The Lord's Day

[AbbaLove]

I didn't say the Lord's Day is the first day of the week. I said the early Christians worshiped on Sunday before Constantine. Personally, I believe the Lord's Day of Revelation 1:1 is speaking of the Day of the Lord - end times.

Your previous posts led us to believe that it was/may be your opinion that "They" being the majority of Gentile Believers (as early as 80AD to 100AD) worshiped on Sunday. In your opinion when do you think (e.g. by 200AD to 300AD) the majority of Gentile Believers worshiped on Sunday?

Might you agree that from 200AD to 300AD (or even before 200AD) it's very possible that the majority of Gentile Believers were being pressured by the RCC to worship on Sunday and forget about honoring the Lord's Day on the 7th day of the week?

 

[1stcenturylady]

​

Your previous posts led us to believe that it was/may be your opinion that "They" being the majority of Gentile Believers (as early as 80AD to 100AD) worshiped on Sunday. In your opinion when do you think (e.g. by 200AD to 300AD) the majority of Gentile Believers worshiped on Sunday?

Might you agree that from 200AD to 300AD (or even before 200AD) it's very possible that the majority of Gentile Believers were being pressured by the RCC to worship on Sunday and forget about honoring the Lord's Day on the 7th day of the week?

No, they were already coming together on the first day of the week in Paul's day - first century on. No pressure involved. It had nothing to do with Constantine or the start of the RCC. Constantine was considered the first pope by non-Catholics. Peter by Catholics. I don't know when they first called themselves "Catholics" We were first called Christians in Antioch, 1st century, but it was meant as a derogatory name by those who coined it. LOL

And Peter was never the head of the Church. James, the brother of Jesus was the first. And thereafter, the head of the Church was a deposini - a relative of Jesus. The RCC after Constantine, unfortunately hunted them down and killed them. There were none left by the 6th century.

 

[gadar perets]

The Hebrew word for stand (passively), stand still, stand idly, is this:
Pronounce: aw-mad'

Strong: H5975

Orig: a primitive root; to stand, in various relations (literal and figurative, intransitive and transitive):--abide (behind), appoint, arise, cease, confirm, continue, dwell, be employed, endure, establish, leave, make, ordain, be (over), place, (be) present (self), raise up, remain, repair, + serve, set (forth, over, -tle, up), (make to, make to be at a, with-)stand (by, fast, firm, still, up), (be at a) stay (up), tarry.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS NO HEBREW WORD FOR AGAINST.

If you will notice in any concordance and in Strong's definition you cited, the word "stand/aw-mad" is used in conjunction with another Hebrew word meaning by, before, afar, fast, still, etc. Yet, you would have me believe that "aw-mad" means "stand idly by" even though there is the Hebrew word "al" (Strong's number 5921) used in conjunction with it.

Lev 19:16 Thou shalt notH3808 go up and downH1980 as a talebearerH7400 among thy people:H5971 neitherH3808 shalt thou standH5975 againstH5921 the bloodH1818 of thy neighbour:H7453 IH589 am the LORD.H3068​

What does "al" mean? It doesn't mean "idly by", but, according to Strong's;

Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications:
​

BDB also provides "against" as one of its definitions, but does not include "idly by".;

1) upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against (preposition)
​

Al was translated against 671 times.

​

 

[Open Heart]

If you will notice in any concordance and in Strong's definition you cited, the word "stand/aw-mad" is used in conjunction with another Hebrew word meaning by, before, afar, fast, still, etc. Yet, you would have me believe that "aw-mad" means "stand idly by" even though there is the Hebrew word "al" (Strong's number 5921) used in conjunction with it.

Lev 19:16 Thou shalt notH3808 go up and downH1980 as a talebearerH7400 among thy people:H5971 neitherH3808 shalt thou standH5975 againstH5921 the bloodH1818 of thy neighbour:H7453 IH589 am the LORD.H3068​

What does "al" mean? It doesn't mean "idly by", but, according to Strong's;

Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications:
​

BDB also provides "against" as one of its definitions, but does not include "idly by".;

1) upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against (preposition)
​

Al was translated against 671 times.

​

I missed this the first time around because I was using Strongs to spot the Hebrew for the verse, and it did not give the Hebrew for "against." It was simply missing.

