anyone else not like Sunday worship?

Jamdoc said:

Not to be a Judaizer, but I do wish that Baptists at least would go back to Saturday worship, just because Sunday was something instigated by the Roman Catholic Church, and it's kinda like.. even though we're not Catholic, we're obeying a Catholic doctrine that they invented themselves. I don't like the idea of obeying the Pope at all.

Click to expand...

Not sure where you picked up that idea. Sunday worship precedes the Roman Catholic Church and is reflected in the Bible itself, which almost all Christians of any stripe consider to be the word of God.

nonaeroterraqueous said:

The Jewish Sabbath was not always on Saturday, either. If you want to go back to the original Sabbath, then you need to learn something about lunar calendars. Otherwise, you're forsaking the body of Christ for a body of unbelieving Jews. Whether the Catholic, or some other church, instigated Sunday worship, it was still started by the church. The Jews currently worship on a day not ordained by God in the beginning.

Click to expand...

The lunar weekly Sabbath theory is plain wrong...

Jamdoc said:

Give verses that show Sunday worship.

Click to expand...

There are several. The most often cited is Acts of the Apostles 20:7. Using the following link, be sure also to read Ellicott's Commentary near the bottom of that page.

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Since Paul was ready to leave the next day, he talked to them and kept on speaking until midnight. (biblehub.com)

One really must take some time out and read some early church history written by Justin Martyr and others to properly understand this matter. To see that it was established way before Constantine. Otherwise one might as well start attending a Synagogue.

as i was reading this thread a couple things came to mind ... that Jesus is our Sabbath every day ... it would seem any day would be appropriate ... that being said i've always like Sunday morning church ... it just feels right to me ... i don't know all the history you all do ... which i find inspiring and motivating ... so don't really know why the days are chosen for what reason ... as a matter of practical Sunday also seems right ... considering the way weeks are structured for work and school ... starting the school week or work week out having given the first part of the 'week' to the Lord also seems right to me ... lol, so i guess my short answer is yes, i like Sunday worship ...

Jamdoc said:

It's less about the Sabbath and more about.. just not wanting to be under a Catholic doctrine. I've heard that it was Emperor Constantine that decreed in 321 that Sunday was the day of rest (himself formerly being a Pagan that practiced sunday worship of Pagan gods), and later the Catholic Church formalized it as their day of worship.

So to me, it's.. a pagan practice that has been adopted by the Catholic Church and now we're still practicing it despite not being Catholic.

From the Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine


Like.. we're gonna seaprate from popery, and then ... still follow doctrines that were done by papal decree?

Click to expand...

I disagree on many points with Catholics, but regardless their beginning was true - guided by the Holy Spirit they managed the Scriptures and more just fine, it took a while for them to go completely off the rails.

The early church - who we are to emulate - went to the synagogue on the Jewish holy day until they were thrown out, and in remembrance of Christs resurrection, held a holy day on Sunday... they also broke bread, had communion, every week when they met. They went to the synagogue to preach the new covenant come to any who would hear, until they were thrown out - not because they saw it as necessary.

FYI, dig enough and you'll find it wasn't unleavened they ate for communion either, they used leavening to commemorate Christ, the Head of the body, coming into the body fully....

So it seems to me you need to study more on the early church before arbitrarily deciding you want to forgo something.

Jamdoc said:

So to me, it's.. a pagan practice that has been adopted by the Catholic Church and now we're still practicing it despite not being Catholic.

Click to expand...

That's near the truth. The solar calendar was instituted by pagan Romans, and it affected the Sabbath for both Jews and Christians, but it affected both differently. Both are equally wrong, and for the same reason.

HIM said:

Sabbath in this verse is plural not singular.

Click to expand...

or a feast
or a new moon
or a sabbath

Are three categories. And the listing together in a phrase is a listing of appointed times. We see this in long form in Numbers 28-29, where it gives the sacrifices for each appointed time.

We see a listing in short form in

Ezekiel 45:17 It shall be the prince's duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel.

We know that this listing encompassed the weekly Sabbath by the description of the details which follows:

Ezekiel 46:1 ‘Thus says the Lord God: “The gateway of the inner court that faces toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the Sabbath it shall be opened, and on the day of the New Moon it shall be opened. 2 The prince shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway from the outside, and stand by the gatepost. The priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings. He shall worship at the threshold of the gate. Then he shall go out, but the gate shall not be shut until evening. 3 Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the entrance to this gateway before the Lord on the Sabbaths and the New Moons. 4 The burnt offering that the prince offers to the Lord on the Sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish; 5 and the grain offering shall be one ephah for a ram, and the grain offering for the lambs, as much as he wants to give, as well as a hin of oil with every ephah. 6 On the day of the New Moon it shall be a young bull without blemish, six lambs, and a ram; they shall be without blemish.

