Commandments of man or the commandments of God

The Liturgist said:

To which chatGPT 5.6 Sol in Extended Thinking mode generated the following reply:

The post contains one broadly true chronological observation, one translation-dependent claim, and several invalid inferences.

1. “More than a decade after the Resurrection”

This is broadly plausible. Paul’s first missionary journey is commonly dated around AD 46–48, placing the events of Acts 13 more than a decade after the usual dates proposed for the Crucifixion and Resurrection. The exact chronology is approximate, but this part is not the principal problem.

The passage’s date, however, tells us only when this event occurred. It does not tell us that every Christian practice then in existence must be mentioned in the narrative.

Click to expand...

That argument leaves the gaping flaw of "yeah we have that service for gospel preaching tomorrow but we don't want to let gentiles know about it yet". nonsense

The Liturgist said:

2. “The Gentiles were begging them”

That wording is found in the KJV and NKJV:
But it is textually disputed. Many modern translations, following the critical Greek text, simply say that “the people” asked Paul and Barnabas to speak again, without distinguishing departing Jews from requesting Gentiles.

This does not destroy the author’s argument by itself, because the KJV reading may still be defended.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it is not how to say "The Jews begged for more gospel preaching" and would be nonsense since at the next service the Jews were strongly opposing the gospel rather than embracing it as the gentiles were. Paul explicitly says "we turn to the gentiles" removing all doubt as to who these people are. Irrefutable.

The Liturgist said:

3. Acts 13 describes synagogue evangelism, not the Church’s complete worship calendar

The immediate context is Paul and Barnabas entering a Jewish synagogue and being invited to address its congregation. Earlier in Acts 13, Luke explicitly describes their missionary practice of preaching in Jewish synagogues.

Click to expand...

Everyone agrees on this. And in Acts 13,17 and 18 we see gentiles (and some Jews) being effectively evangelized in Jewish synagogues.
This makes perfect sense because an informed Synagogue audience is already prepped for a sermon on the Messiah. Irrefutable

The Liturgist said:

Therefore, the relevant question in Acts 13:42 is:

When would Paul and Barnabas return to address this particular synagogue audience?​

The next Sabbath is the obvious occasion

Click to expand...

1 There is no "it would be wrong to tell you about it tomorrow you must wait" message.
2. There is no "we could invite you to our customary gospel meeting tomorrow but that is not important to us" message
3. There is no "we have a busy schedule and our meeting tomorrow is full. Wait a week"
4. It is the gentiles themselves that suggest "next Sabbath" as if they do not know that a service tomorrow even exists
5. Since the idea of both a Saturday and Sunday service is not mutually exclusive, ALL THE MORE reason to mention the more conveniently timed TOMORROW service.

The Liturgist said:

That tells us nothing definite about whether the Christian community also assembled on the first day. A Sunday Christian assembly and a Sabbath missionary appearance in a synagogue are not mutually exclusive activities.

Click to expand...

Since the two services don't have to be mutually exclusive, all the more reason to inform gentiles of the much more convenient "tomorrow service" for the requested "more gospel preaching" event.

The Liturgist said:

4. The post commits an argument from silence

Its reasoning is essentially:

1. 
   []The people requested another sermon on the next Sabbath.
   []Paul did not answer by inviting them to a Sunday meeting.
2. Therefore no regular Sunday Christian meeting existed.

Click to expand...

Indeed and AI has found no argument for waiting either.

The Liturgist said:

That conclusion does not follow.

Luke does not record Paul’s complete reply to every request, every announcement he made, or every meeting

Click to expand...

that does not help because if AI is implying that "the NEXT day they had a massively successful Sunday gospel preaching service with the whole town" then it has a massive insert that changes the entire trajectory of the account, based on inserted fiction.

The Liturgist said:

The absence of an invitation to a Sunday service from Luke’s compressed narrative is not positive evidence

Click to expand...

It is the logical response to the request if such a service existed and AI has no compelling suggestion as to why this most obvious response is not what follows. Even AI suggests that this most obvious response was given but not written (as if that make sense for Luke).

It is like saying "hey, tell us more about Jesus" and the response to gentiles is "nope. Not going to do it. wait a week so we can get the most complaints possible from Jews interrupting us while giving our message".

