• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Downsizing the Ten Commandments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
DHK said:
The book of Acts is both historical and a book of transtion. It shows a transition from Judaism to full-blown Christianity. At Pentecost they all met at the Temple, and did so for a short time thereafter. But there came a time when they could no longer meet at the temple. Even the church at Jerusalem was eventually forced out of the temple. As the church was scattered both through persecution and through Paul's missionary journey's they were able to use the synagogues. But that was short-lived. Paul then turned to the Gentiles as the Jews rejected Christianity (the gospel message). After that they began to meet wherever they could. Even in Acts 12, when Peter was imprisoned, we find the church meeting in the house of Mary, John Mark's mother. Such places became common. At the end of the epistle to the Romans we find about five churches that are listed that met in homes. The believers met where they could. But it was not in the Temple, and no longer in the Synagogue, and no longer on the Sabbath as time passed. This is evidenced by the following Scriptures:

1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The first day of the week is Sunday.
They met on Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Christ.

GE:

See the vulnerability of the 'Sabbath-believer'! See at the same time, the genuine justification of the Sunday-keeper! And it is so EASY! You simply provide them both with 'The Word of God', like you, have here given, 1Cor16:2.

Now who can object? No one! of course. Until judgement day. Judgement day for some when Christ shall come; and for others, for those who know the truth, already!

And that truth is this:

Acts 20:7:
"AFTER THAT THEY HAD COME TOGETHER FOR HOLY COMMUNION AND WERE TOGETHER STILL WHILE BEING EVENING of the First Day of the week, Paul dealt with the disciples until midnight" -- most probably on matters of their itinerary, considering the context.

That was 'Saturday-night' -- while the "evening" of the First Day was its first half and not its second. 'Jewish' reckoning still lasted. So on the 'Jewish' Sabbath, they HAD before, come together for Holy Communion, so that they, it being the evening after, could "discuss matters" re Paul's departure "the next morning" of 'Sunday'.

DHK, whose word is that as written in your quote of Acts 20:7? Were the 'translators' predisposed or not? For undeniably obvious, they were!
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
1. Christ arose on the first day of the week which is Sunday. That is an indisputable historical fact.
2. A local church met one time for a farewell service on week-day one as we see in Acts 20:7
GE:

Bob Ryan,

I'll use a bit of your type of rhetoric, and say, it won't be of much help to keep on ignoring the facts, as they previously had been presented to you - like above in my post in answer to DHK. You are in chorus with the Sunday-keepers singing the same words, line for line. You have removed the platform from beneeth your own feet.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
DHK your question has me confused -- are you implying that you "KEEP" week-day one???

I thought that KEEPING that day in honor of the 4th commanmdnet is the last thing you would do... do you KEEP it in honor of some man-made command instead of God's?

In Christ,

Bob

GE:

This is good observation and perception. DHK does owe us an answer.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
DHK your question has me confused -- are you implying that you "KEEP" week-day one???

I thought that KEEPING that day in honor of the 4th commanmdnet is the last thing you would do... do you KEEP it in honor of some man-made command instead of God's?

In Christ,

Bob

GE:

Nevertheless, dear Bob, can't you realise one might KEEP the Sabbath in honor of THE GOD-made COMMAND of God's Living Word, Christ raised in the flesh, Man, on the Sabbath made for Man (... and, for man)?
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
DHK:
"Isa.66 ... is a statement describing a condition on the earth after the second coming of Christ, and has nothing to do with this day and age now."

GE:

DHK representing DHK declaring. General and good old Reformed Protestant position is it does have everything to do with this day and age now.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
DHK:
"One service in Acts 20 and many others to follow. The pattern was a well established custom as can be seen in 1Cor.16

1 Corinthians 16:2 on every first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him, treasuring up whatever he may have prospered, that when I may come then collections may not be made;

If you read the first verse, you will see that Paul gave the same instructions to all the churches throughout Galatia. It was on the first day of the week, for on the first day of the week they gathered together."

GE:
One service in Acts 20 and many others to follow. The pattern was a well established custom as can be seen in 1Cor.16

1 Corinthians 16:2 on every first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him, treasuring up whatever he may have prospered, that when I may come then collections may not be made;

If you read the first verse, you will see that Paul gave the same instructions to all the churches throughout Galatia. It by implication was on the SABBATH day of the week, for on the SABBTH day of the week they gathered together, throughout Acts as throughout the LATER Gospels.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
I'm going to be a little mean:

Quoting DHK:
"One of His Commandments is not to keep the Sabbath."

