Protestants still follow the pope

[saturneptune]

So Gerhard,
When do you suggest we worship if not Sunday? How about Tuesday night? Saturday morning? Oh I hope so, then we can watch 60 minutes we now miss because of Sunday evening.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Nothing??

Acts 20:7-12 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. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. 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. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. 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. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

No business meeting here. There are but two things mentioned: preaching and the breaking of bread (Communion). Someone is not reading their Bible's very careful.

GE:

For elaborate 'attention paid' to the 'careful reading' of this Scripture, see http://www.biblestudents.co.za for a word for word analysis of the chapter and its broader setting.

The word for "preached" (dialegomai), is more often than not used exactly for 'business-talk', 'debating', 'bookkeeping' etc. If there were reason to use it here in the less usual sense of 'preaching', why nothing of the sermon is hinted at? "For Holy Communion" (Noun-Infinitive) is not used in connection with dialegomai, but with "having before gathered" (sunehgmenohn). Statevertaling (High Dutch) renders dielegeto with "dealt with". Marshal has, "lectured". Enough for now.

The second word rendered "preached" by some, homilehsas, has the clear meaning contextually as often elsewhere, of 'cenversing' in the sense of 'visiting' ('Afr. 'kuier'). After business and the Eutychus incident, Paul simply "conversed" with the group until early morning. NO, 'preaching' these wee hours! No wonder the AV has "talked" fulstop.

"Broken bread doesn't have the meaning of Holy Communion at all. It literally means to still one's hunger. Then also all the usual arguments against the meaning given it of 'Holy Communion', are 100% valid. BobRyan should be able to fill in in this regard.

Now I wonder who was that 'someone not reading his Bible's very carefully?

 

[grahame]

You know, it never ceases to amaze me. All these records of our Lord's resurrection were all written for our encouragement. He died to take away our sins. He rose again that we may be justified before God. But all we can do is argue and condemn one another because we choose one day over another. Has our Lord died in vain? He created one day in the week for our rest and regeneration and we insist on making it a day of labour. It reminds me of that story my old boss told me of the time during the last war in London.

He was walking along the road and was approached by a man in darl long overcoat and flat hat. He said. "Would you mind coming with me?" So he followed him through the dark alley ways and up some stairs and through a door into a room. There he saw a group of people sitting in darkess. The man asked my boss, "Would you mind switching on the light for us". So he obliged. It was then he saw that the group of people were orthodox Jews. They explained to him that it was the Sabbath and on the Sabbath they were not meant to do any work and switching on the light was work.

We have all been made free from sin so that we may serve him with freedom. Now we serve Christ in the spirit of the law. Not necessarity in the letter. I wonder how these rules of the Sabbath, whatever day it falls on, can be applied to doctors and nurses and the emergency services? And also the electricity companies and other services and professions which we in this modern age depend upon? Our Lord said on the Sabbath, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath......." Which strictly speaking, he did.

 

[Amy.G]

Grahame, great post! My sentiments exactly. I appreciate all your posts. Thank you!:wavey:

 

[DHK]

Now I wonder who was that 'someone not reading his Bible's very carefully?

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)

 

[BobRyan]

You know, it never ceases to amaze me. All these records of our Lord's resurrection were all written for our encouragement. He died to take away our sins. He rose again that we may be justified before God.

Very true. And according to Paul in 1Cor 11 HE ALSO gave us the Lord's Supper to commemorate that historic salvation event - celebrated as often as we might like to do it.

No problems with that at all.

The issue here is not "how many times each week or month or year may I celebrate the Lord's Supper" - you may do it daily if you so desire.

The issue is "and may I also turn a blind eye to Christ's own Holy day given as His Memorial of HIS creative act in Genesis 1. Made FOR Mankind only to be ignored BY anyone who so desires"...

It is only THAT part that we are debating in truth...

But all we can do is argue and condemn one another because we choose one day over another. Has our Lord died in vain?

Christ argues this point very stringently in Mark 7 with those who found a "nice reason" to replace the commandments of God with man-made tradition.