The Liturgist said:

that no such Christian practice existed.
This is the same elementary error encountered previously:

The failure of a passage to state X is not proof of not-X.​

5. It also commits a non sequitur

Click to expand...

AI dismisses the most obvious option without an actual reason. But most AI's I have challenged with this , do not make that mistake.

The Liturgist said:

Even granting every detail exactly as the author states it, the strongest conclusion would be:

Paul and Barnabas agreed to preach publicly again on the following Sabbath.​

Click to expand...

That presumes a flawed assumption that "Gentiles themselves would prefer a Sabbath service to having gospel preaching TOMORROW, because that is just the way a gentile would naturally want it and Paul was trying to oblige them". That is pure nonsense and most AIs I try this on admit it.

The Liturgist said:

It does not follow that:

The Christian Church had no custom of assembling on the first day.​

A missionary could preach in a synagogue on Saturday and worship with Christians on Sunday. There is no contradiction between the two.

Click to expand...

That blatantly ignores the obvious issue of immediacy and expedience in giving a gospel message to at group that is begging for the Gospel. "Tomorrow" is obviously much more immediate, expedient and likely for an Apostle "to the gentiles" to give "more gospel" to gentiles begging for more gospel, Even versions of ChatGpt admit it.

The Liturgist said:

6. It creates a false dichotomy

The post assumes that Paul had only two possible responses:
[]invite the people to a Sunday Christian service; or
[]return to the synagogue on the following Sabbath.

Click to expand...

Ok , I agree that those are the two most likely options

The Liturgist said:

But several reasonable possibilities exist:

[]The Christian gathering may not have been designed as a public evangelistic meeting.
[]It may have taken place in a private house with limited capacity.

Click to expand...

There is no indication in all of the NT that weekly Gatherings were banning gentiles or were refusing interested gentiles due to lack of space. Making that up is "a weak argument"

The Liturgist said:

[]Paul may not yet have established a local congregation in that city.
[]The synagogue offered access to a much larger and already assembled audience

Click to expand...

AI already agreed that this is not an "either or" scenario but it is now stepping on its own observation. massively week.

The Liturgist said:

.
[]The questioners may specifically have requested a repetition before the same synagogue audience.

Click to expand...

The idea that the gentiles were reluctant to hear a gospel message that is not approved of by the Jews in the synagogue is directly contradicted by what happened at the next Sabbath service. Massively week argument

The Liturgist said:

[]Paul may have spoken to interested persons at other times during the intervening week.

Click to expand...

if Luke is reporting that "Paul gave them the gospel on Sabbath and then the gentiles asked for more gospel so Paul continued preaching the gospel to them all that week" then the narrative Luke gives is very misleading. Your AI must be having a bad day.

The Liturgist said:

7. Acts 13:43 actually undermines the rhetorical presentation

The post gives the impression that the people begged for more teaching and Paul effectively made them wait seven days because there was no other occasion to teach them.

Click to expand...

Actually, I say that Paul had every incentive to preach another gospel message as soon as he had the opportunity, and since there were no Sunday Gospel services available he stayed with the "Next Sabbath"

The Liturgist said:

But the very next verse says that many Jews and devout converts followed Paul and Barnabas, who continued speaking with them and urging them to remain in the grace of God.

Click to expand...

Yes he would not say "I refuse to speak to you". We can all agree. But the gentiles did not say "tell us next Sabbath" because they though Paul would not be able to speak for a week.

The Liturgist said:

Thus, the text does not present Paul as saying:

“Come back next Saturday; we have no other opportunity to speak.”​

Click to expand...

True in fact it is the gentiles themselves asking for the message to be given "The next Sabbath"
Clearly they did not know of any other meetings for gospel preaching and they wanted to invite friends to hear, not simply a small group discussion

The Liturgist said:

8. It equivocates between evangelism and worship

The post repeatedly moves between these different concepts:

Click to expand...

It is true that I view worship services as a time of gospel preaching, the very thing the gentiles were asking for . AI may not view it that way.
There is no evidence from the NT that worship services banned gospel preaching , and/or banned interested audiences.

The Liturgist said:

Acts 13 describes Paul delivering an evangelistic sermon in a synagogue. Even if this occurred every Sabbath

Click to expand...

