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

BobRyan said:

And of course some things were "made up" in the form of telling gentiles "you must be circumcised to be saved" Acts 15:1, a made-up idea never commanded in OT or NT for gentiles.

Click to expand...

I’m not so certain about this because proselytes were required to be circumcised in order to participate in the Passover according to Exodus 12 and depending on how verse 49 was intended to be interpreted it could mean that proselytes were required to keep the same whole Mosaic law that the Israelites were required to keep.

“The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; but every man’s slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it. A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it. It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it. All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this. But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.””
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭12‬:‭43‬-‭49‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So I would say it all depends on how God intended for verse 49 to be understood. The Jews understood it to mean that proselytes would have to keep the entire Mosaic law, that’s why they were insisting that they must be circumcised.

BobRyan said:

good point. Not all of the Col 2 issue is about the made up man made traditions dealing with pure fiction (worship of angels), some of it was an abuse of existing scripture, scripture like Passover for example (a "shadow" annual Sabbath in Lev 23) - a shadow of things to come pointing to Christ on the cross. So "yes" a shadow of the cross, but the substance belongs to Christ.

And of course some things were "made up" in the form of telling gentiles "you must be circumcised to be saved" Acts 15:1, a made-up idea never commanded in OT or NT for gentiles. There are a number of annual Sabbath days listed in Lev 23 that did not apply to gentiles in the OT or the NT.

None of that pertains to the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments given to mankind in Eden as Christ points out in Mark 2:27, as we see in Isaiah 56:2-8, Is 66:23 etc

Click to expand...

But there are problems with all three of those passages. In Mark 2:27 Jesus wasn’t saying when the commandment was given, that statement was in response to the question “why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?” Jesus’ reply was in answer to that question when He said “the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath”. The reason He said that was to indicate that the sabbath wasn’t made to be a burden on man in was made to be a blessing for man, that reply had nothing to do with when the commandment was given to man. Just because the word man is used doesn’t necessarily mean that it applies to all mankind. Look at Genesis 6

“Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.””
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭6‬:‭5‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Obviously these statements didn’t include Noah and his family even though man was used in the sentence in reference to mankind. When Jesus used the word man in Mark 2:27 He was referring to man that the sabbath was made for which was exclusively for the Israelites, and proselytes as well. It wasn’t given to anyone before the Israelites and it wasn’t given before they left Egypt according to Nehemiah 9:13-14 and Ezekiel 20:11-12.

“Then You came down on Mount Sinai, And spoke with them from heaven; You gave them just ordinances and true laws, Good statutes and commandments. So You made known to them Your holy sabbath, And laid down for them commandments, statutes and law, Through Your servant Moses.”
‭‭Nehemiah‬ ‭9‬:‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live. Also I gave them My sabbaths to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭20‬:‭11‬-‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

By this we can know that the Israelites didn’t know about the sabbath before they left Egypt and it was not given to them before they left Egypt even though they were already Israelites going all the way back to Jacob. Jacob began the lineage of the Israelites, he was the first Israelite and the father of the twelve tribes and none of them observed the sabbath according to these two passages of scripture.

So no, Jesus most certainly did not say that the sabbath was given to man in the garden of Eden otherwise God wouldn’t have had to give it to them after their exodus from Egypt.

Isaiah 56:2-8 has a problem because verse 7 says “their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be acceptable on My alter”. When the terms burnt offerings and sacrifices are used in the Old Testament it’s always in reference to sin offerings which can only be atoned for with blood. So you not only have sin being atoned for but you also have death on the new earth which creates an obvious problem since neither are supposed to be present in the new earth. I think the reason for this is because not everything was being revealed to Isaiah at this time, they were being given a glimpse of what was to come and it wasn’t being revealed that the Mosaic law was going to be radically altered. That’s why you have the statement in Isaiah 66:23 saying “they will come to worship Me from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath” when we know from Colossians 2:16 that the new moon feasts have been abolished. There’s no question about that. Even sabbatarians agree that they’ve ceased. They can’t even be kept right now because the sacrifices associated with the observance can’t be properly performed without the temple. And even if there’s a new temple built on the new earth you still have death taking place unless the ordinances are changed and those sacrifices are no longer necessary but if that’s the case then that something that will be changed on the new earth, there’s nothing suggesting that they’ve changed as of now. So if Isaiah is saying that burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin offerings and new moon feasts are going to continue on the new earth and we know that as of right now we can surely agree that these are not expected to be observed today then why would the Saturday sabbath be any different if Paul is telling us in Colossians 2:16 that they’re no longer necessary?

