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

AFrazier · Jan 5, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
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.

Whatever you say boss. Guess you just got it all figured out.

SabbathBlessings · Jan 5, 2026

AFrazier said:
Whatever you say boss. Guess you just got it all figured out.

I don't, but God does. Sticking with what He said to live by Mat4:4 everything will be just fine.

BNR32FAN · Jan 5, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
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.

So if we can’t know whether something is written in our hearts then what’s the point of it being written in our heart? What you’re saying sound exactly like the ministry written in stone, like there’s nothing different about the new ministry at all.

BNR32FAN · Jan 5, 2026

BobRyan said:
Some Christians accept the Bible teaching on a real 7 day creation week.
Other Christians think evolutionism is a better explanation of reality and origins

Some of the Christians who accept Biblical creation also accept an unbent unedited Sabbath remaining to this very day.

Does real history "Change" depending on which group you are in?

Does God "sanctify" other days of the week depending on your preference?

Is it your view that the Holy Spirit does not work with all Christians or do you just think He tells different Christian opposing doctrine?

Jesus said the Holy Spirit will "lead you into all truth" , He did not say "you already know all truth, nothing more to teach"

Right but would you agree that the other 9 commandments and the two most important commandments are written on the vast majority of Christian hearts?

BNR32FAN · Jan 5, 2026

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

We don't tell Catholics that they lose salvation if they worship using images, pray to the dead, etc.

The Holy Spirit convicts each person of Truth.

But that does not mean that "Truth changes" depending whether it is a Methodist or an Eastern Orthodox priest praying

He tells us to ignore the 4th commandment. Roman Catholics don’t worship images, it’s actually forbidden by the RCC, and praying to the dead is not forbidden anywhere in scripture. What is forbidden is seeking council which involves attempting to acquire information thru a 2 way conversation. As far as what Methodists and Orthodox priests are praying I guess that would depend on the specifics of their prayer.

SabbathBlessings · Jan 5, 2026

BNR32FAN said:
So if we can’t know whether something is written in our hearts then what’s the point of it being written in our heart? What you’re saying sound exactly like the ministry written in stone, like there’s nothing different about the new ministry at all.

What was written on stone did not end, its needed to show us our sin and God's standard of righteousness Psa119:172 Isa56:1-2 so we are not relying on what we feel is right or wrong. He said the words of the covenant He would not alter Exo34:28 Psa89:34, the location changed, the promises changed not the Testimony of God that is holy just and good Rom7:12 and perfect Psa19:7

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

God wrote it in our hearts so it would become part of who we are are, we are not just seeing it written on stones we are living it in our hearts right where sin starts.

Jesus said when we lay aside the commandment of God quoting from the Ten Commandments Mat15:3-14 Mark7:7-13- ones heart is far from Him, because we are rejecting what He asks of us if we love Him. John14:15 Exo20:6 1John5:3

BNR32FAN · Jan 5, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
What was written on stone did not end, its needed to show us our sin and God's standard of righteousness Psa119:172 Isa56:1-2 so we are not relying on what we feel is right or wrong. He said the words of the covenant He would not alter Exo34:28 Psa89:34, the location changed, the promises changed not the Testimony of God that is holy just and good Rom7:12 and perfect Psa19:7

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

God wrote it in our hearts so it would become part of who we are are, we are not just seeing it written on stones we are living it in our hearts right where sin starts.

Jesus said when we lay aside the commandment of God quoting from the Ten Commandments Mat15:3-14 Mark7:7-13- ones heart is far from Him, because we are rejecting what He asks of us if we love Him. John14:15 Exo20:6 1John5:3

Again you’re saying that the ministry of death and condemnation hasn’t changed at all.

“For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.”
‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So you don’t think there’s any significance to all Christians worldwide feeling conviction about the other 9 commandments and the two most important commandments? It’s just coincidence?

SabbathBlessings · Jan 5, 2026

BNR32FAN said:
Again you’re saying that the ministry of death and condemnation hasn’t changed at all.

“For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.”
‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭3‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So you don’t think there’s any significance to all Christians worldwide feeling conviction about the other 9 commandments and the two most important commandments? It’s just coincidence?

Its referring to the OT and is speaking about the countenance of Moses face and you can read about this in Exodus 34

Exo 34:29 Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses’ hand when he came down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him. 30 So when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him.