It spells out the other appointed times separately.

Now the breakdown of these three categories looks like this:

feast- three pilgrim feasts, Passover, Tabernacles, Pentecost.
New moon- New moon
Sabbaths- Weekly Sabbath, Day of Atonement and Trumpets.

The Day of Atonement and Trumpets are also Sabbaths to the Lord.

A key verse for seeing how each appointed time falls into the list is the following:

2Ch 8:13 as the duty of each day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the three annual feasts--the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths.

The "feasts" component is defined. It includes the "chag" or festivals, the three yearly festivals.

But the sabbaths are included in the sabbaths listing, the weekly, the Day of Atonement and the trumpets.

Now having said that the verse says let no one judge you regarding....

Acts 21 relates that the thousands of believing Jews in Jerusalem were zealous for the whole law. They continued to keep the law seeing Jesus as the fulfillment. This included the sacrifices as in Acts 21 some go to make a vow and sacrifices are included. But they recognized the sacrifices point to Jesus.

They go on to list requirements for gentiles as spelled out in Acts 15, and still maintained at that time.

Folks can debate it beyond that. But Colossians 2 is a listing of holy times and includes the Weekly Sabbath. So what you do with the feast and new moon components, you have to do the same with the Sabbath.

If you want to keep the Sabbath to the Lord you can. But understand that Jesus is the basis of salvation, not works observance.

It has already been pointed out that the early church assembled on Sunday early on, before Constantine.

We also know that they continued in some cases to observe both Sabbath and the Lord's day in some churches for centuries following that.

Jamdoc said:

Not to be a Judaizer, but I do wish that Baptists at least would go back to Saturday worship, just because Sunday was something instigated by the Roman Catholic Church, and it's kinda like.. even though we're not Catholic, we're obeying a Catholic doctrine that they invented themselves. I don't like the idea of obeying the Pope at all.

Click to expand...

They kept both Sabbath and the Lord's day in many places for some time.

But for the in-depth explanation of the Catholic view of the relation of the Sabbath and the Lord's day you can see here:

Dies Domini (May 31, 1998) | John Paul II

Shane R said:

I lived in Appalachia for some time about 15 years ago and there were a few regional Baptist associations that did meet primarily on Saturdays. They also had a rather unusual system of rotating where the meetings would take place. I think this was due to having more little churches than preachers so the preachers would form a circuit and establish a visitation schedule. Many of these churches still employed the 'caller' to direct the music ministry. A very different Baptist culture from the folks that get TV slots.

Click to expand...

There is also the Seventh-day Baptists, but I don't think there are many of them.

Seventh Day Baptist General Conference | A Baptist Church That's A Little Different

Jamdoc said:

From the Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine

Click to expand...

I would look at the official catechism and the papal encyclical I posted before using an evangelistic abridged catechism to state official Catholic positions.

Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (336 A.D.) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.

It is a bit more complicated than that.

CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)

Canon 16

The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.


Canon 29

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

This was a regional synod, not ecumenical.


Here are a couple of historical records from the 5th century that show they were still noting a distinction between the two days, and in the one quote both are called "festal" days. Most churches were still celebrating mass on both days, but in Rome and Alexandria they had ceased to do so by some ancient tradition (the other churches didn't get the memo apparently).

Sozomen, 5th century
CHURCH FATHERS: Ecclesiastical History, Book VII (Sozomen)
The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.

Socrates Scholasticus, History book 5, 5th century CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book V (Socrates Scholasticus)
For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.

Work info: NPNF2-02. Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical Histories - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As often therefore as the festal days occurred. —I mean Sabbath and Lord’s day— in each week, on which assemblies are usually held in the churches, they congregated within the city gates about the public squares, and sang responsive verses adapted to the Arian heresy (Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book 6, Chapter 8, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3, p. 144)


Sozomon notes a variety of differences in worship practice at that time throughout the churches.

Keep in mind also this is long before the split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Albion said:

Not sure where you picked up that idea. Sunday worship precedes the Roman Catholic Church and is reflected in the Bible itself, which almost all Christians of any stripe consider to be the word of God.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. The "breaking of the bread" (the mass) is indeed mentioned in the Bible as taking place on Sunday. There is a beautiful detailed letter on the entire subject, written by John Paul II at:
Dies Domini (May 31, 1998) | John Paul II

Here is a bit of perspective on the history leading up to the regional synod of Laodicea.