And let’s examine Colossians 2:16 more closely. This is something sabbatarians rarely like to do because they usually like to jumble all the words around and overgeneralize the passage rather than look at it for how it is actually written.

“Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So no one is to judge us in regard to food or drink, OR a festival, OR a new moon, OR a sabbath day. Do you notice the word OR in between each category? It’s actually in the Greek, it’s not added into the English translation. So if Paul was only referring to the yearly feasts and new moon feasts why did he include the term “or a sabbath day” after already specifically mentioning the yearly and monthly feasts? He’s indicating 3 different categories here not two. You just have to pay attention to how the word “or” is actually used in a sentence.

BobRyan said:

which was still true in Acts 15.
1. The Christians in Acts 15 were not claiming that they had now taken over control of the Temple in Jerusalem from the nonChristian Jews and from now on uncircumcised gentiles could participate in Passover.
2. Paul himself was arrested in Jerusalem after the Acts 15 decision , because the nonChristian Jews (who still had control of the Temple in Jerusalem) thought he had taken an uncircumcised gentile into the Temple.
3. Paul himself had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16 to accommodate nonChristian Jews.

But Acts 15 says they invented the idea that the gentiles could not be saved without being circumcised which is something that the OT never taught. Even in Acts 13 we see uncircumcised gentiles in the nonChristian Synagogue as attendees. No such rule was in place even among nonChristian Jews as the Christian Jews were inventing in Acts 15.

The reason that Christian Jews were "making stuff up" about gentiles and the nonChristian Jews were not, is because the gentiles proportion of Christian attendees was much higher than the proportion of gentiles in nonChristian Jewish worship services. The nonChristian Jews did not see their church turning into a primarily gentile group. But the Christian Jews could see where all this was going in the case of Christianity.

Click to expand...

It depends on where they were in the temple. Uncircumcised gentiles weren’t permitted in the sanctuary not the outer courts.

BobRyan said:

which was still true in Acts 15.
1. The Christians in Acts 15 were not claiming that they had now taken over control of the Temple in Jerusalem from the nonChristian Jews and from now on uncircumcised gentiles could participate in Passover.
2. Paul himself was arrested in Jerusalem after the Acts 15 decision , because the nonChristian Jews (who still had control of the Temple in Jerusalem) thought he had taken an uncircumcised gentile into the Temple.
3. Paul himself had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16 to accommodate nonChristian Jews.

But Acts 15 says they invented the idea that the gentiles could not be saved without being circumcised which is something that the OT never taught. Even in Acts 13 we see uncircumcised gentiles in the nonChristian Synagogue as attendees. No such rule was in place even among nonChristian Jews as the Christian Jews were inventing in Acts 15.

The reason that Christian Jews were "making stuff up" about gentiles and the nonChristian Jews were not, is because the gentiles proportion of Christian attendees was much higher than the proportion of gentiles in nonChristian Jewish worship services. The nonChristian Jews did not see their church turning into a primarily gentile group. But the Christian Jews could see where all this was going in the case of Christianity.

Click to expand...

I don’t see where anyone said that gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised to be saved during the old covenant in Acts 15. I see them making the decision based on the new covenant. According to Genesis 17 to enter into the covenant they had to be circumcised but this was to enter into Abraham’s covenant which was still in effect for Israelites so if it still pertained to them I would think it still pertained to gentiles proselytes.

“And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.””
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭17‬:‭12‬-‭14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

BobRyan said:

Sabbath of the Ten Commandments given to mankind in Eden as Christ points out in Mark 2:27, as we see in Isaiah 56:2-8, Is 66:23 etc

The commandment is in Gen 2:1-3 as even Ex 20:11 points the reader to Gen 2 for the origin of the Sabbath , paraphrasing the Gen 2 statement
"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.


The above is paraphrase this way in Ex 20:11 " For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (sanctified it)

Gen 1-2 is the record of the event where BOTH mankind and the Sabbath "were made"
Mark 2:27 speaks of the "MAKING" of BOTH the Sabbath and mankind

"Sabbath made for mankind not mankind made for the Sabbath" Mark 2;27

Indeed. So Jesus points to the making of the Sabbath and of mankind, to make His point that He is the LORD of the Sabbath, as the maker of both the Sabbath and mankind.