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,

The law condemns, it does not provide the power to obey, the ministry of Jesus does, through our cooperation and His Spirit.

John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another [e]Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

If you believe Paul said that as to indicate the law of God ended and than turned around and said God's commandments are holy, just and good Rom7:12, what matters is keeping them 1Cor7:19 breaking them is sin Rom7:7 which if we continue, remains no more sacrifice Heb10:26-30 it dishonors God when breaking them Rom2:21-23 they make up the second greatest commandment Rom13:9 and the the greatest commandment Deut6:5 and not keeping Paul says we are an enemy to God Rom8:7-8

If all these contradictions of Paul, makes one feel okay about it and how it relates to what Jesus taught Mat5:19-30 Mat 15:3-14 Mark7:7-13 Mat2:27 Luke6:46-49 I think we need to look more carefully at the context and not be so quick to get rid of something our Lord and Savior told us to Remember that comes with His blessings and sanctification.

Its time for me to move on, I think we have covered this pretty well, I wish you well.

MarkRohfrietsch · Jan 5, 2026

AFrazier said:
Whatever you say boss. Guess you just got it all figured out.

Yes, in de-de! Figured out and refigured, like a broken record. LOL

The Liturgist · Jan 5, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
I think we need to look at God and not what the majority are doing

I agree. God told us to pray without ceasing, rose from the dead on the First Day, and in the person of the Holy Spirit descended on the Twelve Apostles (the eleven disciples + St. Matthias) and 200 followers in the Upper Room on Pentecost Sunday in 33 AD. So clearly Sunday worship was happening then, as well as Saturday worship.

And God in the person of the Holy Spirit wrote through the hand of St. Paul the divinely inspired words of 2 Colossians 2:16 - precluding us from judging others on their Sabbath observance, words that are incontrovertibly divinely inspired, for all churches have accepted 2 Colossians as scripture; indeed, the book was not even one of the controversial ones whose addition was settled by St. Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria in his definitive 27-book Canon in 367 AD (those controversial epistles were Jude, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter and Revelation - and were included primarily because St. Athanasius was so esteemed for his role at the Council of Nicaea and in enduring exile in the following decades under the Arian emperor Constantius and his successors, not being recalled to Alexandria until the reign of the pagan Julian the Apostate, who doubtless thought it would stir up trouble (it didn’t; the return of St. Athanasius was the cause of great celebration).

Thus if we look at what God said, and did, both in person and through the inspired writings of His Apostles, the evidence is clear that in this particular case, the majority of Christians are doing the right thing. Appeal to the majority or appeal to the minority are both logical fallacies - appeals to unqualified authority.

For example, a minority of Christians are of the peculiar belief that the Gospels are not part of the New Testament because they contradict each other, and are subordinate therefore to Acts and the epistles and so on (nevermind the fact that St. Luke the Evangelist wrote Acts). That does not make them right.

Conversely a majority of Christians are members of denominations that accept the filioque, which all three ancient Eastern churches - the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian church, reject chiefly because of the problems it causes for the theology of the Trinity.

In some respects Adventism is aligned with the majority, for example, your New Testament canon consists of 27 books, and in other cases with the minority, so really, its a logical fallacy to dismiss the majority or the minority on that basis.

But evaluated logically, the New Testament does not say about the Sabbath what some Adventists think it does. Rather, this is an interpretation, one which originated in the 19th century; interpretations are not inherently wrong, but it is essential to differentiate interpretation from the text itself.

The Liturgist · Jan 5, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
I don't, but God does. Sticking with what He said to live by Mat4:4 everything will be just fine.

So why do you keep ignoring the inspired writings - inspired means God-breathed, from the mouth of the Holy Spirit, like 2 Colossians 2:16, 1 Corinthians 11:2, Acts ch. 2 entire, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2:37, et cetera, that challenge your position?

Paradoxically, you also continue to criticize Roman Catholics despite the fact that the number of Catholic worship services on any given Saturday is around 400,000 (that number based on the approximate number of RCC priests, with a deduction for priests in poor health, not counting the very large number of lay devotional services also held on the Seventh Day? Why do you still accuse Rome of trying to suppress the Sabbath when they not only worship on the Seventh day but literally changed the name of it in Latin - and all Romance languages, from “Dies Saturni” to “Sabato”? If anything, Rome has done more to ensure Christians worship on the Sabbath than any other denomination.