"In vain do they worship me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" Mark 7:6-11

He created one day in the week for our rest and regeneration and we insist on making it a day of labour.

True enough -- it was the "Seventh-day Sabbath" that was sanctified "Therefore He blessed the Seventh-day and made it holy".

Almost everyone AGREES that Christ rose on THE FIRST day which means "they are without excuse" who pretend not to be able to count out from the FIRST day to the Seventh. (At least when it comes to simple math)
We have all been made free from sin so that we may serve him with freedom. Now we serve Christ in the spirit of the law. Not necessarity in the letter.

So then -- comitting adultery but doing it out of love for our neighbor??

Or do you mean - NOT lusting AND not actually comitting adultery??

the one who argues the latter is arguing in favor of God's Word. The one that argues for the former is simply tring to get out of God's Word.

But Christ said in John 10 "The Word of God can not be broken".

It remains.

I wonder how these rules of the Sabbath, whatever day it falls on, can be applied to doctors and nurses and the emergency services?

1. God said it "falls on the SEVENTH day" are we free to "edit" what He said now??

WE ADMIT that Christ rose on the FIRST day -- are we now QUESTIONING if Christ actually rose on Sunday?? Week-day one???

2. Christ stated that the Priests are laboring on Sabbath and in the PRE-Cross full acceptance (non-debated time for ACCEPTING the 4th commandment) the priests are NOT considered by God to be in violation of HIS Command. I think the same applies to all emergency services.

And also the electricity companies and other services and professions which we in this modern age depend upon? Our Lord said on the Sabbath, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath......." Which strictly speaking, he did.

the Jews charged that Christ BROKE the Law of God. Christ argues that He did not "THINK NOT that I have come to abolish the LAw of God I have not come to abolish but to FULFILL" -- those who agree with the Jewish accusers that what Christ was doing was BREAKING the Law that He PERFECTLY FULFILLED were charging that his life and sacrifice was not a PERFECT SINLESS Law-fulfilling offering - but a polluted law-breaking offering.

Hint: It was not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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:

this is one of those times I am in full agreement with DHK as it pertains to the days of the week. I agree completely that Christ was raised on Sunday and that is week-day-one.

I also agree that friday-evening to Saturday evening is the Sabbath of the Sabbath commandment.

Those who see DHK and I differ on every point (practically) when it comes to this subject - do not see us differ on this point. And in fact this is a point that is held in common by the majority of Sunday-keeping Christians AND the vast majority of Sabbath-keeing Christians.

It is not accurate to portray some dispute here on whether Saturday is the Seventh-day as being characteristic of differences between the two groups of Christians.

---

having said that -- I am very curious about DHK's endorsement of Acts 20 (however he may choose to spin the act of EACH individual laying by themselves in STORE - savings so that no fund raising needed to be done at some future time when Paul arrived) -- as if a PRACTICE SEEN in Acts is sufficent support for doctrine. When I point out that the "sola scriptura" practice in Acts 17:11 and the "SABBATH after SABBATH" practice of acts 13 should be fully accepted in the SAME way - DHK stone walls.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So Gerhard,
When do you suggest we worship if not Sunday? How about Tuesday night? Saturday morning? Oh I hope so, then we can watch 60 minutes we now miss because of Sunday evening.

have I got good news for you...

 

[BobRyan]

Graham argues that God did NOt say "this is the Sabbath" but rather stated the commandment as "pick one day in seven".

Bob points out that in Exodus 16 God said "TOMORROW is the Sabbath" and in the weekly cycle manna fell on 6 days but not on THE seventh-day for 40 years!!

Graham then switches points -

You still haven't answered why Pentecost was on a Sunday. This also was set down in the law.

Pentecost was 50 days after Passover - SOMETIMES passover was on a Friday - sometimes it was not. You can hardly argue that Pentecost was teaching a WEEKLY first-day observance in the OT.

Also why do you not recognise that the lawwas clearly for Israel and not for the rest of mankind.

I see so Christ said "The Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27

but Graham says "the Sabbath was NOT MADE FOR MANKIND"????

the choice in that case is left as an exercise for the reader.