However, I went to my Chumash, and you are correct that AL is there. Al is a preposition that doesn't translate well. It can mean a number of things, including "by" and including "against." The "against" that it means is not "in opposition to" but rather like leaning against, similar to by. To translate it "against' as in "in opposition to" is a mistranslation, albeit I can see now why such a mistake can be made.

I think if Christian scholars spent a little more time talking with Jews who know Hebrew and their ancient knowledge of Torah, they might learn a few things. I find that Christians tend to be overconfident; it's kind of sad--it's really to our detriment.

 

[Open Heart]

"stand/aw-mad"

stand is passive, i.e. stand still or stand idly.

 

[gadar perets]

stand is passive, i.e. stand still or stand idly.

Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications:
​

Do you have a reference stating "aw-mad" is passive when used with "al" or are you just assuming that because you want it to mean "stand idly by"? It seems to me that when "al" is used with it, it becomes an active verb. My Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon tells me "aw-mad" means "against" when it is used with "al".

 

[AbbaLove]

No, they were already coming together on the first day of the week in Paul's day - first century on.

Can you find another scripture other than Acts 20:7 that you base your "on the first day of the week in Paul's day" that the majority of Gentile Believers in Antioch were worshiping on the 1st day of the week as early as 80AD to 100AD. So far you've only listed one secondary source for "Sunday" by a Gentile Christian and that is 150AD. Just because "They" were called "Christians" is insufficient proof that "They" no longer honored the 7th day of the week as the Lord's Day.

Acts 20:6 But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days.
Acts 20:7 Now on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.​

It's just as likely that because Paul was leaving the next day (2nd day of the week) that the reason they came together to "break bread" on the 1st day of the week was to hear Paul before he departed and bid Paul a safe journey. Don't be too quick to conclude that Acts 20:7 should be interpreted that Gentile Believers in Antioch were worshiping of the 1st day of the week as early as 80AD to 100AD and no longer honored the 7th day of the week as the "Lord's Day" of Sabbath Rest.

Up to the time when Christians of the forth century started this ideology that the "Lord's Day" was Sunday, it was always the Sabbath. As all the Sabbaths are the Lord's Days.

In other words, since Yeshua is the Lord or Master of that day, then the weekly Saturday Sabbath is the Lord's day or Yeshua's day. To say that it means Sunday is pure assumption without fact or Scripture to back it up.

Those who have any regard keep the Seventh Day Rest commanded by God.

​

 

[1stcenturylady]

Can you find another scripture other than Acts 20:7 that you base your "on the first day of the week in Paul's day" that the majority of Gentile Believers in Antioch were worshiping on the 1st day of the week as early as 80AD to 100AD. So far you've only listed one secondary source for "Sunday" by a Gentile Christian and that is 150AD. Just because "They" were called "Christians" is insufficient proof that "They" no longer honored the 7th day of the week as the Lord's Day.

Acts 20:6 But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days.
Acts 20:7 Now on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.​

It's just as likely that because Paul was leaving the next day (2nd day of the week) that the reason they came together to "break bread" on the 1st day of the week was to hear Paul before he departed and bid Paul a safe journey. Don't be too quick to conclude that Acts 20:7 should be interpreted that Gentile Believers in Antioch were worshiping of the 1st day of the week as early as 80AD to 100AD and no longer honored the 7th day of the week as the "Lord's Day" of Sabbath Rest.

​

As far as "first day of the week" I've given you all I found in scripture. You may be right about the reason they met up the day before they left, I don't know, and neither do you. And no where does Paul or anyone else say there was a deliberate change from the 7th day to the first day of the week to worship God. It was no longer a law either way. Entering God's rest has to do with trusting God through Christ. The Children of Israel NEVER entered into His rest, even though they had the Sabbath, so spiritually, it isn't a day of the week. Therefore, if you don't want to worship on Sunday, you are not breaking any law. Sunday was merely tradition because of the change in Covenants. The Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments with the Sabbath as the sign of the covenant, was given on the same day a couple thousand years earlier that the New Covenant came into being on the Day of Pentecost, whose sign of the covenant was the cup representing Christ's blood, and it just happened to be by design on Sunday, the same day of the week that Christ rose from the dead. Now, we die to sin and rise from dead works to faith in Christ, to enter the 8th day - eternity.