As Act 18:4 says it did "every Sabbath"
while not one text says "They preached the gospel every Sunday" or "they met every Sunday for some reason"

The Liturgist said:

The argument quietly changes:

“Paul preached in a synagogue on the Sabbath”​

into:

“The New Testament Church held its regular Christian worship service on the Sabbath.”​

Click to expand...

Acts 18:4 says "every Sabbath" there was gospel preaching by Paul
Not one such "every Sunday preaching" statement in all of the NT.
That AI continues to miss the mark

The Liturgist said:

9. It applies asymmetric standards of proof

For Sunday worship, the author apparently requires an explicit statement such as:

“We have a regular Christian worship service every first day.”​

Yet for Sabbath worship, the author treats a narrative about missionary preaching in a Jewish synagogue as sufficient proof of a normative Christian worship schedule.

Click to expand...

It is true that mentioning what they WERE DOING is a stronger argument than imagining they were ALSO preaching every day but just not saying it.

The Liturgist said:

That is special pleading. If narrative patterns can contribute to the case for Sabbath practice, then narrative patterns may also contribute to the cumulative case for first-day practice.

Click to expand...

I will agree that "preaching every Sabbath in the synagogue" Acts 18:4 should be treated with equal weight to "preaching the Gospel every Sunday".

And there is not one of those for Sunday in the entire NT

The Liturgist said:

If only explicit commandments count, then Acts 13 does not contain an explicit command requiring Christians universally to worship on the Sabbath either.

Click to expand...

The Bible mentions it though and IS 66:23 says that for all eternity after the cross "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship". AI keeps shooting itself in the foot.

The Liturgist said:

The author cannot reasonably require explicit legislation from one side while accepting circumstantial narrative evidence for the other.

Click to expand...

Another shot in the foot? I keep accepting the challenge and showing that when we go there Sunday does not work.
circumstantial evidence for 1Cor 16 "lay by himself some funds" which says nothing about a gathering or a worship serivce. Yet this is the exact "support' used for Sunday to munge it into "every Sunday they saved money by also being in a worship service that they called a LORDs day gathering" which is a massive insert.

The Liturgist said:

10. It attacks a cumulative argument as though it rested upon this episode alone

Traditional Christian support for Sunday worship does not depend upon an imagined statement in Acts 13:42.

Click to expand...

agreed. If we leave the Bible altogether, then we can also note that traditions that arise centuries later do not wish to reference the Acts 13 scenario at all. They find it inconevient to bring that up

The Liturgist said:

The argument is cumulative and exegetical, drawing upon:

• 
  []Christ’s Resurrection on the first day;
  []His appearances to the disciples;
  []Pentecost;
  []the breaking of bread on the first day in Acts 20:7;
  []the weekly first-day rhythm in 1 Corinthians 16:2;
  []the Lord’s Day in Revelation 1:10;
• and the early Church’s reception and interpretation of that pattern.

Click to expand...

Notice how the "laying some money aside every week day 1" 1 Cor 16 argument snuck back in ??
So also the "one time we meet on week day one because Paul was leaving the next day" in Acts 20 comes in to fill the gap of "we preach the gospel every Sunday the way Paul was preaching the gospel every Sabbath in Act 18:4" idea is being promoted while having no actual text.

BobRyan said:

That argument leaves the gaping flaw of "yeah we have that service for gospel preaching tomorrow but we don't want to let gentiles know about it yet".

Click to expand...

Actually it very specifically thoroughly that argument of yours, iand I agree with its rationale.

ChatGPT 5.6 Sol Extended Thinking said:

Conclusion

Acts 13:42–44 establishes that Paul and Barnabas preached in the synagogue, were asked to repeat or continue the message, and addressed a much larger public gathering on the following Sabbath. It does not establish that the Church possessed no first-day custom, that Christians did not assemble on Sunday, or that synagogue preaching constituted the exclusive weekly worship of the New Testament Church.

The imagined sentence—

“Hey, we meet tomorrow!”
—does no logical work. Luke’s failure to place those words in Paul’s mouth is not historical evidence that no such Christian meeting existed.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Ok , I agree that those are the two most likely options

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should have expressed that in the original post? False dichotomies are easily avoidable, yet we constantly see them, for example, Roman Catholic vs. Protestant (erroneous because aside from the vast differences between Catholics in communion with Rome and Protestants, there are also groups that fall outside of either category, for example, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Ancient Church of the East.