In 1Cor 7 we are told "Neither circumcision no non-circumcision is of any mattter but what matters is the KEEPING of the Commandments of God".

In Rom 3:31 Paul says "Do we then make VOID the LAw of God by our faith?? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God"...

Yet you argue "we pay no attention at aLL to the Law of God"

Where do you get that?

This is clear because of what God says at the beginning of the commandments. The law was not written for Gentiles originally, but for Israel.

both Romans 3 and Galatians 3 flatly deny this. BOTH of them argue that the Law BINDS ALL MANKIND showing that ALL are sinners.

(In the case of the lost)

And in Heb 8 we are told that the LAW of God is "WRITTEN on the heart" under the New Covenant.

So it is applied to ALL the WORLD in one way in Romans 3 and Galatians 3 and it is applied to all saints in James 2 and Heb 8.

Many things changed with the coming of Christ. For christ is the end of the law for believers. (Rom 10:4)

Rom 10 fits with Rom 7 (quoting the ten commandments) and Rom 13 (quoting the Ten Commandments) and Romans 3 (endorsing the Law of God) because the term for "end" is the term for "goal" or point. It means that the Law points to Christ -- it does NOT mean to contradict the rest of Romans by arguing that Christ abolished HIS OWN WORD (Hint: His Word is LAW).

In other words he is the fulfilment of the law. Everything is centred in him. He is the resurrection and the life.

Indeed - He FULFILLED the command of Lev 19:18 that we must Love our Neighbor as ourself - but FULFILL does not mean ABOLISH.

He FULFILLED the command of Deut 6:5 to Love God with all of our heart -- but FULFILL does not mean ABOLISH.

As 1John 2 points out "the one who SAYS He knows Christ aught also to WALK as Christ WALKED".

He is the eternal Sabbath, the antitype for the shadow which was the Sabbath of the Old Testament.

Text please.

We have a reference to the Lord's day in Revelation chapter 1. You must come up with an explanation of that if that wasn't the seventh day.

It was the Seventh-day because as Christ said "The Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" and as Isaiah says Is 58 the "Sabbath is the HOLY day of the LORD".

There is NTHER assignment for "LORD's Day" given in all of scripture.

Those who WANT that day to apply to something OTHER than what scripture says - have a long way to go.

If it was the Sabbath as you contend, Then why did not John use the word "Sabbath"?

He used the term Christ used for it in Mark 2:27 and the one that Isaiah used in Isaiah 58 and the one that Sabbath Keeping Christians often use for it.

Do Adventist replace the word Sabbath with "Lord's day"? Or do they still use the name Sabbath.

They use BOTH as did John.

In the gospel of John we find him referring to it as Sabbath and in Rev as "The Lord's Day". John 19:31 and about 20 times in the Gospel of John he references "Sabbath".

Hint: John is writing long AFTER the resurrection.

I contend that John used the term "Lord's day" because it was the day the Lord rose from the dead,

Indeed - an assertion that you can not prove from scripture. I prefer my doctrines "sola scriptura".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

have I got good news for you...

I think I can guess.
The SDA's primary reason for worshipping on Saturday is so that they can worship before the SuperBowl on Sunday :laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

Graham admits that he DOES know which day of the week is the SEVENTH and which one is the FIRST

Which logically was the first day of the week and not the Sabbath, or seventh day as some suggest Well we can agree that week-day one is Sunday and not Sabbath -
.

How nice that - that little debate point has been resolved.

Moving on...

Grahame said

Although what I said was tradition. We nevertheless can gain quite a lot from observing what the early church did in the years just after the apostles. ie, the early fathers.

I am more than glad to agree with you that after the time of the Apostles some "traditions" of man began to spring up that can not be found in scripture.

No lo contendo

When we read the New Testament in fact not much is said about keeping any Sabbath at all.

WE find a lot about it in the Gospels and we find that the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD ARE to be kept in places like 1Cor 7.

But it IS true that the 3rd commandment "Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" is never QUOTED word-for-word in the NT.

