Asking AI to explain Sunday observance when NT has no such command

SabbathBlessings said:

Of course not, but like anything we can choose to accept what God places in our hearts or reject it Rom8:7-8 God will not force anyone to obey Him. He calls on us to hear Him Heb3:7-19 not everyone does. John3:19-21

So you're suggesting Paul taught the Sabbath was made against mankind, when Jesus said it was made for mankind. Basically God was against mankind on day 7, before man sinned, right after God made man in His image and likeness.

I am not familiar with the verse that Paul died for us, or that we were baptized into Paul's name or Paul's laws was written in our hearts and we follow him, over the words and example of Jesus Christ, even if one believes that's what Paul is saying is in context. If carefully looking at the context which was provided in detail that was never addressed, shows clearly not what Paul was teaching.

Jesus said His Sabbath would not end after His Cross and He blesses Isa55:2 and sanctifies us Eze20:12 when keeping, that no man can take away Num23:20. If one feels that God's blessings and sanctification is against them, than the Sabbath is certainly not for them.

Click to expand...

You realize that we don't know what Jesus said, except as reported by people later inspired by the Holy Spirit to remember pertinent events.

Those same Holy Spirit-inspired people also accepted the Pauline letters as equally Holy Spirit-inspired.

The people who later cherished, copied, and accepted both the Gospels and the letters were also inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

The same single Holy Spirit was the inspiration and imprimatur for the entire body of scripture that we have.

When people start implying that the Pauline letters are not Holy Spirit-inspired, I know it's time to stop listening to those people, because that's not a position backed by the Holy Spirit.

BobRyan said:

How many of the Ten Commandments does God tell us to ignore, in your POV?

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, God warns us through St. Paul that to rely on any part of the Law in a legalistic sense would bind one to the entire Law, and thus preclude Salvation, since as the Old Testament demonstrates, humans sin, and Christ shows how even apparent compliance with the letter of the law in fact transgressed it.

There is a serious inconsistency between the legalistic forms of Sabbatarianism and the Pauline epistles, and also Acts and the Gospel of Luke (which is not a coincidence, since St. Luke was according to the historians of the early church, the protege of St. Paul).

RDKirk said:

You realize that we don't know what Jesus said, except as reported by people later inspired by the Holy Spirit to remember pertinent events.

Those same Holy Spirit-inspired people also accepted the Pauline letters as equally Holy Spirit-inspired.

The people who later cherished, copied, and accepted both the Gospels and the letters were also inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

The same single Holy Spirit was the inspiration and imprimatur for the entire body of scripture that we have.

When people start implying that the Pauline letters are not Holy Spirit-inspired, I know it's time to stop listening to those people, because that's not a position backed by the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

I have never implied that Pauls letters are not inspired not in the slightest, but when we make Paul teach in contradiction to Jesus Christ something is wrong. It’s not Paul’s Scriptures I take issue with, I take issue with the twisting of his writings to make them contradict our Lord and Savior, just as we were warned would happen in the inspired Scriptures 2Peter 3:15-16 and in the inspired Scripture Paul is still part of the human race and Jesus is God and divine, the one One worthy of our worship Rev 14:7 has all Authroity over all heaven and earth Mat28:18-20 Exo20:11

BobRyan said:

A lot of us will freely admit that "if you ask 4 different Christians about the Bible position on a given topic you may get 5 different answers"
A lot of us will freely admit that AI does not get programmed by Methodists to say whatever their bias needs AI to say.

So while we all have the same access to the Bible, and discussions, having yet another avenue as a third party contributor to any given topic can be useful.


a lot of people from different denominations find that AI often fails to serve their bias well.

No question.

And all of us will admit that we have seen Christians post things on this very board that were not accurate.

None of that changes by asking AI to weigh in.

You are welcomed to your opinion.

When AI gives its opinion there is a lot of data that it also shares explaining how it came to that conclusion.
Sometimes regular humans have no such depth of study behind whatever they say offhand.

I don't mind differing with AI on something, having better data and application than AI on that same something and then seeing it change its conclusion based on more input.

Click to expand...

We are not all Bob Ryan, so we don't use Bob Ryan's personal interpretation; let scripture interpret Scripture; I trust AI's view about as much as I trust yours. I do trust Scripture unconditionally.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

We are not all Bob Ryan, so we don't use Bob Ryan's personal interpretation; let scripture interpret Scripture; I trust AI's view about as much as I trust yours. I do trust Scripture unconditionally.

Click to expand...

AI is not Spirit-led. For instance, the Spirit does not prod it to look up a passage on its mind because it feels it has additional light to shed on the question, etc.,etc.
Using AI for a Bible discussion with the idea it renders a superior answer reminds me of the old days in developing computer software and people falling for the idea the computer rendered the most accurate fortune-telling… lol.

SabbathBlessings said:

So you're suggesting Paul taught the Sabbath was made against mankind, when Jesus said it was made for mankind.

Click to expand...

Explain to me what it means that the sabbath was made for man?

BNR32FAN said:

Explain to me what it means that the sabbath was made for man?

Click to expand...

