockyer in his book  All The Doctrines Of The Bible, pages 169 - 176, gives some very sound truths regarding repentance: ".......We seldom hear the old prophetic cry, 'Break up your fallow ground, sow not among thorns' (Jeremiah 4:3). This generation, with all its religion, has lost the sense of sin and pays preachers to 'Prophesy smooth things.'  Repentance is robbed of its true significance. The plow of conviction is never driven deep into the human soil. So-called 'revivals' and 'evangelistic efforts' produce shallow results because of the shallow repentance preached. Deep mourning for sin, hot, scalding tears of repentance, souls writhing in agony because of their burden are not common as they used to be..... The sob of anguish, 'Woe is me, for I am undone, ' is seldom heard in a religious service today..... Statistically minded, the church counts numbers. God give her numbers that count ! We go out for quantity. God seeks quality  ...... There are those who cry repentance down, calling it a LEGAL doctrine, but the Bible is full of this basic doctrine. Christ preached it ! At His farewell, when He was about to ascend to heaven, He commanded that repentance should be preached in His name (Luke 24:47).....      The Bible unhesitatingly and emphatically declares that repentance is the first step in the soul's return to God: that it is not arbitrary, but necessary, seeing no soul can be saved without it. Thus the summons to repent is the dominant note in God's call to men in both Old and New Testaments..... Because repentance is indispensable it is imperative that we understand what it means and implies. It is clearly evident that defective and counterfeit views are prevalent. Men try to persuade themselves that something else, or something less, can pass for repentance (Jeremiah 25:5; Ezekiel 14:6; Joel 2:13,14; Acts 5:6-11).... We confess our sin  and turn from it to God. This is 'repentance toward God' (Acts 20:21) and results in remission. Such a repentance, however, is a condition, not the cause of salvation. Christ alone can save, and once He blots out our confessed sin, sin must be forsaken....."                                      FIRST DAY For the researchers of Church History and those wanting the truth of how the first day of the week replaced the original Sabbath, the following books are recommended. 1. From Sabbath To Sunday  -  2. Anti-Judaism And The Origin Of Sunday  -   3. Divine Rest For Human Restlessness, by Samuele Bacchiocchi Ph. D. Some of the many Reviews on the book " From Sabbath To Sunday " are: "The scholarship is not just impeccable, it is truly a marvel......" The Catholic Historical Review. "The book will, I am sure, stimulate a re-examination of long established attitudes...." Norman Vincent Peale. "It is a thorough and painstaking piece of research....."  Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of NT, Princeton Theological Seminary. ".....a most impressive, helpful work of first rank scholarship....." Vernon C. Grounds, President, Denver Baptist Theological Seminary. "I appreciated reading From Sabbath To Sunday. Dr. Bacchiocchi has done his research in a very thorough way with a kind, irenic, Christlike spirit. It was good to benefit from such a research on the early church Fathers as it applies to the Sabbath question." David Pieratt, Director Correspondence Department, Ozark Bible College. "Dr.Bacchiocchi's scholarly investigation reveals that the replacement of the seventh-day Sabbath by the first day of the week was not the work of Christ, the apostles, or the Jerusalem church, but that Sunday-keeping was introduced in the Church of Rome to replace pagan sun worship and to show that Christians were different from Jewish Sabbath-keepers." W.Charles Heiser, S.J. in "Theology Digest." THE  RESURRECTION  WAS  NOT  ON  SUNDAY Perhaps the number one reason that has been put forth over the centuries, for keeping  Sunday as the Sabbath, has been the teaching that Jesus was resurrected the morning of the first day of the week. This teaching is not only unscriptural but contrary to a number of Historical sources. The Didascalia, an early Christian work which is preserved in Syriac, supports a Wednesday crucifixion day. In this work the apostles are quoted as saying that it was on Tuesday evening that they ate the Passover with Jesus, and on Wednesday that He was taken captive and held in custody in the house of Caiaphas. Epiphanius, a post-Nicene writer, gives Tuesday evening as the Last Supper (A.Gilmore, "Date and Significance of the Last Supper," Scottish Journal of Theology, Sept. 1961, pp. 256-259, 264-268). Victorinus of Pettau, worked out a chronology that arrives at the conclusion that Jesus was arrested on a Wednesday. Loc.cit. There is a certain amount of evidence found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers for the Last Supper having taken place on the 13th of Nisan, i.e., Tuesday evening. Loc.cit.                                      