The Jewish believers in Jerusalem continued to observe the law, meet in Synagogues until they were kicked out, etc. When Saul wanted to arrest Christians in Damascus, before his conversion, He planned on going to the synagogues:

Act 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
Act 9:2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Act 22:19 And I said, 'Lord, they themselves know that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you.

This made sense because the Scriptures were read in the synagogue. Not everyone had scrolls. Eventually they were put out of the synagogues. We see this at times in Acts. Then they would meet in homes, or in one mentioned instance, a lecture hall daily.

James, during the discussion of Acts 15 regarding salvation by faith and circumcision, the law of Moses etc. makes reference to the continuing preaching of Moses in the synagogue and assumes familiarity with the practice on the part of all present, from the various churches throughout the world:

Act 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

James references the synagogue when speaking to Jewish Christians:

Jam 2:2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,
Jam 2:3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet,"
Jam 2:4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

The word translated "assembly" here is the term for the synagogue.

James and the believers in Jerusalem were "zealous" for the law. Indeed, the Jewish believers there continued to practice the law and the traditions of the fathers and even Paul did so:

Act 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
Act 21:21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
Act 21:22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
Act 21:24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.
25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided e]">[e]that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from f]">[f]sexual immorality.”

They note the distinction made at the Jerusalem council, recorded in Acts 15. The Jewish believers went on observing the law. But the Gentiles were under the mandate from the council.

Paul was being accused of turning away Jews in the diaspora from the law. In actuality Paul was upholding that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised to be in Christ.

But it shows that the Jewish believers continued with all the law, including vows, sacrifices, etc. The question in Acts 15 was not what the Jews should give up, but what should be required of the gentiles.

And this made sense because witnessing the Jews while throwing out the Torah wouldn't get very far.

In the same way Christian evangelism would be limited by requiring Gentiles to be circumcised and obey the entire law of Moses, which was not needed for them to receive Christ by faith. You can check out Galatians which touches on these issues thoroughly. Galatians also points out that Gentiles are not without moral requirements, and walking in the Spirit fulfills the law. in fact Paul would at times use specific OT commandments, including from the Ten Commandments, to teach moral principles.

Both groups recognized the Grace of Christ, and extended fellowship. For instance in Acts 21 James and the elders welcomed with joy the report of the evangelizing of the Gentiles.

The Jewish believers, who were the dominant force in the church until at least 70 AD, and likely continued to be at least partly until the total destruction of Jerusalem and conversion of it to a hellenistic city, were fully accepted as members of Christ, though keeping the whole law. Not only were they accepted ,but they were the norm. For the first years of Christianity the church had not fully understood Jesus' command to go to the Gentiles. You can Read Acts 10-11 for the background on that, and Acts 15.

With the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jewish believers fled. But some continued that kept the law, and worshiped Christ. However, they grew apart from the gentile believers who now became the norm.

We see historical records of the "Nazarenes" who were Jewish believers.

Epiphanius' Panarionis a work that deals with all the heresies that the author is aware of. He resided in Palestine, so was closer to some of the issues in this regard. In this work he describes the Nazarenes:

For they use not only the New Testament but also the Old, like the Jews. For the Legislation and the Prophets and the Scriptures, which are called the Bible by the Jews, are not rejected by them as they are by those mentioned above [Manicheans, Marcionites, Gnostics]. Panarion 7.2

"Only in this respect they differ from the Jews and Christians: with the Jews they do not agree because of their belief in Christ, with the Christians because they are trained in the Law, in circumcision, the Sabbath, and the other things." "By birth they are Jews and they dedicate themselves to the Law and submit to circumcision." Panarion 7.5

However, they are very much hated by the Jews. For not only the Jewish children cherish hate against them but the people also stand up in the morning, at noon, and in the evening, three times a day and they pronounce curses and maledictions over them when they say their prayers in the synagogues. Three times a day they say: 'May God curse the Nazarenes.' For they are more hostile against them because they proclaim as Jews that Jesus is the Christ Panarion 9.2-3

"They have a good mastery of the Hebrew language. For the entire Law and the Prophets and what is called the Scriptures, I mention the poetical books, Kings, Chronicles and Ester and all the others, are read by them in Hebrew as in the case with the Jews, of course." Panarion 7.4

"They have the entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. It is carefully preserved by them in Hebrew letters." Panarion 9.4

Jerome also references the Nazarenes who kept the whole law:

"The Nazarenes, who accept Christ in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old law, explain the two houses as the two families, viz. Of Shammai and Hillel, from whom originated the Scribes and the Pharisees." Jerome's Commentary on Isaih (on Isaiah 8.14)


Now here is the upshot. These believers were in most ways quite orthodox, with Jerome and Epiphanius giving indications that they were also orthodox in their Christology. However, Epiphanius considers them heretics because of their observance of the law.