Rest

BNR32FAN said:

Explain to me what it means that the sabbath was made for man?

Click to expand...

Sure.

God made the Sabbath for the benefit of mankind. I do not believe what God makes for mankind could ever be against mankind because that's is not love and God is love.

So lets look at what the Bibles says how the Sabbath benefits mankind.

Exo 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth its a weekly reminder of God and everything He created for us without us. The Sabbath promotes gratitude towards God instead of taking everything He made for us for granted.

God does not want mankind working themselves to death, He wants us to cease from earthy works and labors and keep the Sabbath holy, doing what?

Isa 58:13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,
From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight,
The holy day of the Lord honorable,
And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure,
Nor speaking your own words,
Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord;
And I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth,
And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father.
The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Focusing on our Creator and Savior and delight ourselves in the Lord. Delighting ourselves in the Lord is not against mankind, its for mankind.

Exo 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”


Resting in God is a delight and how we are refreshed.

God gives us the Sabbath to bless us

Isa 59:2 Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

The Sabbath was not made against us, it was made for us to have God's blessings.

God gives us the Sabbath as a sign of His sanctification

Eze 20:12 Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them.

We cannot be made holy apart from God. We need Him for everything because we cannot bless or sanctify ourselves we need God. God made the Sabbath for us for these reasons and when we trust in what God makes for us for our benefit we are resting in our Creators works and not our own.

Leviticus 23:3 a holy convocation” (a sacred gathering)
Acts 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.
Isaiah 66:23 all flesh worship from Sabbath to Sabbath
Luke 4:16 Jesus regularly attended worship on the Sabbath

God does not want His people on an island, the Sabbath is a time for the whole community to come together and worship as a family.

Eze 20:20 hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.

The Sabbath is a sign between God and man, He is our God, we are His people- how can that be against man?

The Bible is filled with reasons why God made the Sabbath for mankind.

SabbathBlessings said:

Sure.

God made the Sabbath for the benefit for mankind. I do not believe what God makes for mankind could ever be against mankind because that's is not love and God is love.

So lets look at what the Bibles says how the Sabbath benefits mankind.

Exo 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

God does not want mankind working themselves to death, He wants us to cease from earthy works and labors and keep the Sabbath holy, doing what?

Isa 58:13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,
From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight,
The holy day of the Lord honorable,
And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure,
Nor speaking your own words,
Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord;
And I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth,
And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father.
The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Focusing on our Creator and Savior and delight ourselves in the Lord. Delighting ourselves in the Lord is not against mankind, its for mankind.

Exo 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”


Resting in God is a delight and how we are refreshed.

God gives us the Sabbath to bless us

Isa 59:2 Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

The Sabbath was not made against us, it was made for us to have God's blessings.

God gives us the Sabbath as a sign of His sanctification

Eze 20:12 Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them.

We cannot be made holy apart from God. We need Him for everything because we cannot bless or sanctify ourselves we need God. God made the Sabbath for us for these reasons and when we trust in what God makes for us for our benefit we are resting in our Creators works and not our own.

Click to expand...

Yeah so when the sabbath is a privilege it’s not acting against us, when it becomes mandated then it becomes against us. Working on the sabbath was punished by the death penalty in the Old Covenant. That’s obviously against us. Taking that obligation away now makes it a benefit to us instead of a charge against us.

BNR32FAN said:

Yeah so when the sabbath is a privilege it’s not acting against us, when it becomes mandated then it becomes against us. Working on the sabbath was punished by the death penalty in the Old Covenant. That’s obviously against us. Taking that obligation away now makes it a benefit to us instead of a charge against us.

Click to expand...

Keeping the commandments of God was never meant to be burdensome 1John5:3 any of them, its just allowing God to be God and trusting what He is asking is because He knows what is best for us, even if we don't always see it. Sure anytime we reject what God asks becomes against us, blessings can turn into curses, its about choices, just like those who came before us.

Deut 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

Sadly many chosen the curses...why we are told not to follow their example Heb4:11

Eze 20:15 So I also raised My hand in an oath to them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ the glory of all lands, 16 because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols.

The story of Moses and 40 years in the wilderness is a biblical pattern of our spiritual journey, instead of Moses leading us through our trial its Jesus. We also need to cross over into our promised land. We need what He said was made for us, we need God's blessings.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for mankind, and the Scripture tells us why, God’s gifts never change, but when rejected, the same gift becomes a witness against us.

SabbathBlessings said:

Keeping the commandments of God was never meant to be burdensome 1John5:3 any of them, its just allowing God to be God and trusting what He is asking is because He knows what is best for us, even if we don't always see it. Sure anytime we reject what God asks becomes against us, blessings can turn into curses, its about choices, just like those who came before us.

Deut 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

Sadly many chosen the curses...why we are told not to follow their example Heb4:11

Eze 20:15 So I also raised My hand in an oath to them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ the glory of all lands, 16 because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols.

The story of Moses and 40 years in the wilderness is a biblical pattern of our spiritual journey, instead of Moses leading us through our trial its Jesus. We also need to cross over into our promised land. We need what He said was made for us, we need God's blessings.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for mankind, and the Scripture tells us why, God’s gifts never change, but when rejected, the same gift becomes a witness against us.