The Dead Sea Scrolls.  Writing in "Eternity" magazine, its editor, Donald Grey Barnhouse, cited evidence from the scrolls which would place the Last Supper on Tuesday. He also quoted from a Roman Catholic journal published in France that "an ancient Christian tradition, attested to by the Didascalia Apostolorum as well as by Epiphanius and Victor-inus of Pettau(died 304 A. D.) gives Tuesday evening as the date of the Last Supper and prescribes a fast for Wednesday to commemorate the capture of Christ." (Eternity, June, 1958. Though strongly holding to a Friday crucifixion, The Catholic Encyclopedia says that not all scholars have believed this way. Epiphanius, Lactantius, Wescott, Cassiodorus and Gregory of Tours are mentioned as rejecting Friday as the day of the crucifixion. (Vol.8, p. 378, art. "Jesus Christ."). The Companion Bible, published by Oxford University Press, in its Appendix 156 explains that Christ was crucified on Wednesday. Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. Finis Dake has said on his note on Matthew 12:40: "Christ was dead for three full days and for three full nights. He was put in the grave Wednesday just before sunset and was resurrected at the end of Saturday at sunset.... No statement says that He was buried Friday at sunset. This would make him in the grave only one day and one night, proving his own words untrue." (page 13). The error in believing Jesus was crucified on a Friday has largely come about by thinking that the Sabbath that followed "the preparation" of Mt.27:62 and Jn. 19:31 was the weekly 7th day Sabbath instead of the first Passover Sabbath. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary says, "The day after the preparation (ASV). Usually explained as Saturday..... However, this preparation day was the day before the Passover Feast day (Jn 19:14,31), which feast may have occurred that year on Wednesday night. Perhaps this accounts for Matthew's not using the term 'Sabbath' here, lest it be confused with Saturday. According to this view, the entombment lasted a full seventy-two hours, from sundown Wednesday to sundown Saturday. Such a view gives more reasonable treatment to Mt.12:40. It also explains 'after three days' and 'on the third day' in a way that does least violence to either."(page 984). The answer is all resolved when it is understood that there were TWO SABBATHS in the last week of our Saviours physical life. Ferrar Fenton ( a wealthy Englishman, for about 50 years avoided reading the Bible in any but the original languages, that his own translation of the Bible might not be influenced by other translations ), renders the first part of Mt.28:1 as, "After the SabbathS." He states in his foot note that the Greek original is in the PLURAL. Fenton translates Lk.24:1 as," But at day-break upon the first day following the Sabbaths, they proceeded to the tomb     Again in Jn.20:1 "Now on the first day following the SABBATHS....." And his footnote says,that this is literally as the Greek reads. The Greek is very significant in LK.23:54 - 56. In verse 54 Luke was inspired to write, "A preparation day, and A Sabbath" but in verse 56 the definite article "the" is used with "Sabbath" showing that this Sabbath was the weekly Sabbath, thus making a difference between the two Sabbaths, and showing there was indeed TWO Sabbath days at the beginning of that Passover week.                                      Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples on a Tuesday evening. He was arrested during that night and crucified during the daytime of Wednesday. At about 3 p.m. in the after-noon He died - His burial was shortly AFTER sunset (that in itself is another study). At sunset the high day Sabbath for the feast of Unleavened Bread began. It lasted till sunset the next day - Thursday. This was ONE night and ONE day in the tomb. Friday,a work day before the weekly Sabbath, followed. Now we have TWO nights and TWO days that Jesus lay in the grave. The night of the weekly Sabbath was the THIRD night, and the daylight part of that Saturday was the THIRD day - after a full 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb,the heart of the earth - Jesus rose from the dead, just after sunset - exactly 72 hours after being put into the tomb. It was a first day of the week resurrection, yes, but NOT on Sunday morning. It was what we call Saturday evening.  