But they are practically no different than James and his group of Jewish believers in Jerusalem. It appears over time the Jewish believers in Christ and the gentiles grew apart.

Another statement on this point is seen in Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho (a non-Christian Jew). This is an earlier date than Epiphanius actually, and we see the divide starting to happen. Justin makes reference to a group who believes in Christ, but keeps the Jewish law. He extends fellowship to them, but considers them weak-minded.

But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reason of the hardness of the people's hearts, along with their hope in this Christ, and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren. But if, Trypho, I continued, some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. (Chapter 48)

Here we see a fascinating discussion in which Justin acknowledges that there are some who observe the law (confirmed much more strongly by Chrysostom later), along with faith. He extends fellowship to them, but doesn't want them to compel Gentiles. This is similar to what we saw in the book of Acts.

However, if some gentile Christians are compelled to keep various observances, he still thinks they will likely be saved (because they are acting in faith, not legalism), but doesn't like it too much.

So we see a growing apart of the two groups to a degree, and continued skepticism of gentiles being compelled to observe Jewish law.

Later this was present to an even greater degree and I would say some overreact.

John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians. 4th century
NPNF1-13. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

You will now understand why Paul calls circumcision a subversion of the Gospel. There are many among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly or rather ignobly and basely.

Chrsysostom has stronger statements, but this will suffice.

Albion said:

There are several. The most often cited is Acts of the Apostles 20:7. Using the following link, be sure also to read Ellicott's Commentary near the bottom of that page.

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Since Paul was ready to leave the next day, he talked to them and kept on speaking until midnight. (biblehub.com)

Click to expand...

It sounds like the OP is reading various Sabbatarian apologetics, which is fine to do, but they assert that this is occurring after a Sabbath meeting, which goes into Saturday night, after sundown, which is then considered the first day.

Certainly he speaks till midnight. So this is possible. but against that is the phrasing, On the first day of the week we came together to break bread, which suggests a recurring practice. The meeting went so long because he was to leave the next day.

In any case, likely they would meet in synagogues where it was still allowed early on and heard the Scriptures. But then there would be a need of particularly Christian teaching, and this seems to indicate that was happening on the first day.

I observe Shabbat on Saturdays. I didn't switch when I returned to church.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

Jamdoc said:

I've heard that it was Emperor Constantine that decreed in 321 that Sunday was the day of rest (himself formerly being a Pagan that practiced sunday worship of Pagan gods)

Click to expand...

Pagans worshipped on any day of the week. Your source is wrong about that.

Valletta said:

The Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written.

Click to expand...

We're familiar with the claim.

The "breaking of the bread" (the mass) is indeed mentioned in the Bible as taking place on Sunday.

Click to expand...

Acts 20:7

tall73 said:

The Jewish believers in Jerusalem continued to observe the law, meet in Synagogues until they were kicked out, etc. When Saul wanted to arrest Christians in Damascus, before his conversion, He planned on going to the synagogues:

The Jewish believers, who were the dominant force in the church until at least 70 AD, and likely continued to be at least partly until the total destruction of Jerusalem and conversion of it to a hellenistic city, were fully accepted as members of Christ, though keeping the whole law. Not only were they accepted ,but they were the norm. For the first years of Christianity the church had not fully understood Jesus' command to go to the Gentiles. You can Read Acts 10-11 for the background on that, and Acts 15.

With the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jewish believers fled. But some continued that kept the law, and worshiped Christ. However, they grew apart from the gentile believers who now became the norm.

Click to expand...

All of our Bishops of Jerusalem were Jews until 135 AD and the edict of Hadrian...afterwards, through necessity, gentile Greek Bishops had to be installed...

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

All of our Bishops of Jerusalem were Jews until 135 AD and the edict of Hadrian...afterwards, through necessity, gentile Greek Bishops had to be installed...

Click to expand...

Interesting, I had not connected the bishop list to that.

And unfortunately persecution at that time likely led some gentile Christians to further distance themselves from Jewish Christians.

Early bishops of Jerusalem