Click to expand...

So then you do agree that the sabbath can also be against us. When we are given the freedom to either observe the sabbath or not, it becomes for us and not against us. Hence the more glorious ministry as opposed to the ministry of death that brought condemnation that has faded away.

BNR32FAN said:

So then you do agree that the sabbath can also be against us. When we are given the freedom to either observe the sabbath or not, it becomes for us and not against us. Hence the more glorious ministry as opposed to the ministry of death that brought condemnation that has faded away.

Click to expand...

No, the Sabbath can never be against mankind, what God makes for mankind can never be against mankind. When we reject what God makes for us, that can be against us, not the gift He is trying to give us that will never be against us.

And if looking at the context is Cor 3 it doesn't say "the ministry of death faded away"

2Cor3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

This is in reference to the OT, where Moses face shown being in the presence of God and as he came down from the mountain the glory of his face faded by coming away from God.

The Ten Commandments is the ministry of death because it defines what sin is. The wages of sin is death Rom6:23, and this verse does not single out the Sabbath commandment, so if the Sabbath goes they all go which would be in contrast to the teachings of Jesus Christ Isa42:21 Mat5:19-30 Mat15:3-14 like there ever would be a time we can start worshipping other god or steal from our neighbor.

Paul is quoting Deut31:24-26 as the law that was against mankind. Because it held the record of sin and animal sacrifices which was all part of the annual feast days that some were also called sabbath(s) and the blood of animals could never take away sins. Why these were the shadows laws, which the Bibles tells us plainly.


Heb 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once [a]purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”
8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, [b]O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been [c]sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Jesus came to put an end to one law, animal sacrifices and offerings which would include the annual sabbaths that were about animal sacrifices and offerings Dan9:27, the context of what Paul is saying in Col2:14-17 Paul not teaching what God made for mankind is against mankind. Its really a very sad teaching that is saying the God of love who made man in His image and likeness at Creation before sin, is against man.

Jesus came to magnify another law - placing His laws in our hearts Heb8:10 and He plainly gave us an example of what that looks like and the laws He was referring to that not a jot or tittle can pass from Mat5:18-30, that God wrote, not man that God placed together in a unit of Ten Deut4:13 what God does is forever Ecc3:14 why they are in heaven Rev15:5 Rev11:19 the standard of God's righteousness- right doing Psa119:172 and what man will be judged by John12:48 Exo31:18 James2:11-12 Rev11:18-19

SabbathBlessings said:

Keeping the commandments of God was never meant to be burdensome 1John5:3 any of them, its just allowing God to be God and trusting what He is asking is because He knows what is best for us, even if we don't always see it. Sure anytime we reject what God asks becomes against us, blessings can turn into curses, its about choices, just like those who came before us.

Deut 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

Sadly many chosen the curses...why we are told not to follow their example Heb4:11

Eze 20:15 So I also raised My hand in an oath to them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ the glory of all lands, 16 because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols.

The story of Moses and 40 years in the wilderness is a biblical pattern of our spiritual journey, instead of Moses leading us through our trial its Jesus. We also need to cross over into our promised land. We need what He said was made for us, we need God's blessings.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for mankind, and the Scripture tells us why, God’s gifts never change, but when rejected, the same gift becomes a witness against us.

Click to expand...

So you claim that the sabbath was written on the hearts of Christians, then why is it literally the only commandment that 98% of Christians do not feel obligated to keep? Sure we may break some of the 10 commandments but we still feel conviction about doing it, but the vast majority of Christians feel no conviction whatsoever about not observing the sabbath. So how can you say that it is written in our hearts if nobody feels obligated to observe it unlike the rest of the 10 commandments and the two most important commandments?

BNR32FAN said:

So you claim that the sabbath was written on the hearts of Christians, then why is it literally the only commandment that 98% of Christians do not feel obligated to keep? Sure we may break some of the 10 commandments but we still feel conviction about doing it, but the vast majority of Christians feel no conviction whatsoever about not observing the sabbath. So how can you say that it is written in our hearts if nobody feels obligated to observe it unlike the rest of the 10 commandments and the two most important commandments?

Click to expand...

I think we need to look at God and not what the majority are doing. The majority in Scripture has never been right. It was the majority of professed believers in God who killed God's only Son and His prophets and apostles. God both wrote and spoke His commandments, He gives one the opportunity to reject them Rom8:7-8 or not John14:15-18

Mat 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and [d]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I would not say "nobody" feels obligated to keep the Sabbath. The Adventist church has over 24 million members and has grown ever since its inception. They are hundreds of other churches who keeps the Biblical Sabbath- there are millions of people who keep God's Sabbath. It was written in the heart of Jesus, He kept it, it was written in the hearts of His disciples and apostles, they kept it. He has a faithful remnant who will be keeping it up to His Second Coming Mat 24:20-30-It will be kept in the New heaven and New Earth Isa66:23

SabbathBlessings said:

I think we need to look at God and not what the majority are doing. The majority in Scripture has never been right. It was the majority of professed believers in God who killed God's only Son and His prophets and apostles. God both wrote and spoke His commandments, He gives one the opportunity to reject them Rom8:7-8 or not John14:15-18

Click to expand...