Is this a "Whatever is not repeated get's deleted" argument I see you inserting into the NT??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But we do have specific verses that refer to the law in relation to gentiles or non Jews. (Acts 15:5, 24)

in Acts 15 we see the argument made that the Gentiles will be "hearing Moses preached in the synagogues EVERY SABBATH".

And in Acts 13 WE SEE the Gentiles IN the Synagogue SABBATH AFTER SABBATH hearing just what James SAID they were hearing.

Furthermore - in Acts 15 we DO NOT see James telling the Gentiles to "Honor their Father and mother" or to "Love God with all their heart".

Acts 15 is NOT a "mass reduction of the scriptures of God for Gentiles" as it turns out.

It SPECIFICALLY deals with the issue of "do Gentile NEED to become JEWS" which is what circumcision symbolized according to Eph 2.

It was never commanded of OT Gentiles and in Acts 13 we find that it was also not commanded by the NON-Christian Jews of their Gentile fellow believers.

As a passing interest, do you tell people they must be circumcised as well? I'm not sure what the teaching of Adventists is on this?

Nope.

Grahame
My understanding is admittedly a traditional one and we do not have any specific commandment concerning the Sabbath day except that which was given to the Jews in the Law.

The Sabbath given to Adam in Gen 2 is referenced in Exodus 20 as "historic fact". Exodus 20 is not of the form "I have just invented the Sabbath it turns out to be the 7th day of the week so start keeping it from now on".

Rather it is "REMEMBER the Sabbath" (in fact they arlready had the system of manna and sabbath keeping BEFORE Exodus 20) and it points to the Gen 2 CREATION WEEK fact saying "For in SIX days the Lord... and RESTED the Seventh-day therfore the Lord BLESSED the Sabbath day and MADE it Holy" speaking of the day given to ADAM in Gen 2.

Hence Christ can rightly say in Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND"

And as Isaiah 66 points out "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship".

But the very fact that not much emphasis is seen in the NT about the Sabbath day except in the case of the Jews who had believed really points to the fact that our rest is in Christ He is our rest.

That is conjecture - not scripture. The difference is huge.

Just out of unterest, many of the Puritans kept both the seventh day and the eighth day holy. They kept the seventh in preparation for the eighth. But most of the Old Testament is to do with Israel anyway. The bringing in of the Gentiles. although prophesied in the OT, is only seen when it was revealed to Peter the apostle.

Non-Jewish Sabbath keeping promises are in Isaiah 56-58.

And of course we have Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship".

Furthermore Paul the apostle used Abraham as an example of salvation without the law for the very fact that salvation is by grace alone. For Abraham was not a Jew. Neither did he keep the law.

What an intertesting contradiction of scripture.

God said of Abraham "HE KEPT My COMMANDMENTS and STATUTES and LAWS" Gen 26:5 just as God commands Israel to do in Deut 27:10

But Grahame said he did not.

I find that facinating. But not half as facinating as the fact that when confronted with this Grahame is likely to toss his own argument out the window and reject the Sabbath anyway - no matter if his point is valid or not.

And that is what really intrigues me about our shared human nature.

Why do we do things like that??

Anyway Grahame - I am enjoying this spirit of yours and at least some honest (if not a bit mistaken) debate points against the 4th commandment.

More as time permits.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think I can guess.
The SDA's primary reason for worshipping on Saturday is so that they can worship before the SuperBowl on Sunday :laugh:

I have been Busted.:type:

 

[tragic_pizza]

GE:

How wrong you are! You may not (I say 'may not', because I don't believe you) know about them.

And it's not that the subject does not interest you - otherwise you would not have made this post and others - you simply don't have anything to contribute. You FEAR it! But fear won't rid you of its irritation. It will haunt you like a repeating nightmare to your death-bed.

Fear of what? God being mad at me because I don't go to church on Saturday? Preposterous. Fear of being identified with Roman Catholicism? Nope. So, tell me, O All-Knowing One, fear of what?

 

[Brother Bob]

Well, we keep both Saturday and Sunday. Where some keep Wednesday night we Keep Saturday, so I guess I am covered. No wonder Bob and I are friends.