As Jesus represented the Wave Sheaf or first of the First Fruits, cut after sunset of the weekly Sabbath during the Passover/Unleaven Bread feast and waved before the Lord in the Temple on the morning of the first day of the week, it was only fitting that He should be resurrected shortly after the sun had set to end the weekly Sabbath, after three days and three nights in the grave. LUKE and MARK give us the final proof.  Luke tells us, "And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55-56). They had and prepared these spices BEFORE the Sabbath. But notice what Mark tells us, "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought spices, that they might come and anoint him"(Mark 16:1). They bought the spices AFTER the Sabbath was past! Putting the two Gospel accounts together, it would have been impossible for them to purchase the spices after the Sabbath, and then to prepare them before the Sabbath, and rest on the same Sabbath. The conclusion is inescapable. There were two Sabbaths that week, and when properly harmonized, everything fits in place. A note on Mark 16:9  Someone is bound to say that this verse plainly says that Jesus rose on the first day of the week. In the Greek the phrase "early the first day of the week" can be grammatically connected either with the words "having risen" or with the words "he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." The Expositor's Greek Testament says the phrase "early the first day of the week" may be either "connected with (having risen), indicating the time of the resurrection, or with (appeared), indicating the time of the first appearance." We have seen that it could not refer to the time of the resurrection Mark 16:9 should have been translated, "Now having risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." It is rendered this way in the Montgomery translation.                                      The REPORTER Charles F. DeLoach has written:  ".....those who do keep the Lord's Day have no specific Bible command to do so, but base their commemoration of it as the day of Christ's victory over death and the grave. That this observance goes all the way back to the earliest Christians, PHILLIP SCHAFF, a recognized authority on church history in the last century, had no doubt. In his monumental eight-volume work which is still widely used, Schaff said: ' The celebration of the Lord's Day in memory of the RESURRECTION of Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age..... the Fathers did not regard the Christian Sunday as a continuation of, but as a SUBSTITUTE for the..... Sabbath, and based it, not so much on the FOURTH commandment, and the primitive REST of God in creation, to which the commandment expressly refers, AS UPON the resurrection of Christ and the apostolic tradition......." ( emphasis ours). Phillip Schaff, along with others of his day, believed in 1st day sanctification not as a divine command from the heavenly Father or  Christ, but from the supposed fact that Jesus rose from the dead on that day and a presumed apostolic tradition. Schaff was WRONG on both accounts! As we have seen, the Bible itself and recorded historical data clearly show Jesus to have been crucified on a Wednesday, and 3 days and 3 nights later - just after sunset on Saturday - He was resurrected.  Jesus did not rise from the dead on the morning of the first day of the week.  He was not resurrected on a Sunday morning.  AND there is NO know recorded APOSTOLIC history or tradition from the apostles of Christ, to either state that, Jesus rose on the morning of the first day or that Sunday had replaced the fourth commandment Sabbath. THE SABBATH - FOR JEWS ONLY? It is often said or written by some Bible teachers, that the 7th day Sabbath is  "the Jewish Sabbath" only for the Jews, while Gentiles have Sunday.  With due respect to these individuals I cannot see this reasoning to be logical or scripturally sound. It is very true that the Lord did enter into a special Sabbath covenant with Israel (Ex.31 :12-17), but to say the 7th day is only for Jews or Israelites is an error, and not a small one at that, as the following facts of Scripture will show. 1. The 7th day Sabbath was BLESSED, SANCTIFIED and made HOLY from the beginning of creation week ( Gen.2:1-3; Ex.20:8-11) before there were any Israelites or Jews. 2. The religion given to Israel ( which included Sabbath days ) under the OT was not just for national Israel, but the Lord intended that other nations would learn of His righteous ways through Israel ( Deut.4:1-14 ). 3. Gentiles could worship the true God under the OT by accepting the religion of Israel, and so becoming an adopted Israelite.  There was to be only ONE Law for both Israelite and Gentile ( Ex. 12:48,49; Num. 15:13-16). 4. So under the NT there is no difference between Jew or Gentile - there is ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism ( Gal.3:26-29; Col.3:11; Eph.4:3-6 ) . Jesus Christ is not divided (1 Cor.1:13 ).   