So don’t look at reality to determine whether an interpretation of scripture is accurate or not? And I disagree that it was believers in God who crucified Christ because they were blinded because of their unbelief which is why Jesus spoke in parables, so that they would not understand because they didn’t believe the writings of Moses. Furthermore nobody had received the indwelling Holy Spirit at that time so God’s laws were not written on their hearts yet and because of this your response doesn’t actually answer my question since it isn’t referring to people who do have God’s laws written on their hearts. Can you give a better answer?

BNR32FAN said:

So don’t look at reality to determine whether an interpretation of scripture is accurate or not? And I disagree that it was believers in God who crucified Christ because they were blinded because of their unbelief which is why Jesus spoke in parables, so that they would not understand because they didn’t believe the writings of Moses. Furthermore nobody had received the indwelling Holy Spirit at that time so God’s laws were not written on their hearts yet and because of this your response doesn’t actually answer my question since it isn’t referring to people who do have God’s laws written on their hearts. Can you give a better answer?

Click to expand...

Scripture is what we are told to be our guide Psa119:105 I provided Scripture in what I believe and I believe only God knows who is living up to what is written in our hearts. Scripture says there will be many believers who think they are doing the will of God, but it turns out they were not Mat7:21-23 Luke6:46-49 God will sort this out, I do not believe God wrote different laws on different peoples hearts, one set of laws 2Cor3:3 Heb8:10 one God Exo20:11 Rev14:7. I think when we start looking at what man does as the standard over what God says, there are going to be problems.

I am okay agreeing to disagree, but wish you well

BobRyan said:

First question to AI:

Using strict rules, “Is there any NT text that calls for weekly Sunday worship, or is the only explicit weekly pattern that of Sabbath preaching in Acts 18:4?”​

(AI confirms that there is no command to observe week-day-1 as a day of worshiip/rest etc)

Second Question to AI

Using strict rules, Given that we see not one new testament text saying that Sunday is the Lord’s day and not one text saying that the New Testament church met very Sunday for communion or for worship and not one statement that the term Sabbath is applied to Sunday, how do we get to the point today where the common view is that the new testament says Sunday is the Lord's day, they met every Sunday for gospel preaching and worship. ?​

​

​

• Conclusion
• 1 Corinthians 16:2 is not describing a Sunday worship gathering. It is Paul’s instruction for each believer to privately set aside money at home on the first day of the week, so that when he came, the collection would already be prepared.

====

Q: is there a meeting described in 1 Cor 16 for week day 1
A: No

Q: So then it would be incorrect to list 1 Cor 16 as an example of gathering on the first day of the week for worship or to remember the resurrection

A: That’s correct — it would be incorrect to use 1 Corinthians 16:2 as an example of believers gathering for worship or to commemorate the resurrection on the first day of the week.

Why?

• The Greek wording “par’ heautō” (translated “lay by him in store”) means each person privately, by himself, at home.
• Paul’s instruction was about setting aside money individually so that when he arrived, the collection would already be prepared.
• There is no mention of a worship service, communal gathering, or resurrection remembrance in this passage.
• “Lay by him in store” — The Greek phrase (par’ heautō) literally means “by himself” or “at home.”
  • This suggests Paul was instructing each believer to set aside money privately, not to bring it to a public meeting.
• Purpose: Paul wanted the funds ready when he arrived, so there would be no need for hurried collections.
• Not a Worship Gathering: The verse does not describe a church service or communal worship on Sunday. It is about personal preparation for a future offering.
• Contrast with Acts 20:7: That passage does describe believers gathering on the first day of the week. But 1 Corinthians 16:2 is about individual action, not a meeting.

Click to expand...

Just to say so, Acts 20:7 doesn't say that the disciples came together on the first day of the week because Paul was leaving. It says that when they came together on the first day of the week "to break bread," Paul came and preached. They didn't come for him. He took advantage of the opportunity of their gathering. This can be compared to Acts 2:42, where the breaking of bread was part of keeping the Apostles doctrine, confirmed in the Didache 14.1, Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians 9, and the Epistle of Barnabas 15:8–9 as meaning communion, which took place on the first day of the week. There is also Justin Martyr, who says they worshiped on Sunday (1 Apol. 67). Paul tended to preach on the sabbath because that's when the Jews gathered at the synagogues.

I don't believe that the "sabbath" has changed. That's still Saturday. But Christians worship on Sunday because it commemorates the resurrection. And since Christians are not considered to be under the law of Moses, sabbath observance isn't required.