KevinT said:

Thank you @JSRG This was a very helpful link directly to the correct information.

I significantly disagree with the logic and conclusions written there, but I appreciate being able to read it directly for myself.

Best wishes,

KT

Click to expand...

As an Orthodox Christian I also disagree with several Roman Catholic doctrines, but the disagreements we have with them today are very different from the ones we had with them prior to Vatican II and the current official catechism. Obsolete diocesan documents refer to us as schismatics and heretics and the current permission under the Code of Canon Laws of the Eastern Catholic Churches for Orthodox and Assyrians to partake of the Eucharist in RCC parishes without conversion and vice versa did not exist, but there has been a considerable improvement in relations, which underscores a point I’ve been trying to make, that we should seek to use the current doctrinal definitions of our respective denominations where change has occurred.

It is also the case as you may have noticed that within the RCC a distinction exists between the diocesan leadership and regional leadership conferences and the Vatican itself - the Catechism of the Catholic Church as posted by @JSRG is authoritative for the entire Roman Catholic Church, whereas older documents such as the Baltimore Catechism were authoritative only in the diocese of the bishop who granted them an imprimatur, and in many cases have been deprecated or are no longer in effect.

Now, with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, the situation becomes closer to that of the Baptist and Congregationalist churches such as the Baptist churches where our mutual friend @tall73 has served - albeit whereas Baptists and Congregationalists typically have annual conferences, the last synod that was authoritative for all Eastern Orthodox churches was the Palamist synod in the 14th century. The Great and Holy Synod in Crete in 2016 was supposed to be pan-Orthodox including all of the autocephalous churches but failed in this respect, since in the years prior to it, the Ecumenical Patriarchate managed to alienate several Orthodox churches with which it had previously had good relations including the ancient Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem (who between them represent half of the four ancient EO churches) and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, in addition to worsening relations with the Serbian, Georgian, Russian and Ukrainian churches, and also there was the serious issue of the Orthodox Church in America, which has the largest, oldest and most important Orthodox archdiocese in North America, that of Sitka and Alaska, not being recognized as an autocephalous church by Constantinople and not being permitted to attend, which caused huge problems since in addition to the entirety of the native Alaskan / Aleut Orthodox, fully half of the Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian and most of the Carpatho-Rusyn/Ruthenian/Lemko Orthodox populations (all of those who had converted from the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church who were not under the EP) in North America and also nearly all of the Albanian Orthodox were in a position where they lacked representation. This fact was not lost on the churches which did attend, and as a result the ambitious itinierary originally planned for that synod in the 1970s which included addressing issues such as the process of reconciliation with the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians did not happen, and basically what did happen were some very nice liturgies.

Consequently there is no officlal Eastern Orthodox catechism in the contemporary question-and-answer format nor is it likely there will be one in the near future (which is probably good; we have manage to get by for 1,996 years without a Q and A type catechism; small catechisms have been issued by individual dioceses but they can’t be considered to be authoritative for the entire church).

What is authoritative are the decisions of the prior ecumenical councils, certain important Patristic texts and the specific prayers and hymns with which we worship including the Bible itself (which is not so much read as it is sung and prayed).

The Oriental Orthodox on the other hand did have a formal council in Addis Ababa in the early 1960s at which time they adopted the term “Oriental Orthodox” to refer to themselves (as previously there did not exist a formal designation for Orthodox churches which were falsely accused of Monophysitism due to not accepting the Tome of Leo), but it also did not issue an official catechism, however, the some of the individual Oriental Orthodox churches have, but it should be stressed those catechisms are specific to those churches, since even more than Eastern Orthodoxy (where some jurisdictions such as Antioch and ROCOR have Western Rite Vicarates which worship according to modified versions of Catholic and Anglican liturgies or in the case of ROCOR a re-construction of pre-schism Western worship from before the Great Schism of 1054), each Oriental Orthodox church has its own RIte which means its own form of worship and its own calendar, and standards of observance.

But what we do all share, what I like to stress, our common patrimony as Christians is the Nicene Creed in its 381 AD recension and the 27 book New Testament Canon.

ChatGpt in a rather balanced moment...