Text please?
That is an easy one GE. One cannot prove something that is not there. You have given an logical fallacy. It is up to you to give the text, not me. Nowhere in the NT (the gospels especially for that is where we find the words of Christ), do we find any command of Christ to keep the Sabbath. Christ never commanded us to keep the Sabbath. If he did you give me the text. You demonstrate to me where he commanded us to keep the Sabbath (NT).
He said: If you love me keep MY commandments, not the Ten Commandments.
There is a difference.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
If you read the first verse, you will see that Paul gave the same instructions to all the churches throughout Galatia. It by implication was on the SABBATH day of the week, for on the SABBTH day of the week they gathered together, throughout Acts as throughout the LATER Gospels.
What implication? The custom had now been to meet on the first day of the week as Paul intimates in verse one. How can you deny that? He states as much. He says that he had done the same thing throughout the churches in Galatian, and you go and put words in his mouth, or change what the Bible says and state that they met on the Sabbath. Amazing! But that is not what Paul said! Is it? Why are you trying to rewrite the Bible to justify your own belief? They met on the first day of the week--Sunday.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
DHK said:
That is an easy one GE. One cannot prove something that is not there. You have given an logical fallacy. It is up to you to give the text, not me. Nowhere in the NT (the gospels especially for that is where we find the words of Christ), do we find any command of Christ to keep the Sabbath. Christ never commanded us to keep the Sabbath. If he did you give me the text. You demonstrate to me where he commanded us to keep the Sabbath (NT).
He said: If you love me keep MY commandments, not the Ten Commandments.
There is a difference.


I admit, DHK. It was me using as you say, a 'logical fallacy' I said I was going to be - or try to be - a little mean. Maybe that might have explained. Nevertheless, you're right. Jesus never gave us a command in words to keep the Sabbath - He gave us all His life, and especially His resurrection for Divine impetus to the Christian feasting of His Victory and the Day of His Victory. That is no logical fallacy, but Divine inuendo.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
DHK said:
Glad to see your enthusiasm Bob, but how much do we agree on? Let's look at the statements you posted.

1. Mark 2:27 is a verse you continually take out of context and only quote half the verse to try and make a point. So we don't agree there.

An accusation with no substance DHK? How surprising that you would do that in Mark 2:27 having never shown ANY context that violates the pure quote of the text that SHOWS the inconvenient details you so seek to ignore. Notice that in YOUR reference above you quote NONE OF IT!

so the contrast we have is that I DO quote the text EXACTLY as it reads - you flee from its EVERY DETAIL!

The difference is left as an exercise for the reader to summarize. It is sad that you at first UPHOLD the text of scripture and then in this example can not bring yourself to embrace even ONE DETAIL in it!!

DHK said -
2. Mark 2:28. This is the only verse where we do agree. Christ is Lord, over all.

The DETAIL in Mark 2:28 (ALL OF THE DETAILS) are that "Christ is LORD of the SABBATH".

Can you not bring yourself to fully QUOTE this text EITHER??

This is your limit in "bible embracing" action when it comes to these Sabbath texts given to us by God??

Surely you can warm up to the text a little better than that DHK!

It is not going to bite you.

3. John 14:15 We disagree here because you are using this verse out of context to bolster your position of obeying the Sabbath.

Another hollow accusation with NO proof at ALL DHK? How "surprising"

You sir have not quoted the text AT ALL much less done exegesis on it!!

You seem to be satisifed that "empty assertion after empty assertion" that contains NO QUOTE AT ALL of the text is "better than" actually QUOTING what GOD said - and letting God's Word STAND as written!

Summarizing the contrast is left as an exercise for the reader.

DHK
One of His Commandments is not to keep the Sabbath.

Really? Is that because Christ is NOT God no matter what the Bible says to the contrary??

Is that because The Word of God is NOT the Word of Christ no matter what John 14 says to the contrary??

Is that because the COMMANDMENTS "As in KEEP the COMMANDMENTS" (something Christ stated REPEATEDLY in the Gospels) would not have been KNOWN to Christ Listeners as INCLUDING the Sabbath commandment EVEN THOUGH we are told that they "RESTED on Sabbath according to THE COMMANDMENT" in the Gospels?