From ChatGPT that you love so much (once again, it's all in how you word your questions):

As it concerns Sunday worship amongst Christians going back to the foundation of the movement, does the Biblical evidence in your measured view support an early protocol for Sunday gathering or not? Some facts to consider are Acts 20:7 when the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread, which can be compared to the behavior of those shortly after Pentecost in Acts 2:42, the breaking of bread defined by Patristic writers within a hundred years as referring to communion (Didache 14.1, Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians 9, and the Epistle of Barnabas 15:8–9), all of which, including Justin Martyr circa 145 CE, claiming that worship was on the first day of the week, when they sang hymns, broke bread (communion), and said prayers. I don't want a biased answer. Stick to the facts. I have no personal stake in the answer. I just want to know what you have to say on the matter.

Here is a deliberately measured, source-controlled assessment, sticking as closely as possible to what the evidence can and cannot support.

---

1. What the New Testament explicitly attests​

Acts 20:7​

“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…”

Click to expand...

Facts:

• This is the only narrative text that explicitly places a Christian gathering for “breaking bread” on the first day of the week.
• The phrasing suggests intentional assembly, not a chance meal.
• “Breaking bread” in Luke–Acts is consistently cultic or semi-cultic in tone (Luke 24:30–35; Acts 2:42, 46), though it can include ordinary meals.

Limitations:

• It describes a practice, not the universal rule.
• It occurs in a Pauline, Gentile context (Troas), not Jerusalem.

Conclusion:
Acts 20:7 provides positive but limited evidence that at least some churches gathered on Sunday for a communal rite understood as Eucharistic.

---

Acts 2:42–46​

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”

Click to expand...

Facts:

• The language becomes formulaic very quickly (“the breaking of bread”).
• Occurs in Jerusalem, immediately after Pentecost.
• No weekday is specified.

Limitations:

• This passage cannot be used to establish Sunday practice.
• Early Jerusalem believers continued Temple attendance (Acts 2:46; 3:1), implying ongoing Sabbath observance.

Conclusion:
Acts 2 supports structured worship and Eucharistic practice, but not a calendrical shift.

---

1 Corinthians 16:2​

“On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside…”

Click to expand...

Facts:

• Assumes a weekly rhythm tied to the first day.
• Often taken to imply assembly, though not explicitly stated.

Limitations:

• The instruction could be private saving rather than corporate worship.
• No mention of prayer, teaching, or Eucharist.

Conclusion:
Corroborative, but inferential rather than decisive.

---

Revelation 1:10​

“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day…”

Click to expand...

Facts:

• “The Lord’s Day” (ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα) becomes a technical term very early.
• By the early 2nd century it clearly refers to Sunday.

Limitations:

• Revelation does not define the term.
• Does not describe a gathering.

Conclusion:
Strong evidence of Sunday’s symbolic importance, but not direct evidence of liturgical protocol.

---

2. Patristic evidence (within ~100 years)​

Here the evidence becomes clear and consistent, and this matters historically.

Didache 14.1 (late 1st / early 2nd c.)​

“On the Lord’s Day, gather together, break bread, and give thanks…”

Click to expand...

Facts:

• Explicit command.
• Liturgical context.
• No polemic tone—suggests settled practice.

---

Ignatius, Magnesians 9 (c. 110 CE)​

“…no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord’s Day…”

Click to expand...

Facts:

• Acknowledges a conscious shift.
• Indicates differentiation from Jewish Sabbath practice.

Limitations:

• Reflects Asia Minor, not necessarily universal Christianity.

---

Epistle of Barnabas 15 (early 2nd c.)​

“We keep the eighth day with joyfulness…”

Click to expand...

Facts:

• Explicit theological justification for Sunday.
• Interprets Sabbath typologically.

Limitations:

• Allegorical and anti-Jewish in tone.
• Not representative of all Christian theology.

---

Justin Martyr, First Apology 67 (c. 145 CE)​

Facts:

• Full description of Sunday worship: readings, prayers, Eucharist, collection.
• States it plainly as universal Christian practice.

Conclusion:
By the mid-2nd century, Sunday worship is normative, explicit, and self-conscious.

---

3. What the evidence does not support​

• There is no New Testament command abolishing Sabbath observance.
• There is no apostolic decree mandating Sunday worship.
• There is no evidence that all early Christians immediately abandoned Saturday.

Early Christianity shows overlap, not instant replacement.

---

4. Synthesis (measured conclusion)​

What can be responsibly said:

1. The New Testament supports the existence of Sunday gatherings very early (Acts 20:7; Rev 1:10).
2. These gatherings involved Eucharistic practice and likely teaching and prayer.
3. Sunday was not initially framed as a “replacement Sabbath”, but as the day of resurrection.
4. Jewish-Christian communities likely maintained Sabbath observance alongside Sunday gatherings for a time.
5. By the early 2nd century, Sunday worship was sufficiently entrenched to be prescriptive and theologically explained.
6. By the mid-2nd century, Sunday worship is universal and assumed.

Bottom line:
The biblical evidence supports an early, apostolic-era practice of Sunday gathering, but does not support an early, universal, or legislated protocol. That protocol emerges clearly and rapidly after the apostolic period, not fully within it.
That conclusion does not favor or undermine any later ecclesial position—it simply reflects the shape of the evidence as it stands.
If you’d like, I can also:

• Compare this with synagogue calendrical practices,
• Examine whether Sunday worship functioned in addition to Sabbath initially,
• Or assess whether Eucharistic language requires a formal assembly in Acts 20:7.