ChatGpt

"The New Testament does not explicitly narrate:
1. the apostles issuing a command to replace the seventh-day Sabbath with Sunday;
2. a council decreeing such a change;
3. or a passage stating that this became part of the gospel preached to the churches.
"

So the historical fact is that many Christians believe the apostles established Sunday observance. Whether the New Testament itself explicitly documents that belief is a separate question"

END

===================
Question to ChatGPT
"Does the New Testament text itself document a change from weekly Sabbath observance to weekly Sunday observance"

ChatGpt response:

"If by "document" you mean explicitly records or teaches that the church changed from weekly seventh-day Sabbath observance to weekly first-day Sunday observance, then the answer is:

No, the New Testament does not explicitly document such a change.

There is no passage that says, for example:

"The Sabbath is now the first day of the week."
"Christians are to keep Sunday holy instead of the seventh day."
"The fourth commandment has been transferred to Sunday."
"The apostles ordained Sunday as the new weekly day of worship."

Nor does the New Testament narrate a specific event in which the apostles announce or implement such a change.
"

And of course in Acts 13:42 we see no such Sunday practice being called into service to accommodate Gospel accepting gentiles wanting more Gospel preaching.

JSRG said:

. All agree that the change in the day was made by the apostles.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. Where in scripture does this statement come from??

timothyu said:

This is interesting. Where in scripture does this statement come from??

Click to expand...

The statement (from a source I was quoting) that Catholic sources--with particular focus on the 19th and early 20th century--said a particular thing? I wouldn't expect scripture to say anything on the specific question of what some much later writings would say. If you were specifically asking for a scriptural citation for what those sources said, that specific question was fairly irrelevant to my point (the point was what they said, not whether they were right or not), though there was some discussion of that from the source being quoted.

My post was also from more than a year ago; this topic was essentially dead until reddogs randomly revived it.

JSRG said:

I wouldn't expect scripture to say anything on the specific question of what some much later writings would say.

Click to expand...

So there is no reference to apostles, at least the original ones changing the day?

timothyu said:

So there is no reference to apostles, at least the original ones changing the day?

Click to expand...

See my edited post again at #67 where I added a little information. I edited to try to better clarify things, but it looks like you responded to it so quickly that you missed it. In any event, the question of whether it's found in scripture (a point I leave to others to argue about) is entirely besides the point I was making with my original post.

The Liturgist said:

Actually it very specifically thoroughly that argument of yours, iand I agree with its rationale.

Click to expand...

ChatGpt


And again we get this from ChatGpt

• 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 explicitly connects the Lord's Supper with proclaiming Christ's death: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul does not state in that passage that the meal is a weekly Sunday observance or that its purpose is to commemorate the resurrection.
• Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Hebrews 8 do not explicitly state that the New Covenant changes the weekly day of worship or transfers the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first.
• In the New Testament narratives and letters, the word "Sabbath" continues to refer to the seventh day; there is no passage that explicitly redefines "Sabbath" to mean Sunday.
• The New Testament contains no explicit apostolic command that Christians are to observe Sunday as the weekly holy day in place of the seventh-day Sabbath.

The Liturgist said:

I asked chatGPT 5.6 Sol, the latest frontier model from OpenAI, in Extended Thinking mode:

“please write an evaluation of the truth claims and logic in the following post:

quote]when we notice that statement above and also notice the Acts 13:42 fact that more than a DECADE AFTER the resurrection of Christ there was not even a "custom' (let alone a command) for the young NT Christian church to hold meetings for gospel preaching on week day 1, NOT EVEN when gentiles were begging them in that Sabbath service for MORE Gospel preaching!

WoW, not even then do they say "Hey have I got good news for you, we have a custom/tradition/practice of having gospel preaching every week day one, which is tomorrow! Come and join us”[/quote“

To which chatGPT 5.6 Sol in Extended Thinking mode generated the following reply:

The post contains one broadly true chronological observation, one translation-dependent claim, and several invalid inferences.

1. “More than a decade after the Resurrection”

This is broadly plausible. Paul’s first missionary journey is commonly dated around AD 46–48, placing the events of Acts 13 more than a decade after the usual dates proposed for the Crucifixion and Resurrection. The exact chronology is approximate, but this part is not the principal problem.

The passage’s date, however, tells us only when this event occurred. It does not tell us that every Christian practice then in existence must be mentioned in the narrative.