This was not God the Creator making the claim "I made the Sabbath so I can break it if I wish " but rather His claim is that He knows a bit more about what it means to keep the Sabbath as the maker of it, than the puny man made tradition made up statements of the Jews during second temple Judaism.

Mark 7:7-13 Here He again makes the case that leaders in second temple Judaism was "making up a bunch of stuff" "you do many such things as that"

And as the maker of it, He should know. As the maker of it , He is the Lord of the Sabbath.
No mere human could make that claim

Click to expand...

No you have one verse taken out of context of the discussion that was taking place, as well as complete silence on anyone ever observing the sabbath in the first 2300 years after creation, and two passages specifically saying when God gave the sabbath to the Israelites, which you didn’t address. So other than this one statement where Jesus didn’t say exactly who it was given to, all of the evidence points in the opposite direction. And yeah you can say that Jesus said it was made for man but as I pointed out in Genesis 6 the word man doesn’t always mean all of mankind. So the only statement that you claim is evidence to support your claim is inconclusive and all of the other evidence points in the opposite direction.

BobRyan said:

Laws don't exist "in the void". They have to be stated. There is no Law in NT or OT that says the gentiles have to be circumcised to be saved or that say that gentiles have to participate Passover or in the Day of Atonement etc.

Click to expand...

But I did quote Genesis 17 where foreigners in Abraham’s care had to be circumcised in order to enter into the covenant and anyone who wasn’t circumcised could not enter into His covenant. That to me sounds like a pretty clear example in the Old Testament where someone can’t be saved if they’re not circumcised.

BobRyan said:

Historical evidence suggests that
"some Albigenses, along with related groups like the Waldensians, included Sabbath-keepers who observed the seventh-day (Saturday) rest, often amidst broader syncretized beliefs. While not universal, these dissenters were sometimes labeled insabbatati for "judaizing" on the Sabbath, defying Roman Catholic norms.

• Diverse Beliefs: The Albigenses (Cathars) and associated reform movements were not monolithic; while some held strict dualistic views, others retained various biblical practices, including, for some, the seventh-day Sabbath.
• "Insabbatati" Label: Historical records, such as those referencing Emperor Frederic II's 1220 constitution, note that certain (so-called "heretics"), including Waldensians and related groups, were called insabbatati because they kept the Sabbath like the Jews.
• Association with Other Groups: They are often grouped with the Waldensians, Arnoldists, and Lollards, among whom Sabbath-keeping was recorded during the Middle Ages.
• Source Limitations: Most evidence comes from opponents and inquisitors who documented these practices while trying to suppress them (by extreme measures of force)

Interesting that the current Pope has started the process of apologizing to the group, long after it had lost power to oppress them.

Click to expand...

What is the source of that information? Link please.

BNR32FAN said:

But I did quote Genesis 17 where foreigners in Abraham’s care had to be circumcised in order to enter into the covenant and anyone who wasn’t circumcised could not enter into His covenant. That to me sounds like a pretty clear example in the Old Testament where someone can’t be saved if they’re not circumcised.

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking the OT laws and observance or not thereof does not by itself dictate salvation, this being only available through Christ our God. Rather the Law was more along the lines of “do this or or wind up like Sodom,” an absolute moral ultimatum dictated with divine gravitas - inscrutable, inarguable and with, as we see in the Pentateuch, and elsewhere, severe and immediate temporal consequences for non-compliance.

Paradoxically in Christ God sacrifices himself, completing the creation of humanity, and invites us to become fully human and thus sons of God by adoption, by partaking of the Divine Nature.

BobRyan said:

Those less interested in truth will often refrain from asking "do we have evidence that such and such is true" but rather "who said it".

Protestants faced that issue a lot in the dark ages.

My post above was the result of asking AI for the history of Sabbath keeping among Albigenses

Click to expand...

Sadly most of the modern history books have been re-written. There is a spiritual war against those who keep God's commandments Rev12:17 and the devil deceives the whole world, so of course would be editing history books.

Here is a video that shows ancient books of Sabbath-keeping. They provide the books and references.

BobRyan said:

Those less interested in truth will often refrain from asking "do we have evidence that such and such is true" but rather "who said it".