Summarzing The difference between your empty assertion and the actual inconvenient details of scripture opposing your views is left as an easy exercise for the reader.

4. Isa.66 We disagree here.

Indeed - this is another text you can not even QUOTE when fleeing from the DETAILS of the text.

This texts SHOWS what you constantly DENY -- that the PRe-Cross OT intended SCOPE for the Sabbath AFTER the fall of Adam was STILL "ALL MANKIND" for God tells PRE-Cross Jews "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" in the ideal future established by God.

Thus making it clear EVEN in the OT that God SO LOVED THE WORLD and intended His salvation and His Sabbath "FOR ALL MANKIND".

in Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
In Acts 20 we see that on one occasion a local church gathered for a farewell service...

DHK then "imagines for us"...
DHK
One service in Acts 20 and many others to follow.

Sadly - they are all missing from the text of scripture. to see them we have to start reading "DHK chapter 1 vs 1".

The pattern was a well established custom as can be seen in 1Cor.16

1Cor 16 makes no mention at all of ANY gathering on weak-day-one.

1 Corinthians 16:2 on every first day of the week, let each one of you lay by himSELF, treasuring up whatever HE MAY have prospered,

The act of INDIVIDUALS saving at the START of each week so that no fund-raising drive would be needed when Paul arrived is well noted.

But these INDIVIDUAL acts of saving at the start of the week are not CORPORATE acts - they are INDIVIDUAL acts of setting aside funds.

NOT one single weak-day-one meeting referenced in all of 1Cor 16.

However - this is where the thinking Christian has to ask the obvious question. "IF God WERE to introduce WEEK-day-one as THE LORD's DAY is this not the PERFECT place to actually STATE IT!! Why not have a little fanfair as do Christians today DETAILING all the reasons for the NEW Sabbath and the NEW holy day and the NEW title of LORD's DAY ... something like REMEMBER the FIRST day for it is THE new LORD's DAY for WORSHIP oh and ALSO for collecting what you have already saved up PRIOR to LORD's DAY".

There is NO text in 1Cor 16 saying "for on each week-day-one you all GATHER together" such a text is not found in all of scripture. the aBSENCE of NT writers saying all the wonderful things about week-day-one that you can hear today by those who believe in such high honor bestowed on that day is deafening!!

How could these writers be LAUNCHING this new concept with such deafening SILENCE -- when todays group must clearly SAY in distinct doctrinal statements what they merely ASSUME and INFER from the NT writer's in cases where they actually BELIEVE in such a doctrine??

Notice that when God ACTUALLY Launches A day of rest and worhsip it is THUNDERED from heaven ... and repeated even by Christ "The SABBATH was MADE for MANKIND".

Think about it!!

In Christ,

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
DHK said:
What implication?

GE:
The implication created by Luke's use of the Perfect Participle and no finite verb, that "Paul dealt with the disciples it being evening of the First day after that they before had gathered together for Holy Communion." Question answered fully!

DHK said:
The custom had now been to meet on the first day of the week as Paul intimates in verse one. How can you deny that?

GE: I can and must deny it on strength of the weakness of your assumption that "The custom had now been". Where do you, find that 'custom', 'intimated'? In this verse - no where else; so your assumption you make your 'proof'. That gives me ground for denial.

DHK said:
He states as much. He says that he had done the same thing throughout the churches in Galatian, and you go and put words in his mouth, or change what the Bible says and state that they met on the Sabbath.


GE:
I 'stated', yes, on strength Luke thus 'intimated', through having used the Perfect Participle and not the finite, indicative verb whereby not the circumstance of it, but an action as such is expressed.

Amazing! But that is EXACTLY what Paul said! Why do you try to rewrite the Bible to justify your own belief? "They met", on the Sabbath, if they, quoting and rendering truly and precisely, "on the first day of the week were together still".
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
DHK said:
What implication?

GE:
The implication created by Luke's use of the Perfect Participle and no finite verb, that "Paul dealt with the disciples it being evening of the First day after that they before had gathered together for Holy Communion." Question answered fully!

DHK said:
The custom had now been to meet on the first day of the week as Paul intimates in verse one. How can you deny that?