2. “The Gentiles were begging them”

That wording is found in the KJV and NKJV:



But it is textually disputed. Many modern translations, following the critical Greek text, simply say that “the people” asked Paul and Barnabas to speak again, without distinguishing departing Jews from requesting Gentiles.

This does not destroy the author’s argument by itself, because the KJV reading may still be defended. It does mean that the emphatic claim about what “the Gentiles” did cannot properly be treated as an undisputed fact shared by every major textual tradition.

3. Acts 13 describes synagogue evangelism, not the Church’s complete worship calendar

The immediate context is Paul and Barnabas entering a Jewish synagogue and being invited to address its congregation. Earlier in Acts 13, Luke explicitly describes their missionary practice of preaching in Jewish synagogues.

Therefore, the relevant question in Acts 13:42 is:

When would Paul and Barnabas return to address this particular synagogue audience?​

The next Sabbath is the obvious occasion because that is when the synagogue congregation would ordinarily reassemble and when Paul could again reach Jews, proselytes, God-fearers, and interested townspeople together.

That tells us nothing definite about whether the Christian community also assembled on the first day. A Sunday Christian assembly and a Sabbath missionary appearance in a synagogue are not mutually exclusive activities.

4. The post commits an argument from silence

Its reasoning is essentially:

1. 
   []The people requested another sermon on the next Sabbath.
   []Paul did not answer by inviting them to a Sunday meeting.
2. Therefore no regular Sunday Christian meeting existed.

That conclusion does not follow.

Luke does not record Paul’s complete reply to every request, every announcement he made, or every meeting that occurred during the intervening week. The absence of an invitation to a Sunday service from Luke’s compressed narrative is not positive evidence that no such Christian practice existed.

This is the same elementary error encountered previously:

The failure of a passage to state X is not proof of not-X.​

5. It also commits a non sequitur

Even granting every detail exactly as the author states it, the strongest conclusion would be:

Paul and Barnabas agreed to preach publicly again on the following Sabbath.​

It does not follow that:

The Christian Church had no custom of assembling on the first day.​

A missionary could preach in a synagogue on Saturday and worship with Christians on Sunday. There is no contradiction between the two.

6. It creates a false dichotomy

The post assumes that Paul had only two possible responses:

• 
  []invite the people to a Sunday Christian service; or
  []return to the synagogue on the following Sabbath.

But several reasonable possibilities exist:

• 
  []The Christian gathering may not have been designed as a public evangelistic meeting.
  []It may have taken place in a private house with limited capacity.
  []Paul may not yet have established a local congregation in that city.
  []The synagogue offered access to a much larger and already assembled audience.
  []The questioners may specifically have requested a repetition before the same synagogue audience.
  []Paul may have spoken to interested persons at other times during the intervening week.

Thus, accepting the invitation to return the following Sabbath does not imply that Sunday worship was unknown.

7. Acts 13:43 actually undermines the rhetorical presentation

The post gives the impression that the people begged for more teaching and Paul effectively made them wait seven days because there was no other occasion to teach them.

But the very next verse says that many Jews and devout converts followed Paul and Barnabas, who continued speaking with them and urging them to remain in the grace of God.

Thus, the text does not present Paul as saying:

“Come back next Saturday; we have no other opportunity to speak.”​

He continued speaking to interested hearers immediately after the synagogue meeting. The following Sabbath was the next large public proclamation, not necessarily the next occasion on which anyone heard Christian teaching.

This is a significant instance of suppressed context or selective quotation.

8. It equivocates between evangelism and worship

The post repeatedly moves between these different concepts:

• 
  []gospel preaching;
  []public missionary meetings;
  []synagogue attendance;
  []Christian congregational worship;
• the principal weekly Eucharistic assembly.

These are not identical.

Acts 13 describes Paul delivering an evangelistic sermon in a synagogue. Even if this occurred every Sabbath during a particular mission, it would not establish that the synagogue service was the Christian Eucharistic assembly or that Sabbath was the exclusive Christian day of worship.

The argument quietly changes:

“Paul preached in a synagogue on the Sabbath”​

into:

“The New Testament Church held its regular Christian worship service on the Sabbath.”​

That is a category error and another non sequitur.