 

[DHK]

having said that -- I am very curious about DHK's endorsement of Acts 20 (however he may choose to spin the act of EACH individual laying by themselves in STORE - savings so that no fund raising needed to be done at some future time when Paul arrived) -- as if a PRACTICE SEEN in Acts is sufficent support for doctrine. When I point out that the "sola scriptura" practice in Acts 17:11 and the "SABBATH after SABBATH" practice of acts 13 should be fully accepted in the SAME way - DHK stone walls.

In Christ,

Bob

I am curious to your reference to Acts 20. I already gave my statement about it, and backed it up with various commentators. You seemed to agree with it, having said that "the first day of the week consistently means Sunday." You agreed with me on that point. However it seems to me that you are speaking of 1Cor.16:2, when Paul advised the Corinthians to lay in store on the first day of the week. I did give an explanation for that also. If first day of the week means first day of the week, or Sunday, then what is the problem? They gathered together on the first day of the week, brought what they had gathered, for that was the time when Paul would meet with them, as was his custom. According to verse one he had the same custom throughout all the churches of Galatia. Remember that the Book of Acts is a book of transition. Paul went to the Jews first. That is true. But the Jews rejected his message, and he went to the Gentiles. He is the Apostle to the Gentiles, and had no need to keep the Sabbath. Thus the evidence in Acts 20 along with 1Cor.16:1,2 point to the believers gathering on the first day of the week as the Scripture says.

 

[grahame]

No I don't reject the Sabbath. I believe that Christ is our Sabbath. The Sabbath is the shadow, the type of things to come, of the great antitype who is Christ. As Christian believers we are in that Sabbath and thus await the great eternal Sabbath (rest) in heaven. We meet on the first day of the week. The day our Lord rose from the dead in remembrance of what he accomplished on that day, the day of his resurrection. The type, the shadow is now past. Now we are "in Christ" who is our peace and our rest. We have ceased to work for our salvation. That is one reason I believe that there is so little spoken of about the Jewish Sabbath in the New Testament. For the attention is now passed from the law onto Christ.
By the way Abraham was saved through faith and not by the keeping of any law. For the New Testament clearly states that "The Law was given by Moses". Not Abraham. So those verses you quoted when you stated

God said of Abraham "HE KEPT My COMMANDMENTS and STATUTES and LAWS" Gen 26:5 just as God commands Israel to do in Deut 27:10

could not have meant those laws that were given in Exodus. For the simple fact that they had not yet been given to Israel at that time. It also said he "Obeyed my voice and kept my charge". Paul the apostle actually used Abraham as an example of salvation "before" the law was given by Moses. He did this for the specific reason of proving that salvation is by the grace of God through faith and not by the law. That law was given by to the people of Israel. We must move on from those shadows into his glorious light of the gospel of God which is through Christ. Why is it that mankind always wants to put themselves back under the law? As if they are trying to prove that they are worthy in some way, even if it is by keeping the Sabbath day. What are you going to do to those who work on the Sabbath? Stone them as they did under the law?

 

[ccrobinson]

It will haunt you like a repeating nightmare to your death-bed.

Melodramatic much?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You know, it never ceases to amaze me. All these records of our Lord's resurrection were all written for our encouragement. He died to take away our sins. He rose again that we may be justified before God. But all we can do is argue and condemn one another because we choose one day over another. Has our Lord died in vain? He created one day in the week for our rest and regeneration and we insist on making it a day of labour. It reminds me of that story my old boss told me of the time during the last war in London.

He was walking along the road and was approached by a man in darl long overcoat and flat hat. He said. "Would you mind coming with me?" So he followed him through the dark alley ways and up some stairs and through a door into a room. There he saw a group of people sitting in darkess. The man asked my boss, "Would you mind switching on the light for us". So he obliged. It was then he saw that the group of people were orthodox Jews. They explained to him that it was the Sabbath and on the Sabbath they were not meant to do any work and switching on the light was work.