GE: I can and must deny it on strength of the weakness of your assumption that "The custom had now been". Where do you, find that 'custom', 'intimated'? In this verse - no where else; so your assumption you make your 'proof'. That gives me ground for denial.

DHK said:
He states as much. He says that he had done the same thing throughout the churches in Galatian, and you go and put words in his mouth, or change what the Bible says and state that they met on the Sabbath.


GE:
I 'stated', yes, on strength Luke thus 'intimated', through having used the Perfect Participle and not the finite, indicative verb whereby not the circumstance of it, but an action as such is expressed.

Amazing! But that is EXACTLY what Paul said! Why do you try to rewrite the Bible to justify your own belief? "They met", on the Sabbath, if they, quoting and rendering truly and precisely, "on the first day of the week were together still".
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
DHK said:
What implication?

GE:
The implication created by Luke's use of the Perfect Participle and no finite verb, that "Paul dealt with the disciples it being evening of the First day after that they before had gathered together for Holy Communion." Question answered fully!

DHK said:
The custom had now been to meet on the first day of the week as Paul intimates in verse one. How can you deny that?

GE: I can and must deny it on strength of the weakness of your assumption that "The custom had now been". Where do you, find that 'custom', 'intimated'? In this verse - no where else; so your assumption you make your 'proof'. That gives me ground for denial.

DHK said:
He states as much. He says that he had done the same thing throughout the churches in Galatian, and you go and put words in his mouth, or change what the Bible says and state that they met on the Sabbath.


GE:
I 'stated', yes, on strength Luke thus 'intimated', through having used the Perfect Participle and not the finite, indicative verb whereby not the circumstance of it, but an action as such is expressed.

Amazing! But that is EXACTLY what Paul said! Why do you try to rewrite the Bible to justify your own belief? "They met", on the Sabbath, if they, quoting and rendering truly and precisely, "on the first day of the week were together still".
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Then by the way, where does Paul in Acts 20:7 or nearby, "... says that he had done the same thing throughout the churches in Galatian"?

Do you perhaps put words in his mouth, or change what the Bible says and state that they met on Sunday? But I know it was an oversight, so won't mind not to receive your reply.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
BobRyan said:
. Notice that in YOUR reference above you quote NONE OF IT!
Bob
Bob why are you upset at me for not quoting entire contexts? I took the four references that you gave and gave an answer to them. You had already quoted what you thought were the pertinent parts. Was there a need for me to be redundant. Your accusations are indeed foolish.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
Then by the way, where does Paul in Acts 20:7 or nearby, "... says that he had done the same thing throughout the churches in Galatian"?
You are not reading. He says that he had done so in 1Cor.16:1. I am sure that you can read that verse for yourself.
Do you perhaps put words in his mouth, or change what the Bible says and state that they met on Sunday? But I know it was an oversight, so won't mind not to receive your reply.
You have changed what the Bible says to suit your own purposes. You need to study Genesis chapters one and two. God worked six days and rested on the seventh, the seventh being the last day of the week, not the first day of the week. The first day of the week is Sunday in case you hadn't realized that yet. Once you understand that fact the reading of the English language will become much more simple for you.
To emphasize ti again for the Sabbath-Day challenged:
Seventh Day of the Week = Sabbath
First Day of the Week = Sunday


Here are some scholarly comments to help you along in your understanding:
7. upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together--This, compared with 1Co 16:2, and other similar allusions, plainly indicates that the Christian observance of the day afterwards distinctly called "the Lord's Day," was already a fixed practice of the churches. (Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown)

Ac 20:7
Verse 7. And upon the first day of the week. Showing thus that this day was then observed buy Christians as holy time. Comp. 1Co 16:2; Re 1:10.

To break bread. Evidently to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Comp. Ac 2:46. So the Syriac understands it, by translating it, "to break the Eucharist," i.e. the eucharistic bread. It is probable that the apostles and early Christians celebrated the Lord's Supper on every Lord's-day.
And continued his speech until midnight. The discourse of Paul continued until the breaking of day, Ac 20:11. But it was interrupted about midnight by the accident that occurred to Eutychus. The fact that Paul was about to leave them on the next day, probably to see them no more, was the principal reason why his discourse was so long continued. We are not to suppose, however, that it was one continued or set discourse. No small part of the time might have been passed in hearing and answering questions, though Paul was the chief speaker. The case proves that such seasons of extraordinary devotion may, in peculiar circumstances, be proper. Occasions may arise where it will be proper for Christians to spend a much longer time than usual in public worship. It is evident, however, that such seasons do not often occur.
{l} "first day" 1Co 16:2; Re 1:10
{m} "break bread" Ac 2:42,46; 1Co 10:16; 11:20-34 (Albert Barnes)