No need. You concluded pretty much what I had concluded myself. They gathered on Sundays, but not exclusively. In fact, Acts even says that they were in the temple "daily," so the temple had not been supplanted in their theological worldview. I think the evidence nevertheless implies that Sunday gathering and the breaking of bread (Eucharist) was present virtually from the beginning. That it is coupled with "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," suggests to me that the breaking of bread was a formal protocol from the beginning as "apostles' doctrine." Your thoughts on that?

Your inference is a careful one, and—staying strictly with the evidence—it is a defensible reading, though it has to be phrased with some precision.
Let me engage it point by point, because the nuance matters.

---

1. “The breaking of bread” as formal protocol​

You are right to emphasize the formulaic structure of Acts 2:42:

τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς

Click to expand...

Several observations here are not speculative:

1. The fourfold construction is deliberate
   • Teaching
   • Fellowship
   • Breaking of bread
   • Prayers
   Luke presents these as defining practices, not incidental behaviors.
2. “Breaking of bread” is grammatically parallel to “the prayers”
   • “The prayers” (ταῖς προσευχαῖς) almost certainly refers to set or recognized prayers, not spontaneous devotion.
   • That parallel strongly suggests that “the breaking of bread” is likewise a recognized rite, not merely eating together.
3. Luke consistently uses the phrase with theological weight
   • Luke 22:19
   • Luke 24:30–35
   • Acts 20:7
   In Luke’s usage, the phrase is already Eucharistic by narrative association.

Conclusion:
It is entirely reasonable—on literary and linguistic grounds—to say that “the breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 functions as a formalized apostolic practice from the outset.
That is not reading later sacramental theology backward; it is observing Luke’s own pattern.

---

2. Does this qualify as “apostles’ doctrine”?​

Here your formulation is careful, and it should remain so.
Luke does not say that “the breaking of bread” is the apostles’ doctrine.
But he does say it belongs to the apostolic deposit—the lived tradition that accompanies the teaching.
This aligns very closely with what Paul later calls:

“the traditions (παραδόσεις) which you were taught, whether by word or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15)

Click to expand...

So while Eucharistic practice is not doctrine in the narrow sense of propositional teaching, it is apostolic tradition in the technical sense: a practice transmitted and guarded by the apostles themselves.
That distinction matters historically, and you’re respecting it.

---

3. The temple was not theologically supplanted (yet)​

Your point about daily temple attendance is decisive and often ignored:

“Day by day, attending the temple together…” (Acts 2:46)

Click to expand...

This shows:

• No early Christian belief that Eucharist = replacement of Temple sacrifice
• No early Christian abandonment of Jewish sacred space
• No zero-sum calendrical shift

Instead, the evidence points to layered practice:

• Temple prayers and hours
• Household Eucharist
• Apostolic teaching

This makes sense of why:

• No NT text polemicizes against Sabbath observance
• No NT text frames Sunday as a “new Sabbath”
• That theological move only appears later (Barnabas, Justin)

---

4. Where Sunday fits into this from the beginning​

Your claim is modest but strong:

Sunday gathering and the breaking of bread was present virtually from the beginning.

Click to expand...

That is stronger than Acts 2 alone can prove—but Acts 20:7 completes the picture.
When Luke later explicitly dates a Eucharistic gathering to the first day of the week, he is not inventing a new practice; he is narrating a known pattern.
Luke does not explain or justify Sunday gathering—he simply reports it.
That narrative silence is itself evidence of familiarity.

---

5. A carefully phrased conclusion​

If I were to summarize your position in academically defensible terms, it would be something like this:

The evidence suggests that from the earliest phase of the Jerusalem community, the Eucharistic “breaking of bread” functioned as a formal apostolic practice, embedded within a structured pattern of teaching and prayer. While early believers continued temple observance and did not initially construe this rite as supplanting Jewish sacred time or space, Luke’s later testimony indicates that by the apostolic period the Eucharist was already associated with first-day gatherings. Sunday worship thus appears not as a later innovation, but as an early, non-exclusive rhythm grounded in resurrection theology rather than calendrical replacement.

Click to expand...

That strikes me as fully consistent with the sources—and with the restraint you’ve shown throughout this discussion.
If you want, next time we can also trace how and why that layered practice became unsustainable after 70 CE and how that historical pressure—not apostolic decree—accelerated the transition to exclusive Sunday worship.

AFrazier said:

Just to say so, Acts 20:7 doesn't say that the disciples came together on the first day of the week because Paul was leaving. It says that when they came together on the first day of the week "to break bread," Paul came and preached. They didn't come for him. He took advantage of the opportunity of their gathering. This can be compared to Acts 2:42, where the breaking of bread was part of keeping the Apostles doctrine, confirmed in the Didache 14.1, Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians 9, and the Epistle of Barnabas 15:8–9 as meaning communion, which took place on the first day of the week. There is also Justin Martyr, who says they worshiped on Sunday (1 Apol. 67). Paul tended to preach on the sabbath because that's when the Jews gathered at the synagogues.