 

[CherubRam]

Matthew 12:8

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”


Mark 2:27

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.


Mark 2:28

So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”


Luke 6:5

Then Yahshua said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”



Man, as in mankind. It does not say the Sabbath was made for the Jew, but mankind. The seventh day is Yahshua’s Sabbath.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Matthew 12:8

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”


Mark 2:27

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.


Mark 2:28

So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”


Luke 6:5

Then Yahshua said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”



Man, as in mankind. It does not say the Sabbath was made for the Jew, but mankind. The seventh day is Yahshua’s Sabbath.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

 

[Open Heart]

Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications:
​

Do you have a reference stating "aw-mad" is passive when used with "al" or are you just assuming that because you want it to mean "stand idly by"? It seems to me that when "al" is used with it, it becomes an active verb. My Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon tells me "aw-mad" means "against" when it is used with "al".

when I read its description in Strongs, it gave passive descriptions.

Against is a location description. It is not meaning "in opposition to." It is therefore not a whole lot different than "by."

 

[visionary]

No, they were already coming together on the first day of the week in Paul's day - first century on. No pressure involved. It had nothing to do with Constantine or the start of the RCC. Constantine was considered the first pope by non-Catholics. Peter by Catholics. I don't know when they first called themselves "Catholics" We were first called Christians in Antioch, 1st century, but it was meant as a derogatory name by those who coined it. LOL

And Peter was never the head of the Church. James, the brother of Jesus was the first. And thereafter, the head of the Church was a deposini - a relative of Jesus. The RCC after Constantine, unfortunately hunted them down and killed them. There were none left by the 6th century.

If you don't know Jews and the Jewish faith, it is understandable that you would think they would throw out Sabbath keeping at the drop of a hat.

 

[Open Heart]

Constantine was considered the first pope by non-Catholics.

Constantine couldn't have been a Pope since he was never ordained and was never made the bishop of Rome. He was an emperor, which is an entirely different thing.

And there were no non-Catholic Christians in Constantine's day.

 

[Open Heart]

The RCC after Constantine, unfortunately hunted them down and killed them. There were none left by the 6th century.

Hunted who down?

 

[1stcenturylady]

If you don't know Jews and the Jewish faith, it is understandable that you would think they would throw out Sabbath keeping at the drop of a hat.

At the drop of a hat? Like it was nothing? JESUS DIED! "IT IS FINISHED."

 

[1stcenturylady]

Hunted who down?

The Deposini.

 

[Open Heart]

At the drop of a hat? Like it was nothing? JESUS DIED! "IT IS FINISHED."

Salvation is finished! How does that translate to abrogating the Torah?

 

[Open Heart]

The Deposini.

There are none. Jesus was single and had no children.

 

[visionary]

I agree with all that. So how am I disregarding Scripture? The fact of Scripture is this; name change first, then circumcision. When Abraham was circumcised, his name was ALREADY Abraham. The man named Abram was NOT circumcised. The man named Abraham was circumcised.


I never said circumcision of anyone older than 8 days was invalid. The Almighty did not command Gentiles to get circumcised as adults. He did command Abraham, his household and others to get circumcised as adults.


Thankfully, the Almighty is more loving, gracious, forgiving and merciful than you. Gentile adults that were not circumcised at 8 days old through no fault of their own are accepted by the Almighty as Abraham's seed by faith and have been circumcised in their hearts.

You didn't answer my question; What do you do with all the circumcised Jews that do not have circumcised hearts? What will the fate of the whole House of Israel be since they have uncircumcised hearts (Jer 9:25-26)?

You have a point. If circumcision is Jewish and Abraham was 99 when circumcised..how come Abraham wasn't Jewish and there were absolutely no Jews around for what would be longer than several hundred years, or maybe a thousand years before the first Jew came into existence. If you think circumcision is Jewish, you just might be believing the big lie because you will not find scripture to support it.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Salvation is finished! How does that translate to abrogating the Torah?

Jesus is the end of the law written on tablets of stone. They are now written on our hearts, our conscience. You know right from wrong don't you? How?