Protestants faced that issue a lot in the dark ages.

My post above was the result of asking AI for the history of Sabbath keeping among Albigenses

Click to expand...

Which AI? What version? What prompt input?

Who said what is vitally important - contrary to your assertion, because, as has been demonstrated, AI is unreliable, prone to hallucination, and quoting AI without following through to the sources it is drawing upon constitutes an appeal to unqualified authority, which is logically fallacious.* Indeed I have demonstrated this fact repeatedly, by showing how the exact prompts, even when fine tuned in an attempt to get the desired output, produced highly variated and inconsistent output.

I know of no scholars who regard the Cathars or Albigensians as Sabbatarian (or the Waldensians for that matter; if they were Sabbatarian, they weren’t Sabbatarian enough to retain that belief when they united with the Protestants in Geneva voluntarily.

The attempts of Landmark Baptists and some Seventh Day Adventists** to co-opt historical sects as part of an alternative history that is devoid of actual documentary evidence (and in the case of the Albigensians, Paulicians, Donatists, Montanists and certain other groups, actually contradicts the documentary evidence, which is why historians dismiss these claims.

Thus attempting to dismiss those who ask for a citation as less interested in truth is a deeply problematic argument; it is also itself logically fallacious insofar as it is firstly, a false dichotomy, with a bit of ad hominem, since it presupposes everyone who asks “who said it?” is less interested in truth, which in turn implies a moral defect.

What is more, it is a non-sequitur, because it does not follow that asking “who said that” leads to ignoring the evidence. On the contrary, in order to determine the evidence being used as the basis for a statement, we first must establish where the statement came from, and then evaluate the claims of the original arguments and the supporting evidence they reference (which is also why using AI constitutes an appeal to unqualified authority even more problematic than quoting Wikipedia - because AI can and ofen does hallucinate and misrepresent the contents of sources it refers to; it represents an intermediate source; it can be useful as a reference, like Wikipedia, but it is not sufficient to simply take what the AI says as authoritative in its own right. Someone aggressively pursuing the truth needs to know where a claim came from in order to be able to evaluate how the person originally making the claim came to that conclusion.

God bless you Bob.

* As is the related ad hominem fallacy, because both ignore the evidence in favor of the person or group making the claim; in the case of Adventism, the issue is a question of whether to trust 19th century writings regarded, perhaps correctly, as inspired prophecy, or historical manuscripts from prior centuries, but in the case of the former another issue applies, that being the question as to whether or not Ellen G. White is being interpreted correctly, since as St. Peter wrote, in his second Epistle, “no prophecy is of any private interpretation” (which can also be read as “no prophecy is an exposition of itself” - see the Murdock translation of the Syriac Peshitta.

** Increasingly, as I pointed out in a previous post, contemporary Adventist scholars now reject the literal accuracy of the historical claims in certain foundational Adventist texts, which I find encouraging, but alas this hasn’t been sufficiently preached from the pulpit in all churches as evinced by the fact that some Adventists still believe in an alternative ecclesiastical history to the scholarly consensus.

Even Jesus had a Judas who taught against His teachings. Its going to happen. Anyone claiming to be of an established faith teaching against those established doctrines are already coming in under a false pretense. I am always weary of these kind of teachings as we are told by Jesus what would happen before His Second Coming how many teachers teaching false doctrine in His name.

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...

Here is some AI generated stuff on why Sunday is observed by Christians. ChatGPT (Open AI) I lean toward keeping the Sabbath on Saturday but I am just wanting people to use AI carefully. I have used AI to check up on my beliefs in Christian forums and it has made errors, sometimes claiming I believed in X when in reality I have believed the opposite. I have also asked for an outline of some of my lengthy articles and the outlines contained an error or two each.

Is there any support for Sunday observance in the Christian Sabbath?

Yes—there is support for Sunday observance in Christianity, but it’s important to be clear about what kind of support it is. The case for Sunday is theological and historical, not a direct command that redefines the biblical Sabbath.
Here’s the landscape, cleanly laid out.

---

1. What the Bible explicitly calls the Sabbath​

In Scripture, the Sabbath is the seventh day (Saturday):

• Genesis 2:2–3
• Exodus 20:8–11
• Exodus 31:16–17

There is no verse that explicitly:

• Calls Sunday “the Sabbath”
• Commands Sabbath observance on the first day of the week
• Transfers the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday

That’s a key starting point.