9. It applies asymmetric standards of proof

For Sunday worship, the author apparently requires an explicit statement such as:

“We have a regular Christian worship service every first day.”​

Yet for Sabbath worship, the author treats a narrative about missionary preaching in a Jewish synagogue as sufficient proof of a normative Christian worship schedule.

That is special pleading. If narrative patterns can contribute to the case for Sabbath practice, then narrative patterns may also contribute to the cumulative case for first-day practice. If only explicit commandments count, then Acts 13 does not contain an explicit command requiring Christians universally to worship on the Sabbath either.

The author cannot reasonably require explicit legislation from one side while accepting circumstantial narrative evidence for the other.

10. It attacks a cumulative argument as though it rested upon this episode alone

Traditional Christian support for Sunday worship does not depend upon an imagined statement in Acts 13:42. The argument is cumulative and exegetical, drawing upon:

• 
  []Christ’s Resurrection on the first day;
  []His appearances to the disciples;
  []Pentecost;
  []the breaking of bread on the first day in Acts 20:7;
  []the weekly first-day rhythm in 1 Corinthians 16:2;
  []the Lord’s Day in Revelation 1:10;
• and the early Church’s reception and interpretation of that pattern.

Acts 13 must be interpreted within that larger body of evidence rather than isolated and treated as though the absence of a Sunday invitation overturns everything else.

Fallacies present

The post contains:

1. 
   []Argument from silence — no Sunday invitation is recorded; therefore no Sunday custom existed.
   []Non sequitur — returning to preach on the Sabbath supposedly proves the absence of first-day worship.
   []False dichotomy — Paul must either preach Sunday or return on the Sabbath.
   []Category error — synagogue evangelism is treated as identical to Christian congregational worship.
   []Equivocation — “gospel preaching,” “meeting,” and “worship service” are used interchangeably.
   []Hasty generalization — one missionary episode is generalized into the universal practice of the Church.
   []Suppressed evidence — Acts 13:43, where Paul and Barnabas continue speaking immediately, is ignored.
   []Special pleading — Sunday evidence must be explicit, while Sabbath evidence may be indirect and narrative.
   []Straw man — the traditional cumulative case is reduced to the claim that this passage ought to contain an explicit Sunday invitation.
   []Burden-of-proof reversal — the absence of evidence in this narrative is treated as though opponents must disprove the resulting universal negative.
   []Textual overstatement — the KJV’s explicit reference to “Gentiles” is presented without acknowledging the important manuscript variation.
   []Rhetorical incredulity — “WoW, not even then…” substitutes surprise and mockery for an actual inference.

Conclusion

Acts 13:42–44 establishes that Paul and Barnabas preached in the synagogue, were asked to repeat or continue the message, and addressed a much larger public gathering on the following Sabbath. It does not establish that the Church possessed no first-day custom, that Christians did not assemble on Sunday, or that synagogue preaching constituted the exclusive weekly worship of the New Testament Church.

The imagined sentence—

“Hey, we meet tomorrow!”​

—does no logical work. Luke’s failure to place those words in Paul’s mouth is not historical evidence that no such Christian meeting existed.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

ChatGpt in a rather balanced moment...

ChatGpt

"The New Testament does not explicitly narrate:
1. the apostles issuing a command to replace the seventh-day Sabbath with Sunday;
2. a council decreeing such a change;
3. or a passage stating that this became part of the gospel preached to the churches.
"

So the historical fact is that many Christians believe the apostles established Sunday observance. Whether the New Testament itself explicitly documents that belief is a separate question"

END

===================
Question to ChatGPT
"Does the New Testament text itself document a change from weekly Sabbath observance to weekly Sunday observance"

ChatGpt response:

"If by "document" you mean explicitly records or teaches that the church changed from weekly seventh-day Sabbath observance to weekly first-day Sunday observance, then the answer is:

No, the New Testament does not explicitly document such a change.

There is no passage that says, for example:

"The Sabbath is now the first day of the week."
"Christians are to keep Sunday holy instead of the seventh day."
"The fourth commandment has been transferred to Sunday."
"The apostles ordained Sunday as the new weekly day of worship."