I don't believe that the "sabbath" has changed. That's still Saturday. But Christians worship on Sunday because it commemorates the resurrection. And since Christians are not considered to be under the law of Moses, sabbath observance isn't required.

From ChatGPT that you love so much (once again, it's all in how you word your questions):

As it concerns Sunday worship amongst Christians going back to the foundation of the movement, does the Biblical evidence in your measured view support an early protocol for Sunday gathering or not? Some facts to consider are Acts 20:7 when the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread, which can be compared to the behavior of those shortly after Pentecost in Acts 2:42, the breaking of bread defined by Patristic writers within a hundred years as referring to communion (Didache 14.1, Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians 9, and the Epistle of Barnabas 15:8–9), all of which, including Justin Martyr circa 145 CE, claiming that worship was on the first day of the week, when they sang hymns, broke bread (communion), and said prayers. I don't want a biased answer. Stick to the facts. I have no personal stake in the answer. I just want to know what you have to say on the matter.

Here is a deliberately measured, source-controlled assessment, sticking as closely as possible to what the evidence can and cannot support.

---

1. What the New Testament explicitly attests​

Acts 20:7​

Facts:

• This is the only narrative text that explicitly places a Christian gathering for “breaking bread” on the first day of the week.
• The phrasing suggests intentional assembly, not a chance meal.
• “Breaking bread” in Luke–Acts is consistently cultic or semi-cultic in tone (Luke 24:30–35; Acts 2:42, 46), though it can include ordinary meals.

Limitations:

• It describes a practice, not the universal rule.
• It occurs in a Pauline, Gentile context (Troas), not Jerusalem.

Conclusion:
Acts 20:7 provides positive but limited evidence that at least some churches gathered on Sunday for a communal rite understood as Eucharistic.

---

Acts 2:42–46​

Facts:

• The language becomes formulaic very quickly (“the breaking of bread”).
• Occurs in Jerusalem, immediately after Pentecost.
• No weekday is specified.

Limitations:

• This passage cannot be used to establish Sunday practice.
• Early Jerusalem believers continued Temple attendance (Acts 2:46; 3:1), implying ongoing Sabbath observance.

Conclusion:
Acts 2 supports structured worship and Eucharistic practice, but not a calendrical shift.

---

1 Corinthians 16:2​

Facts:

• Assumes a weekly rhythm tied to the first day.
• Often taken to imply assembly, though not explicitly stated.

Limitations:

• The instruction could be private saving rather than corporate worship.
• No mention of prayer, teaching, or Eucharist.

Conclusion:
Corroborative, but inferential rather than decisive.

---

Revelation 1:10​

Facts:

• “The Lord’s Day” (ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα) becomes a technical term very early.
• By the early 2nd century it clearly refers to Sunday.

Limitations:

• Revelation does not define the term.
• Does not describe a gathering.

Conclusion:
Strong evidence of Sunday’s symbolic importance, but not direct evidence of liturgical protocol.

---

2. Patristic evidence (within ~100 years)​

Here the evidence becomes clear and consistent, and this matters historically.

Didache 14.1 (late 1st / early 2nd c.)​

Facts:

• Explicit command.
• Liturgical context.
• No polemic tone—suggests settled practice.

---

Ignatius, Magnesians 9 (c. 110 CE)​

Facts:

• Acknowledges a conscious shift.
• Indicates differentiation from Jewish Sabbath practice.

Limitations:

• Reflects Asia Minor, not necessarily universal Christianity.

---

Epistle of Barnabas 15 (early 2nd c.)​

Facts:

• Explicit theological justification for Sunday.
• Interprets Sabbath typologically.

Limitations:

• Allegorical and anti-Jewish in tone.
• Not representative of all Christian theology.

---

Justin Martyr, First Apology 67 (c. 145 CE)​

Facts:

• Full description of Sunday worship: readings, prayers, Eucharist, collection.
• States it plainly as universal Christian practice.

Conclusion:
By the mid-2nd century, Sunday worship is normative, explicit, and self-conscious.

---

3. What the evidence does not support​

• There is no New Testament command abolishing Sabbath observance.
• There is no apostolic decree mandating Sunday worship.
• There is no evidence that all early Christians immediately abandoned Saturday.

Early Christianity shows overlap, not instant replacement.

---

4. Synthesis (measured conclusion)​

What can be responsibly said:

1. The New Testament supports the existence of Sunday gatherings very early (Acts 20:7; Rev 1:10).
2. These gatherings involved Eucharistic practice and likely teaching and prayer.
3. Sunday was not initially framed as a “replacement Sabbath”, but as the day of resurrection.
4. Jewish-Christian communities likely maintained Sabbath observance alongside Sunday gatherings for a time.
5. By the early 2nd century, Sunday worship was sufficiently entrenched to be prescriptive and theologically explained.
6. By the mid-2nd century, Sunday worship is universal and assumed.