---

2. Why Christians began meeting on Sunday​

The support for Sunday observance comes from association, not command.

a. The resurrection​

Jesus rose on the first day of the week:

• Matthew 28:1
• Mark 16:2
• Luke 24:1
• John 20:1

Because of this, Sunday came to be seen as a day of celebration and new creation.

---

b. Early Christian gatherings​

Several passages show believers gathering on Sunday:

• Acts 20:7 – “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…”
• 1 Corinthians 16:2 – Paul instructs believers to set aside offerings “on the first day of every week.”

These indicate customary meeting, not Sabbath legislation.

---

c. “The Lord’s Day”​

• Revelation 1:10 – John mentions being “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.”

By the early 2nd century, Christian writers (like Ignatius and Justin Martyr) clearly use “the Lord’s Day” to mean Sunday, in contrast to the Jewish Sabbath.

---

3. New Testament teaching on Sabbath obligation​

Paul repeatedly de-emphasizes Sabbath observance as a binding requirement for Christians:

• Colossians 2:16–17 – “Let no one judge you… regarding a Sabbath day.”
• Romans 14:5 – “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike.”
• Galatians 4:9–11 – Warning against returning to calendar-based obligations.

The thrust is freedom, not replacement.

---

4. How the early church understood Sunday​

Early Christians did not say:

“Sunday is the new Sabbath.”

Click to expand...

They said:

“We gather on Sunday because Christ rose.”

Click to expand...

Sunday functioned as:

• A day of worship
• A day of teaching and Eucharist
• A symbol of resurrection and new creation

Not as a redefined Sabbath with Mosaic restrictions.

---

5. When Sunday became dominant​

Sunday observance became widespread and eventually institutionalized through:

• Church tradition (2nd–4th centuries)
• Roman civil law (Constantine’s 321 AD edict)

That’s history, not apostolic command.

---

6. Bottom line​

Support for Sunday observance exists, but it is:

• Historical
• Resurrection-centered
• Ecclesial (church practice)

It is not:

• A biblical redefinition of the Sabbath
• A command replacing the seventh day
• Rooted in Torah legislation

So the question really becomes theological:

• Is the Sabbath still binding as a day?
• Or is rest fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 4)?

Christians answer that differently—and that’s why this debate still exists.
If you want, I can also:

• Compare Sabbath-keeping vs. Lord’s Day theology
• Walk through Hebrews 4 in detail
• Or show how various Christian traditions officially justify Sunday worship

Saber Truth Tiger said:

Here is some AI generated stuff on why Sunday is observed by Christians. ChatGPT (Open AI) I lean toward keeping the Sabbath on Saturday but I am just wanting people to use AI carefully. I have used AI to check up on my beliefs in Christian forums and it has made errors, sometimes claiming I believed in X when in reality I have believed the opposite. I have also asked for an outline of some of my lengthy articles and the outlines contained an error or two each.

Is there any support for Sunday observance in the Christian Sabbath?

Yes—there is support for Sunday observance in Christianity, but it’s important to be clear about what kind of support it is. The case for Sunday is theological and historical, not a direct command that redefines the biblical Sabbath.
Here’s the landscape, cleanly laid out.

---

1. What the Bible explicitly calls the Sabbath​

In Scripture, the Sabbath is the seventh day (Saturday):

• Genesis 2:2–3
• Exodus 20:8–11
• Exodus 31:16–17

There is no verse that explicitly:

• Calls Sunday “the Sabbath”
• Commands Sabbath observance on the first day of the week
• Transfers the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday

That’s a key starting point.

---

2. Why Christians began meeting on Sunday​

The support for Sunday observance comes from association, not command.

a. The resurrection​

Jesus rose on the first day of the week:

• Matthew 28:1
• Mark 16:2
• Luke 24:1
• John 20:1

Because of this, Sunday came to be seen as a day of celebration and new creation.

---

b. Early Christian gatherings​

Several passages show believers gathering on Sunday:

• Acts 20:7 – “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…”
• 1 Corinthians 16:2 – Paul instructs believers to set aside offerings “on the first day of every week.”

These indicate customary meeting, not Sabbath legislation.

---

c. “The Lord’s Day”​

• Revelation 1:10 – John mentions being “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.”