SabbathBlessings · Jan 5, 2026

The Liturgist said:
So why do you keep ignoring the inspired writings - inspired means God-breathed, from the mouth of the Holy Spirit, like 2 Colossians 2:16, 1 Corinthians 11:2, Acts ch. 2 entire, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2:37, et cetera, that contradict your position?

I don’t ignore them, I deny the interpetation of Paul writings that contradicts our Lord and Savior.

For example, this is not ignored….

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

The Liturgist · Jan 5, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
I don’t ignore them, I deny the interpetation of Paul writings that contradicts our Lord and Savior.

For example, this is not ignored….

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

Our Lord said “Judge not, lest ye not be judged.” The writings of St. Paul say “Don’t judge other Christians on how they keep the Sabbath, or other things…” - no inconsistency whatsoever -

The whole issue here is the attack of other Christians for not following Adventist interpretations of Scripture. Messianic Jews worship on the Sabbath and I’ve never had an issue with them, or with most Adventists for that matter, because they don’t criticize my church or accuse me of not keeping the Sabbath because I disagree with their interpretation, nor claim their interpretation is the only one that makes any sense and that the fact I disagree with it means I’m ignoring Scripture, while threatening me with dire eschatological consequences.

Really, I don’t think you are aware of how offensive this kind of judgmental behavior is - and it is contrary to the words of our Lord and of St. Paul.

And consider - the church you criticize the most is ironically the one that worships the most on the Sabbath, that changed the Latin name of the day in question from Dies Saturni to Sabato, that requires all of its clergy who are able, all 407,000, to celebrate the holiest Christian liturgy, the Holy Communion service, whose observance we are required to participate in according to John ch. 6, 1 Corinthians ch. 11 and the equivalent passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke. This same church is attacked and accused of promoting traditions of men for following a magisterium, despite 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2:37 expressly endorsing the role of Tradition in the church, and despite Mark 7, the oft-cited proof text for this, clearly being a response to Pharisees who had developed very specific traditions which were later codified in the Mishnah - and despite the fact that Adventists are following their own tradition, by regarding the extra-Biblical writings of Ellen G. White as divinely inspired prophecy.

Which is fine - if you want to regard her writings as prophecy, fine. The problem is criticizing other Christians for following traditions, while claiming nuda scriptura, accusing Roman Catholics of trying to suppress the Sabbath, accusing Romans of other conspiracies, denying the agency or involvement of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Church of the East, all three groups of which were always independent of Rome and which were actually responsible for much of what you accuse Rome of having done, while also falsely accusing Protestants that conducted extremely thorough analysis of Scripture without reference to tradition, such as Karl Barth, who upheld worship on Sunday, as blindly following the example of Rome.

This is the issue - no one should object to your praxis; but we are right to object to the judgement and condemnation of our praxis, and to the dissemination of historically inaccurate information, and to the use of arguments which are logically fallacious.

Semper-Fi · Saturday at 12:06 AM

BPPLEE said:
7 ¶ And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

upon the "first day of the week",

This verse records the events occurring as Paul and his companions
concluded their seven-day visit in passing by this town.

The disciples continued to observe the Passover annually, now in the form of
“the Lord’s Supper” using only the bread and wine, as a memorial (1Corinthians 11:24)
of Christ’s death (1Corinthians 11:26), showing His death till He comes again.

[Backdrop] They continued to observe the Days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6).
This year they had observed Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread at Philippi,
after which they came to Troas in five days, where they remained seven days.

After the Sabbath day had ended, [at sunset], “upon the first day of the week…the
disciples came together to break bread.” At daylight Paul was going to leave and had
a long walk ahead, on the daylight portion of the first day of the week, a work day.

There is 8 places in the new testament that have the phrase (first day of the week),
all are the first workday after the Sabbath day had pasted, this one is no exception.

"when the disciples came together to break bread"

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

Note here in verse 11 “Broken bread, and eaten.”
Finaly after all the commotion upstairs was over, they had time to eat their dinner.

In Acts 27:33-35 Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry.

Notice Acts 2:46. The disciples, “continuing daily with one accord in the temple,
and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness?.…”

Here again, “breaking bread” means eating a meal. Not on the first day of the week,
but daily. By Scripture interpretation it referred only to eating food as a meal,
not to a Communion service. It still is used in that sense in parts of the world today.

Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow...[in the morning/the
daylight portion of the first day]; and continued his speech until midnight.

Paul was going to be gone for a while, hence last-minute instructions before leaving.
Some of his companions already set sail around the point by sea, it was [a workday].
Paul was going to walk a long way across the point in the morning to catch up.

BobRyan · Saturday at 2:33 AM

SabbathBlessings said:
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.

Amen

AFrazier said:
Whatever you say boss. Guess you just got it all figured out.

agreed

BobRyan · Saturday at 2:36 AM

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.

I don't see anything in the post you were replying to that said "Paul was teaching error"

Paul states in Acts 20 that the people that come in after him "men from among your own selves' would introduce heresies after his departure, so then we can't just assume all the nonBible traditions that come in after the NT is completed, are free of error

BobRyan · Saturday at 2:57 AM

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. ?

BobRyan said:
Fresh session window.

Q: using strict rules according to the Bible who changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday
AI response: According to the Bible itself, no one ever changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

Q: According to the Bible were gentiles who heard the gospel in Acts 13 asking for more gospel preaching to be scheduled for them the next Sabbath
A: Yes — according to the Bible, the Gentiles in Acts 13 did ask for more gospel preaching to be scheduled for the next Sabbath.

Q: According to Acts 18:4 was Paul preaching the Gospel “every Sabbath” to both gentiles in Jews in a worship service
A: Yes — according to Acts 18:4, Paul was preaching the gospel every Sabbath to both Jews and Gentiles in a synagogue setting.

Q: Based on your responses did the New Testament church continue to keep Sabbath on Saturday after the cross
A: Yes — based on the New Testament record, the early church did continue to keep the Sabbath on Saturday after the cross.

Conclusion
According to the New Testament itself, the early church continued to keep the Sabbath on Saturday after the cross,
Conclusion

According to the New Testament itself, the early church continued to keep the Sabbath on Saturday after the cross,

==================== end AI response

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.

BobRyan said:
Q: so then you have exactly one example of gathering on the first day of the week for communion and it was the special occassion of a farewell event as Paul was leaving the next day. There is no record of the Acts 20 gathering being held on the Lord's Day. Since this is the one and only record of a service held on Sunday ,and no text says that the first day is the Lord's day, and they continued worship services on Sabbzth Saturday, does scripture say they met weekly on Sunday for worship

A: You’ve summarized the evidence very well — and the answer is no, Scripture does not say that the New Testament church met weekly on Sunday for worship.

What the Bible Records

Sabbath (Saturday) gatherings:

Acts 13:42–44 — Gentiles asked Paul to preach again the next Sabbath.

Acts 16:13 — Paul went to a place of prayer on the Sabbath.

Acts 17:2 — Paul reasoned in the synagogue for three Sabbaths.

Acts 18:4 — Paul preached every Sabbath to Jews and Gentiles.

First day of the week (Sunday):

Acts 20:7 — One special farewell meeting where Paul preached late into the night before departing.

1 Corinthians 16:2 — Instruction for believers to set aside money privately at home on the first day, not a worship service.

Key Observations

Only one recorded Sunday gathering (Acts 20:7): And it was a unique farewell occasion, not a regular weekly service.

No text calls Sunday “the Lord’s Day”: The New Testament never equates the “first day of the week” with “the Lord’s Day.”

No command to change the Sabbath: The Bible consistently identifies the Sabbath as the seventh day, and there is no passage that institutes Sunday as a weekly day of worship.

Pattern of worship: The consistent pattern in Acts is Sabbath observance and preaching, even among Gentiles.

✅ Conclusion

Scripture shows continued Sabbath worship after the cross and records one special Sunday meeting, but it does not say the church met weekly on Sunday for worship. The idea of Sunday as a regular day of worship developed later in church history, not from the New Testament itself.

so then we have this response

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

interesting inference.

Not one text in the NT saying

"we meet every week day one"
"we now call week day one the Lord's day"
"we worship every week day one"
"we keep week day 1 holy, as the newly edited/revised Sabbath"
"we celebrate week day 1 in honor of the resurrection"

So IF your inference were correct that this is the the one and only text on that subject, one would expect actual teaching on that point to be stated. Or do you think they were trying to keep it a secret"

The Acts 20 statement says nothing about doing anything at all weekly.
Paul was not leaving "weekly" on the next day

And for this to be the one and only record of a weekly Sunday worship service, it is odd that even your long and detailed response dos not actually quote the full text.