The NT is completely silent - nay, completely against any idea that there is one Sabbath day for the Jew and another, different day, to be kept by the Gentiles. If this was the case, such an important institution as which day should be kept holy by the Jew and which day for the Gentile, would have been all over the NT. 5. If an ordinance like circumcision could cause so much dispute ( Galatians and Acts 15 ) surely a CHANGE or DIVISION in the Sabbath would have done as much or more. The apostles and elders at the Jerusalem conference, in handing down their simple, brief instructions to the Gentiles ( Acts 15:19-20 ) did not labour the point, but it seems knew that the Gentiles could learn more about God, not on the Lord's day but on the Sabbath - indicating the Gentile Christians around this time in the first century ( 49 A.D.),  were keeping the ancient Sabbath along with the Jews (verse21).  Otherwise it would have been simple for James to have said that the Gentiles could learn more about Moses on "their Lord's Day, when he is read." Further, when Paul in Antioch on the Sabbath was asked by the Gentiles to preach again to them (the next Sabbath - Acts 13:42), IF the Christian church or Gentile part  was already observing the first day( as some have claimed ), then Paul could have easily told them to  "come back tomorrow, the Lord's day - I will preach again."  But nothing remotely along these lines was recorded to have been said by Paul. 6. If  a CHANGE of the weekly Sabbath, or IF there were now TWO Sabbath days - one for the Jews, one for the Gentiles - was taught either from Jesus or the apostles, then we would expect to find some clear record of this in the writings of the early, so called "church fathers."  But instead, we find complete silence - no record - no teaching or tradition from the apostolic church on this matter has ever been found. 7. Jesus plainly said the Sabbath (7th day) was MADE (it was made at creation), and it was made not for the Jew, but for MAN - MANKIND ( Mark 2:27)! A COMMENT ON THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND THE 1ST DAY Some have used the DIDACHE (written between 80 and 120 A. D. by an unknown author) the writings of IGNATIUS ( 67-110 A. D.),  JUSTIN  MARTYR (100-167) , IRENAEUS (130-200 ) even the epistle of BARNABAS (written sometime between 90-120 A. D.) and the letter of PLINY the YOUNGER to Trajan,  to uphold apostolic sanction and teaching that the 1st day became the Christian Sabbath from the beginning of the NT church. To those who are of the Roman Catholic persuasion  that TRADITION is equal to the inspired Word,  then there would be a partial argument in the use of these so called Post-Nicaen Fathers. BUT for those (myself being among them) whose faith and salvation rests ONLY with the infallible and non-contradictable Word of God -  the Bible - then the writings of fallible men or women can bear no consideration, except where they agree with the inspired Word. This is especially so, when we consider the facts of God's own Word as to the early CORRUPTION and falling away from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles - the turning aside of TRUTH unto FABLES, LAWLESSNESS and deception (yet calling it Christian) was everywhere present even before 70 A. D.as the following scriptures will show.                                      BOOK  -   WRITTEN ABOUT A.D. GALATIANS  1:6-7                         written 49-53 II THESSALONIANS  2:1-3,7                written 51 II CORINTHIANS  11:3-4, 13-15            written 55-57 ACTS  20:17,18-30                        written 57-60 COLOSSIANS  2:4,8                        written 60-62 I TIMOTHY  6:3-5                         written 64-66 TITUS  1:7,9-11                          written 64-66 II TIMOTHY  2:16-19                      written 67 II PETER  2:1-3,15,18-19                 written 65-67 JUDE  3-4                                written 65-80 Now if the gospel of Jesus Christ was already being corrupted so widely before 70 A.D. how much suppose you that it is corrupted today - nearly 2,000 years later ?                     