Act 20:7 -
Upon the first day of the week ([FONT=&quot]en de miāi tōn sabbatōn[/FONT]). The cardinal [FONT=&quot]miāi[/FONT] used here for the ordinal [FONT=&quot]prōtēi[/FONT] (Mar_16:9) like the Hebrew ehadh as in Mar_16:2; Mat_28:1; Luk_24:1; Joh_20:1 and in harmony with the Koiné[28928]š idiom (Robertson, Grammar, p. 671). Either the singular (Mar_16:9) [FONT=&quot]sabbatou[/FONT] or the plural [FONT=&quot]sabbaton[/FONT] as here was used for the week (sabbath to sabbath). For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in 1Co_16:2 it is implied by the collections stored on that day. In Rev_1:10 the Lord’s day seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave. Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches, though Joh_20:26 seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day. But liberty was allowed as Paul makes plain in Rom_14:5.
When we were gathered together ([FONT=&quot]sunēgmenōn hēmōn[/FONT]). Genitive absolute, perfect passive participle of [FONT=&quot]sunagō[/FONT], to gather together, a formal meeting of the disciples. See this verb used for gatherings of disciples in Act_4:31; Act_11:26; Act_14:27; Act_15:6, Act_15:30; Act_19:7, Act_19:8; 1Co_5:4. In Heb_10:25 the substantive [FONT=&quot]episunagōgēn[/FONT] is used for the regular gatherings which some were already neglecting. It is impossible for a church to flourish without regular meetings even if they have to meet in the catacombs as became necessary in Rome. In Russia today the Soviets are trying to break up conventicles of Baptists. They probably met on our Saturday evening, the beginning of the first day at sunset. So these Christians began the day (Sunday) with worship. But, since this is a Gentile community, it is quite possible that Luke means our Sunday evening as the time when this meeting occurs, and the language in Joh_20:19 “it being evening on that day the first day of the week” naturally means the evening following the day, not the evening preceding the day.
To break bread ([FONT=&quot]klasai arton[/FONT]). First aorist active infinitive of purpose of [FONT=&quot]klaō[/FONT]. The language naturally bears the same meaning as in Act_2:42, the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper which usually followed the [FONT=&quot]Agapē[/FONT]. See note on 1Co_10:16. The time came, when the [FONT=&quot]Agapē[/FONT] was no longer observed, perhaps because of the abuses noted in 1Co_11:20. Rackham argues that the absence of the article with bread here and its presence ([FONT=&quot]ton arton[/FONT]) in Act_20:11shows that the [FONT=&quot]Agapē[/FONT] is ] referred to in Act_20:7and the Eucharist in Act_20:11, but not necessarily so because [FONT=&quot]ton arton[/FONT] may merely refer to [FONT=&quot]arton[/FONT] in Act_20:7. At any rate it should be noted that Paul, who conducted this service, was not a member of the church in Troas, but only a visitor.
Discoursed ([FONT=&quot]dielegeto[/FONT]). Imperfect middle because he kept on at length.
Intending ([FONT=&quot]mellō[/FONT]). Being about to, on the point of.
On the morrow ([FONT=&quot]tēi epaurion[/FONT]). Locative case with [FONT=&quot]hēmerāi[/FONT] understood after the adverb [FONT=&quot]epaurion[/FONT]. If Paul spoke on our Saturday evening, he made the journey on the first day of the week (our Sunday) after sunrise. If he spoke on our Sunday evening, then he left on our Monday morning.
Prolonged his speech ([FONT=&quot]Pareteinen ton logon[/FONT]). Imperfect active (same form as aorist) of [FONT=&quot]parateinō[/FONT], old verb to stretch beside or lengthwise, to prolong. Vivid picture of Paul’s long sermon which went on and on till midnight ([FONT=&quot]mechri mesonuktiou[/FONT]). Paul’s purpose to leave early next morning seemed to justify the long discourse. Preachers usually have some excuse for the long sermon which is not always clear to the exhausted audience. (A.T. Robertson)



 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top