AFrazier said:
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

Acts 2 is also not an example of a weekly week day 1 meeting. It is "Every day", and it is not a practice we see carried on
"every day" beyond Pentecost

AFrazier said:
Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians 9, and the Epistle of Barnabas 15:8–9 as meaning communion

no doubt nonBiblical traditions arise after the first century. (and of course there are number of Ignatius' letters that are now confirmed as fake. So sticking with actual scripture is probably a good idea.

AFrazier said:
I don't believe that the "sabbath" has changed. That's still Saturday.

I agree but that is not the view of the majority of the Christian church. Today the argument admits that no Bible text calls for Sunday observance , rather the Sabbath was edited in the first century to point to week day 1 even though every reference to Sabbath as a day of worship refers to Saturday

AFrazier said:
But Christians worship on Sunday because it commemorates the resurrection

Indeed we often hear them say that sometime after the first century. But not one Bible text says it

AFrazier said:
. And since Christians are not considered to be under the law of Moses, sabbath observance isn't required.

that is interesting speculation given that all Christian confessions of faith affirm the continuation of the full list of TEN Commandments and commands like "do not take God's name in vain" are never doubted even though that commandment is not found in the NT

AFrazier said:
.

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.

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

Positive but limited.

So then still no statement that they met for worship weekly on week day one.
Why not just come out and say it at least once, if in fact they actually did it?

No reason given for the suggestion that they ignored one of the commandments, so they just infer it into the text? really?

BobRyan · Saturday at 3:00 AM

BNR32FAN said:
So if we can’t know whether something is written in our hearts then what’s the point of it being written in our heart? What you’re saying sound exactly like the ministry written in stone, like there’s nothing different about the new ministry at all.

Jer 31 says God writes His Law on the heart.
Deut 3 and 4 says that the Law of God includes the 10 which God spoke "And added no more"

So Exegesis requires that we not ignore the TEN for the OT readers of Jer 31.

Even Paul uses that same rule in Eph 6:1-2 when he says that the 5th commandment, the one that commands that we honor parents "is the FIRST commandment WITH a promise'. A statement that is only true with the distinct unit of Ten

BobRyan · Saturday at 3:05 AM

The Liturgist said:
The whole issue here is the attack of other Christians for not following Adventist interpretations of Scripture. Messianic Jews worship on the Sabbath and I’ve never had an issue with them

Arguments in both groups come from the Bible , same texts, same positions and you object to every one of them so far.

The Liturgist said:
And consider - the church you criticize the most is ironically the one that worships the most on the Sabbath, that changed the Latin name of the day in question from Dies Saturni to Sabato, that requires all of its clergy who are able, all 407,000, to celebrate the holiest Christian liturgy, the Holy Communion service, whose observance we are required to participate in

ok you appeal to the traditions of a given denomination.

Our argument is not sectarian as your statement above is, ours is from the Bible itself

The Liturgist · Saturday at 4:01 AM

BobRyan said:
Arguments in both groups come from the Bible , same texts, same positions and you object to every one of them so far.

that seems like divide et impera if so, not going to work:

I’ve never had a Messianic Jew get in an argument with me; there exists a mutual respect. Also I would note MJs are a diverse community, not all of them claim to be Sola Scriptura, although I don’t have a problem with Sola Scriptura as my Lutheran friends will attest even though I regard it as … unnecessary, but clearly it didn’t hurt them, nor the Anglicans, since both churches wound up with beliefs extremely similar to my church, indeed I was an Anglican and I went to a Lutheran parochial school: regarding MJs, many make use of various forms of Jewish prayer, the divine office from which the daily prayer of the early church is also based; we exist in domains of mutual respect - we may not agree on everything, but MJs are not posting thread after thread attacking, criticizing and judging the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and the non-Sabbatarian Protestants.

Indeed every interaction I’ve had with a Messianic Jew has been extremely pleasant. Spheres of mutual respect. We may not agree on everything, but there is nothing but mutual respect.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

1. What the New Testament explicitly attests​

Acts 20:7​

​

Junior Member

Junior Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Similar threads

1. What the New Testament explicitly attests

Acts 20:7