SAVED BY  GRACE NOT UNDER THE LAW  (Romans 6:14) "The Law which exacts obedience, without giving POWER to obey; that condem                    ns every transgression and every unholy thought without providing for the expiration of evil or the pardon of sin. But under grace . You are under the merciful and beneficent dispensation of the Gospel, that although it requires the strictest conformity to the will of God, affords sufficient power to be thus conformed; and, in the death of Christ, has provided PARDON for all that is past and GRACE to help in every time need" (Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary - emphasis his). "To be 'under the Law' in St.Paul's language, means to avoid sin from fear of penalties attached to sin by the Law. This principle of fear is not strong enough to keep men in the path of duty. Union with Christ can alone give man the mastery over sin" (The Life and Epistles of Paul, by Conybeare and Howson ). "Those in Christ are not under the regime of the Mosaic Law as the MEANS of attaining salvation. We are under the grace of God and of Christ. The whole of the OT - the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (e.g., Psalms) - certainly brings the knowledge of sin (Rom.3:20;5:20).......... When we are under grace, we have a new owner. This fact changes all of the believer's conduct. Our status under grace is like that of a woman married to another man after the death of her husband. It involves a whole new manner of life. Thus, by analogy, Paul shows why being under grace NEVER ALLOWS a believer to be INDIFFERENT to SIN" (Wycliffe Bible Commentary - page 1201 - emphasis ours). "....not under the Law of sin and death, but under the Law of the Spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus: we are actuated by other principles than we have been ....... Or, not under the covenant of works, which requires brick, and gives no straw, which condemns upon the least failure.... but under the covenant of grace ....... which requires nothing but what it promises strength to perform...... that every transgression in the covenant does not put us out of the covenant ...... grace which accepts the willing mind, which is not extreme to mark what we do amiss, which leaves room for REPENTANCE, which promises PARDON upon repentance: and what can be to an ingenuous mind a stronger motive than this to have nothing to do with sin? Shall we SIN against so much GOODNESS, abuse such LOVE ?...... to SPIT in the face of such love, is that which, between man and man, all the world would cry out shame on" (Matthew Henry's Bible Comm. Vol.3, page 955 - emphasis ours). "We who are Christians are not subject to that Law where sin is excited, and where it rages unsubdued. But it may be asked here, what is meant by this declaration? DOES IT MEAN THAT CHRISTIANS ARE ABSOLVED FROM ALL THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE LAW? I answer, (1) The apostle does not affirm that Christians are not bound to obey the moral Law. The whole scope of his reasonings show that he maintains that they ARE. The whole structure of Christianity supposes the same thing. Comp. Matt. 5:17-19. (2) The apostle means to say that Christians are not under the Law as legalists, or as attempting to be justified by it . They seek a different plan of justification altogether; and they do not attempt to be justified by their own obedience, The Jews did; they do not  ......  BUT UNDER GRACE. Under a scheme of MERCY, the DESIGN and tendency of which is to subdue sin, and destroy it. In what way the system of grace removes and destroys sin, the apostle states in the following verses" ( Albert Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, page 593 - emphasis ours and his). A CONCISE  SUMMARY FROM HALLEY'S BIBLE HANDBOOK (New Revised Edition) "If we are no longer under the Law, and Christ Forgives our Sins, then why not continue to sin? Keep on Sinning, and Christ keep on Forgiving. Paul answers that such a thing is unthinkable. Christ died to Save us from our Sins. His forgiveness is for the purpose of making us Hate our Sins. We cannot be servants of Sin, and servants of Christ. We must choose one or the other. It is not possible to please Christ, and continue at the same time TO LIVE IN SIN. This does not mean we can entirely overcome All our Sins,and place ourselves beyond the need of His Mercy. But it does mean that there are two essentially different Ways of Life; The WAY of CHRIST and the WAY of SIN. In heart we belong to one or the other, but not to both. Christ, the perfect embodiment of the Law of God, furnishes us with the MOTIVE, and supplies us with the POWER, to struggle on unto the attainment for ourselves of that Perfect Holiness which, by His Grace, ultimately shall be ours" ( page 587 - emphasis ours and his). THE BIBLE DEFINITION AS TO WHAT IS SIN "......Sin  is the transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4). "......I had not known Sin, but by the Law: for I had not known lust except the Law had said, You shall not covet" ( Romans 7:7). "......for by the Law is the knowledge of Sin" ( Romans 3:20). "All unrighteousness is Sin......." (1 John 5:17). "......for whatsoever is not of faith is Sin" ( Romans 14:23 ). "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and does not do it, to him it is Sin" (James 4:17).                      THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN In the book  All the Doctrines of the Bible ,  Dr. Herbert Lockyer has a very illuminating chapter called 'The Doctrine of Sin'. He explains the meaning of the many Hebrew words that are used in the OT to give us a clearer picture of the many sides and different shades that make up, what the Bible calls sin I will but quote a few of his last paragraphs here: "..... The Bible describes so many sins for our enlightenment and warning. There are little sins (Song of Solomon 2:15); big sins (Ps.25:11 - a strange plea for mercy); tall sins (Rev.18:5 - colored iniquity); secret sins (Ez.8:7, 12 - a darkened gallery); open sins (1 Sam. 2:23 - talk of the town); youthful sins (Job 20:11 - malignant germs); middle life sins (Ps.91: 6 - prayer book version); old age sins (2 Chron.16:12 - gouty troubles); ignorant sins (Lev.4:1,35 - a merciful provision); sins against the light (John 15:22 - a cloakless evil); sins against God (Ps.51:4 -a royal penitent's wail); sins against man (1 Cor.8:13 - abuse of Christian liberty) and sins against the Holy Spirit (Matt.12:32). Is it not blessed to know that the blood of Jesus Christ is able to cleanse us from ALL sin?.... Sin is unrighteousness. When a man sins he ceases to be right. He becomes crooked and has perverted thoughts of God and His ways...... Sin is the absolute denial of divine righteousness, a breaking away from the divine standard and the divine right to command......            Christ, then, has made a full provision for the guilt and government of sin. Through His atoning work, He is able to save from the PENALTY of sin. Alive for evermore, He is able through the Spirit, daily to save us from the POWER of sin. When He returns the second time without sin unto salvation, He will deliver His saved ones from the PRESENCE of sin WITHIN and AROUND.  Hallelujah, what a Saviour!  .......Christ came into the world to save sinners. He died for our sins, according to the scripture....... At Calvery, the guilt of sin was dealt with and forever cancelled by the merit of Christ's atoning work. Upon the cross, He became a curse for us (Gal.3:13). Willingly He became the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2)....... Dealing, then, with our transgressions, Christ takes up His abode within us and KEEPS us right with God. He it is who STRENGTHENS us to do all things right, ENABLING us to stand perfect and complete in all the WILL of God. IMPELLED by the Spirit, we keep within the boundary of every divine command....... Thereafter, walking in the Spirit, the healed one fulfils the lusts of the flesh no more......      Sin is DECEIT, producing all that is fictitious and FALSE ...... Jesus came as the Lamb, innocent, harmless, CLEAR and transparent...... To all those deluded by sin, He comes, as He did to the demoniac of old, to clothe them in a right mind...... Jesus offers the bankrupt sinner the unsearchable RICHES of His GRACE......  " (pages 157, 158. emphasis ours). BUT with all the talk of "sins" the author never gets around to tell you the sins mentioned in the Bible, or the Bible definition of sin, which I  gave you above, and brought out in my studies on "Simple Salvation."  In my further studies over the years, in "growing in grace and knowledge" as Peter taught we should. I want to give emphasis to the truth that Jesus was resurrected Saturday evening AFTER the weekly Sabbath was over. The Sadducees correctly taught the "wave sheaf" - the first of the firstfruits, was to be cut AFTER the weekly Sabbath was over, a Saturday evening cutting, and presented in the Temple towards God on Sunday morning. Jesus was the FIRST - of the first fruits - 1 Cor. 15. The Pentecost feast  represents the First Fruits - held on the first day of the week - Sunday. On that feast came the Holy Spirit into the first Christians of the New Testament or Covenant. All that will be in the FIRST resurrection are called the FIRST FRUITS in the NT. Jesus as the first of the First Fruits was then  raised from the dead on the first day of the week, but what we call Saturday evening. On that Sunday morning He told one of his disciples not to continue to touch Him as He had not yet ascended to the Father, to be accepted as  first of the first-fruits. Later that day he allowed His disciples to touch Him. With this truth we see how easy it was for the false Christian deceivers to  move to a Sunday service meetings, claiming they were honouring the  resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week, and at the same time to pull away from anything to do with the Jews. The same held true of Rome adopting "Easter" in the second century, and not Passover, as it was too close to being "Jewish" - hence the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and the move away from any connection with "Jews.                      To be continued