Bottom line:
The biblical evidence supports an early, apostolic-era practice of Sunday gathering, but does not support an early, universal, or legislated protocol. That protocol emerges clearly and rapidly after the apostolic period, not fully within it.
That conclusion does not favor or undermine any later ecclesial position—it simply reflects the shape of the evidence as it stands.
If you’d like, I can also:

• Compare this with synagogue calendrical practices,
• Examine whether Sunday worship functioned in addition to Sabbath initially,
• Or assess whether Eucharistic language requires a formal assembly in Acts 20:7.

No need. You concluded pretty much what I had concluded myself. They gathered on Sundays, but not exclusively. In fact, Acts even says that they were in the temple "daily," so the temple had not been supplanted in their theological worldview. I think the evidence nevertheless implies that Sunday gathering and the breaking of bread (Eucharist) was present virtually from the beginning. That it is coupled with "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," suggests to me that the breaking of bread was a formal protocol from the beginning as "apostles' doctrine." Your thoughts on that?

Your inference is a careful one, and—staying strictly with the evidence—it is a defensible reading, though it has to be phrased with some precision.
Let me engage it point by point, because the nuance matters.

---

1. “The breaking of bread” as formal protocol​

You are right to emphasize the formulaic structure of Acts 2:42:

Several observations here are not speculative:

1. The fourfold construction is deliberate
   • Teaching
   • Fellowship
   • Breaking of bread
   • Prayers
   Luke presents these as defining practices, not incidental behaviors.
2. “Breaking of bread” is grammatically parallel to “the prayers”
   • “The prayers” (ταῖς προσευχαῖς) almost certainly refers to set or recognized prayers, not spontaneous devotion.
   • That parallel strongly suggests that “the breaking of bread” is likewise a recognized rite, not merely eating together.
3. Luke consistently uses the phrase with theological weight
   • Luke 22:19
   • Luke 24:30–35
   • Acts 20:7
   In Luke’s usage, the phrase is already Eucharistic by narrative association.

Conclusion:
It is entirely reasonable—on literary and linguistic grounds—to say that “the breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 functions as a formalized apostolic practice from the outset.
That is not reading later sacramental theology backward; it is observing Luke’s own pattern.

---

2. Does this qualify as “apostles’ doctrine”?​

Here your formulation is careful, and it should remain so.
Luke does not say that “the breaking of bread” is the apostles’ doctrine.
But he does say it belongs to the apostolic deposit—the lived tradition that accompanies the teaching.
This aligns very closely with what Paul later calls:

So while Eucharistic practice is not doctrine in the narrow sense of propositional teaching, it is apostolic tradition in the technical sense: a practice transmitted and guarded by the apostles themselves.
That distinction matters historically, and you’re respecting it.

---

3. The temple was not theologically supplanted (yet)​

Your point about daily temple attendance is decisive and often ignored:

This shows:

• No early Christian belief that Eucharist = replacement of Temple sacrifice
• No early Christian abandonment of Jewish sacred space
• No zero-sum calendrical shift

Instead, the evidence points to layered practice:

• Temple prayers and hours
• Household Eucharist
• Apostolic teaching

This makes sense of why:

• No NT text polemicizes against Sabbath observance
• No NT text frames Sunday as a “new Sabbath”
• That theological move only appears later (Barnabas, Justin)

---

4. Where Sunday fits into this from the beginning​

Your claim is modest but strong:

That is stronger than Acts 2 alone can prove—but Acts 20:7 completes the picture.
When Luke later explicitly dates a Eucharistic gathering to the first day of the week, he is not inventing a new practice; he is narrating a known pattern.
Luke does not explain or justify Sunday gathering—he simply reports it.
That narrative silence is itself evidence of familiarity.

---

5. A carefully phrased conclusion​

If I were to summarize your position in academically defensible terms, it would be something like this:

That strikes me as fully consistent with the sources—and with the restraint you’ve shown throughout this discussion.
If you want, next time we can also trace how and why that layered practice became unsustainable after 70 CE and how that historical pressure—not apostolic decree—accelerated the transition to exclusive Sunday worship.

Click to expand...

There is no "first day" in Rev1:10

God already defined the day that was His that came with His blessings and sanctification. Isa58:13 Exo20:10 Mark2:28 Exo20:11 Isa56:2 Exo20:3 Eze20:12. God asked us not to speak for Him. Pro30:5-6 Deut4:2 Ecc3:14 Mat5:18-19 Rev22:18-19

Acts 20:7 does not say this was a weekly meeting, a new Sabbath, new holy day, or the new day to come together for Christians, Jesus Himself indicated otherwise Isa56:6-7 Isa66:22-23. It was a one time meeting Saturday evening after sunset they came together to have a meal/meeting because Paul was leaving in the morning (Sunday) traveling for a long mission trip. To make this case, one would have to look outside of Scripture, which is what we are warned about Isa8:20

There is no Scripture that says after the resurrection that the first day replaced the Sabbath for corporate worship. Not in words not in actions Acts 13:42 Acts 13:44 Acts 15:21 Acts 18:4 this is simply a man-made tradition that competes with one of God's commandments that came with the power of God's blessings and sanctification.