We have all been made free from sin so that we may serve him with freedom. Now we serve Christ in the spirit of the law. Not necessarity in the letter. I wonder how these rules of the Sabbath, whatever day it falls on, can be applied to doctors and nurses and the emergency services? And also the electricity companies and other services and professions which we in this modern age depend upon? Our Lord said on the Sabbath, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath......." Which strictly speaking, he did.

GE:

Dear Grahame, easy to shrug off I see. Not for me to judge you; it shall be a matter between yourself and God one day, for sure.

But let's look at your nice self-justifying 'arguments'.

"all we can do is argue and condemn one another because we choose one day over another. "

It's not for us to choose any day. Can the clay say to the Potter, what do you do, Sir? The Word of this Potter is it that calls, "the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the Lord your God". Now in case you, have forgotten which day the Seventh Day is, there is a world around you that has not gone asleep; there are the Jews to annoy you to know; there is science to make a fool of you; and there is the Lord of the Sabbath Day who not so long ago lived the Seventh Day as the Sabbath Day of the LORD your God, and even more, rose from the dead thus giving the Seventh Day all the Promises and Prophesies of God come true to it and upon it.
You still don't know which day and still insist it's of no consequence, I know. You see, there is the final clinche to convince one of the "Lord's Day" - it works like the wind; one doesn't know whence, but it convinces with Almighty Power.

Next ....

 

[BobRyan]

I am curious to your reference to Acts 20. I already gave my statement about it, and backed it up with various commentators. You seemed to agree with it, having said that "the first day of the week consistently means Sunday." You agreed with me on that point. However it seems to me that you are speaking of 1Cor.16:2, when Paul advised the Corinthians to lay in store on the first day of the week.

Sorry about that. Yes I do agree with you that week-day one is Sunday (how else am I going to get to the point that the Seventh day Sabbath is Saturday??) and that Christ was raised on week-day one -- resting on the Seventh day.

And I may have mistaken my comments for 1Cor 16 on "each one saving by himself" as an individual savings at the start of each week, with the fact that one time on a Sunday the church gathered for a farewell service.

But my guestion to you from Acts 20 remains - even if you could stretch this one-time farewell service into a weekly farewell service held every week, every year on Sunday - doesn't this go against your rule of using practices SEEN in acts as a basis for doctrine?

I did give an explanation for that also. If first day of the week means first day of the week, or Sunday, then what is the problem? They gathered together on the first day of the week, brought what they had gathered, for that was the time when Paul would meet with them, as was his custom.

Is there some text saying "It was Paul's custom to meet with the church every Sunday"?? If so your argument would be well served if you quoted it.

According to verse one he had the same custom throughout all the churches of Galatia. Remember that the Book of Acts is a book of transition.

If you are saying that it was Paul's custom to meet with all churches he visited every Sunday and that you have such a text -- it would serve you to quote it.

Paul went to the Jews first. That is true. But the Jews rejected his message, and he went to the Gentiles. He is the Apostle to the Gentiles, and had no need to keep the Sabbath.

You are telling the story the way we would EXPECT to find it in scripture IF IT were true that the Gentiles were not expected to be meeting on Sabbath. That is why the Acts 13 "SABBATH AFTER SABBATH" sequence where Gentiles ARE accepting the message and Jews REJECTING it stands out as a great contradiction. What SHOULD have happened on that Sabbath where the JEWS were not cooperating - Paul should have said "FINE -then to the REST I say come join us tomorrow for more Bible study as we are now meeting on week-day one. And in fact I tell you all that Week-day One turns out to be the LORD's Day".

What a golden opportunity to SEE the very claims people want to insert into the text today - and yet it is glaringly absent. IN FACT what we see in Acts 13 is that the Gentiles CONTINUE to have "SABBATH AFTER SABBATH" services even AFTER the Jews point out their opposition to the message.

How instructive.

Thus the evidence in Acts 20 along with 1Cor.16:1,2 point to the believers gathering on the first day of the week as the Scripture says.

There is no weekly gathering at all mentioned in 1Cor 16 and Acts 20 is a one time farewell service lasting until midnight. (and if this is in fact Saturday evening then it means they spent all Sunday on a road trip rather than resting and worshipping)

In Christ,

Bob