By the early 2nd century, Christian writers (like Ignatius and Justin Martyr) clearly use “the Lord’s Day” to mean Sunday, in contrast to the Jewish Sabbath.

---

3. New Testament teaching on Sabbath obligation​

Paul repeatedly de-emphasizes Sabbath observance as a binding requirement for Christians:

• Colossians 2:16–17 – “Let no one judge you… regarding a Sabbath day.”
• Romans 14:5 – “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike.”
• Galatians 4:9–11 – Warning against returning to calendar-based obligations.

The thrust is freedom, not replacement.

---

4. How the early church understood Sunday​

Early Christians did not say:

They said:

Sunday functioned as:

• A day of worship
• A day of teaching and Eucharist
• A symbol of resurrection and new creation

Not as a redefined Sabbath with Mosaic restrictions.

---

5. When Sunday became dominant​

Sunday observance became widespread and eventually institutionalized through:

• Church tradition (2nd–4th centuries)
• Roman civil law (Constantine’s 321 AD edict)

That’s history, not apostolic command.

---

6. Bottom line​

Support for Sunday observance exists, but it is:

• Historical
• Resurrection-centered
• Ecclesial (church practice)

It is not:

• A biblical redefinition of the Sabbath
• A command replacing the seventh day
• Rooted in Torah legislation

So the question really becomes theological:

• Is the Sabbath still binding as a day?
• Or is rest fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 4)?

Christians answer that differently—and that’s why this debate still exists.
If you want, I can also:

• Compare Sabbath-keeping vs. Lord’s Day theology
• Walk through Hebrews 4 in detail
• Or show how various Christian traditions officially justify Sunday worship

Click to expand...

Yes, it all comes down to do we follow what God says, or what man says? Man can’t sanctify a day or sanctify us. They can’t take something that God blessed Exo20:11 and transfer it to another day that God didn’t Exo20:9. Jesus addresses this argument plainly and it should be the end of this debate in my mind for those who place their trust only in Him. Sunday keeping is a tradition of man. Sabbath-keeping is one of God's finger-written commandments under His mercy seat. Jesus never taught to keep the first day holy. The apostles did not teach to keep the first day holy nor did they in practice.. They show having a one time meeting in over 30 years on day one, never called it the "Lord's Day" which is the Sabbath according to God Exo20:10 Isa58:13 the day belong to Him that Jesus has Lordship over Mark2:28 and we are told why they came together on Saturday night after sunset, because Paul was traveling the next morning for a long trip. It says nothing about changing the 4th commandment that only God has the power to do and all the thus saith the Lords we are told to live by He personally telling us to keep and warning us not to profane.

Jesus said when we lay aside the commandment of God (meaning its not for me) and replace it with man-made commandments and traditions of man- it makes the word of God of no effect, He said it makes ones heart far from Him (rejecting the law God placed in our hearts Heb8:10)and we worship Him in vain Mat15:3-14 Mark7:7-13 that sounds serious to me.

We are told His faithful would not be the majority, but would be of the same faith as the original who keep God's commandments (what God wrote, not man) and hold to the testimony and faith of Jesus. Rev12:17 Rev 14:12 Jesus never taught not to keep the Sabbath once in all of His teachings- He said we can still do evil on it Mark3:4 which is profaning the Sabbath Neh13:17. He said the Sabbath is made for mankind, to bless Isa 56:2 and sanctify us Eze20:12 because man can't do that ourselves. Isa 66:17 we all need God. Eze20:12 Eze20:20

I could make AI make the opposite argument from Scripture. Why we need to place our trust in God and He alone. God said it and it was so, begiving Him is what faith is all about, not placing our faith in men, how we are saved by grace through faith Eph2:8 in Jesus.

Saber Truth Tiger said:

used AI to check up on my beliefs in Christian forums and it has made errors, sometimes claiming I believed in X when in reality I have believed the opposite. I have also asked for an outline of some of my lengthy articles and the outlines contained an error or two each.

Click to expand...

Indeed, that’s why I advise against it.

The Liturgist said:

Indeed, that’s why I advise against it.

Click to expand...

I don't mind using AI, as it has the ability to do a good summary of what I write. The outlines are good too, especially if it is long. But it does make mistakes. So I proof read what Open AI does and correct where it is wrong. Then, I can share the outlines with others.