Lord's Day

Got a question for wopik.

If Paul designated the Sabbath as the first day of the week, would it be ok for him to travel on the first day of the week, according to Jewish customs?

 

Hey PN,

That's why Paul did travel on the "1st day of the week", because it was NOT the sabbath!!



Peace,

Tam

 

Paul didn't designate Sunday as the sabbath. Someone else outside the Bible did. We do know, however, that believers gathered together on the first day of the week.

 

Tam

Oh smart one, you beat me to the punch line.

My what white teeth you have, do you use Borax?

See Acts 20:7-12

 

Yes PN? You rang?

Well here's my answer to Acts 20-7 thru 12. By the way, you didn't think I would just throw something out without knowing my facts do you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Lets look at the whole scripture, Acts 20-7 thru 11.

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.
8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verse 7 says : And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.

Now, you have to remember that the Sabbath started on fri nite at 6 P.M. and ENDS sat nite at 6 P.M. Verse 7 also says they came together to break bread. So when they came together on the "1 st day of the week" it was just after 6 P.M.on sat nite! After the Sabbath is celebrated, then they eat. The Sabbath was over, but it was still sat nite. However, since days were counted from sundown to sundown, it was considered the 1st day of the week, even though it was just after 6 on sat nite.

The rest of that verse is: Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. ( From a little after 6 P.M. to midnight).

Then the young man fell out of the window, and they all ran down and Paul prayed , and God restored him and then----

Acts 20- 11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

So then they ate some more,and ate and talked a long time until it got to be daylight. So he departed.

He left on sunday morning, he did not start preaching on sunday morning.

Have a good day,

Tam

[ January 09, 2005, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: tamborine lady ]

 

Your explanation greatly appreciated, I couldn't of done better.

 

This is a very good point.

"normal-week-day-1" is NOT the preferred way to "introduce" the NEW DAY OF REST to the people of God.

Notice that in scripture (both NT and OT) "week-day-7" is NOT simply left with that bland title - rather it is "GIVEN" a title "week-day-7 IS the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God". It is not simply called "week-day-7" time after time - BECAUSE God is sanctifying that Day, making it Holy and blessing it.

Also - the fact that only the Creation-Memorial Sabbath has a 7-day cycle BASIS -- means that INSERTING other "holy days" of man's own making into that SAME 7 day Creation-week cycle can not be ignored as an attempt to "substitute" man's traditions for God's commands.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul didn't designate Sunday as the sabbath. Someone else outside the Bible did. We do know, however, that believers gathered together on the first day of the week. </font>[/QUOTE]I maintain Justin Martyr was the first on record to call the day of Jesus' resurrection, "Sunday". The early Church did not have the Scriptures readily at hand like we have it today. That early Church every time it worshipped, worship by the power of just one thing: Jesus' resurrection from the dead! And every time that Church used to worship wherever the Church was founded by the Apostles, it worshipped on the Sabbath - for no other reason than Jesus' resurrection! What Justinm therefore did, was to confuse the Believers, and because of social pressures, they were easily misled - they found in Justin's explanation of Sunday the easy way to compromise with paganism.
So that is howcome someone else outside the Bible designated Sunday as "Sunday".
Most important to note is that he did not designate the Sabbath "Lord's Day", but "Sunday"! The influence of paganism is undeniable!

 

I meant to say: he 'designated' the day of Jesus' resurrection, "Sunday" - not "Sabbath", Sunday.
Apologies!

 

Read Ebersoehn and DietofWorms in discussion a few days ago on this Forum. That will beat you to the punch line, friend! As it did him!

 

I quote Tamborinelady, QB Now, you have to remember that the Sabbath started on fri nite at 6 P.M. and ENDS sat nite at 6 P.M. Verse 7 also says they came together to break bread. So when they came together on the "1 st day of the week" it was just after 6 P.M.on sat nite! After the Sabbath is celebrated, then they eat. The Sabbath was over, but it was still sat nite. However, since days were counted from sundown to sundown, it was considered the 1st day of the week, even though it was just after 6 on sat nite. QE

If you say, like in the case of the disciples who on the First Day of the week in Luke 24 and John 20 "were together still" "on (that) evening", you will NATURALLY deduce they in fact ASSEMBLED on the day that just passed. Luke and John differ of course with Luke in Acts 20 as to the day involved. But the point is, they did NOT IN FACT ASSEMBLED on or during "the evening", but on the day that just passed, which, in the case of Acts 20:7, had been the Sabbath Day!
So we agree to an extent. The difference between us seems to have been the time that the Holy Communion which the disciple enjoyed that day, must have taken. It therefore happened BEFORE the evening that they had ASSMBLED per se. And that gives you the exact meaning of the Greek word used, the Perfect Participle - which indicates the RESULT an earlier accomplished event, STILL GOING ON.

 

And besides, Paul did NOT "preach" that night. What makes you think he did? There weren't many people - if I remember right - they are all mentioend there by name, they were 8. The boy slept, and the people from the ground floor did not even attend! He "discussed matter" with the travellers - their itinerary I would guess. But why would Luke not give us one word of Paul's 'preaching'?

 

Gerhard,

I have no idea what you are talking about as far as Luke is concerned, but here in 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.
8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

In my bible it says he preached!! And as far as I know, Luke did not give an account of this in the Gospel of Luke.

What bible are you using Gerhard?



Peace,

Tam

 

Gerhard,

You said:

So we agree to an extent. The difference between us seems to have been the time that the Holy Communion which the disciple enjoyed that day, must have taken. It therefore happened BEFORE the evening that they had ASSMBLED per se. And that gives you the exact meaning of the Greek word used, the Perfect Participle - which indicates the RESULT an earlier accomplished event, STILL GOING ON.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that what I said?? I said it in a different way, but the same thing, they had assembled on the sabbath and the meeting was still going on!!




Peace,

Tam

 

Quoting wopik who quotes Bacchiocchi who quotes Rordorf as saying what Justin is supposed to have written,
QB, But, as W. Rordorf admits, "in Justin’s First Apology (67, 7) the primary motivation for the observance of Sunday is to commemorate the first day of creation and only secondarily, in addition, the resurrection of Jesus." QE

If you read Justin you will notice that he uses ascending sequence to emphasise. (My way of putting the figure of specch he uses - I can't think of its learned name now.) In other words, Rordorf is wrong. Justin uses the resurrection -FALSELY - as his MAIN motive for observance of the Day of the Sun.

 

Yeh, thanks, that cleared it all up!!



Tam

 

Wonderful! I didn't read you then, but now clearly!

 

Tam,
It isn't easy for me, but how could I do otherwise but tell you there is not a single 'First Day'- or 'Sabbath'-text in the NT not corrupted by 'translators'. You know how the RCC changed the Fourth Commandment? Well, that's just the tip of the ice-berg. In the NT it has grown far worse.
And Acts 20:7 is a typical example. Every change made to the true is well contemplated in order to discredit, shall I say, a Sabbath-faith, and to favour a Sunday-faith.
There are two words translated "preach" in Acts 20. Ironically, the one is the very word Suinday argumentations say, is what Paul 'only' did on the Sabbaths - to "ARGUE" with the Jews! But here, when the word is used in connection with the First Day, it's suddenly "preach"!
The second word - where Paul, it is translated, "continued preaching" - is nowhere else so rendered. It simply means that Paul "passed the time" till daybreak with his friends -"kuier" in Afrikaans.
But read www.biblestudents.co.za, 'The Lord's Day in the Cogvenant of Grace', book 3 part 2, 'Pentecost to Paul', 'Troas', pp.157 thereabouts.