Nor does the New Testament narrate a specific event in which the apostles announce or implement such a change.
"

And of course in Acts 13:42 we see no such Sunday practice being called into service to accommodate Gospel accepting gentiles wanting more Gospel preaching.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

ChatGpt

"The point that is not really disputed is that the New Testament does not contain an explicit sentence saying, "The New Covenant changes the Sabbath to Sunday," or, "The Lord's Supper is to be observed weekly on Sunday in honor of the resurrection." Those conclusions, where they are held, are reached through interpretation rather than through direct wording of the cited passages themselves."​

And again we get this from ChatGpt

"The following are textual observations:​

• 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 explicitly connects the Lord's Supper with proclaiming Christ's death: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul does not state in that passage that the meal is a weekly Sunday observance or that its purpose is to commemorate the resurrection.
• Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Hebrews 8 do not explicitly state that the New Covenant changes the weekly day of worship or transfers the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first.
• In the New Testament narratives and letters, the word "Sabbath" continues to refer to the seventh day; there is no passage that explicitly redefines "Sabbath" to mean Sunday.
• The New Testament contains no explicit apostolic command that Christians are to observe Sunday as the weekly holy day in place of the seventh-day Sabbath.

Those are observations about what the text explicitly says and does not say."​

Click to expand...

I likely speak for many when I say...

AI;dr.

The Lord’s day is not the Sabbath and no one in the beginning took the Lord’s Day as a sabbath as they clearly broke fast on the Lord’s day. Besides, 2 day weekends were never in vogue until the 20th century so the day of rest remained the day before the Lord’s day. Rather than declare two days the gentile church took it upon themselves to pull a switcheroo in an attempt to pull away from Judaism using the feeble excuse that proclaiming Saturday as the sabbath would be promoting judaiser rather than gentile sentiments. This of course no doubt was because Jesus and the apostles only posed as Jews rather than the spawn of 70 nations that had rebelled against God. Somehow we must have mistakenly assumed the Hebrew people were God’s chosen when obviously it was the gentiles… not.

Jesus made it clear when He asked the apostles who people said He was, that humans would tell their own truths over the truths of God, then and always. That has never been more evident than today where truth is individually what 8 billion people want it to be.

The Liturgist said:

The problem with that statement is that it implies the Nicene Creed, which is the standard by which apostasy is measured, was drafted by apostates.

Click to expand...

Well, it doesnt come in a day or hour like the Second Coming, it was a gradual infiltration of the church especially from Rome and Alexandria the two Patriarchates with strong pagan philosophies, versus the truth that came from Jerusalem and Antioch that Christ had given the church and the apostles. Here is from AI as you seem to like its points of view..

The Great Apostasy refers to a widespread falling away from true Christian faith, predicted to occur before Christ’s return and historically associated with doctrinal corruption and spiritual decline.​

Definition and Biblical Basis​

The term “Great Apostasy” comes from the Greek word apostasia, meaning rebellion, defection, or falling away. It describes a significant departure from foundational Christian teachings, both historically and in eschatological prophecy. Key biblical references include 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where Paul warns that “the day of the Lord will not come unless the rebellion comes first,” and Matthew 24:10–12, where Jesus predicts that many will fall away, betray one another, and follow false prophets Bible Hub+2. Other passages, such as 1 Timothy 4:1 and 2 Peter 2:1, highlight the danger of abandoning the faith and embracing deceptive teachings biblestudytoolbox.com+1.

Historical Context​

Historically, the Great Apostasy is associated with periods when the early Church faced heresies, persecution, and doctrinal corruption. Some Restorationist traditions, including the Latter-day Saints, believe the apostasy began shortly after Christ’s ascension, continuing until the 19th century, marked by the loss of priesthood authority and the distortion of original teachings Wikipedia+1. Protestant Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin also identified corruption in the Catholic Church, particularly in the papacy, as evidence of a falling away from true Christian doctrine Wikipedia+1. Catholic and mainstream theologians, however, often interpret the apostasy as a future event preceding the end times, emphasizing spiritual testing and purification rather than a complete historical collapse catholicus.eu+1.

Theological Significance​

The Great Apostasy serves as both a warning and a call to vigilance. It highlights the susceptibility of believers and institutions to false teachings, moral decline, and spiritual deception. In eschatology, it is closely linked to the rise of the “Man of Lawlessness” or Antichrist, who will oppose God and exalt himself in the temple, signaling the final period before Christ’s return bibleprophecyreport.com+2. The apostasy is seen as a test of faith, requiring discernment, adherence to Scripture, and perseverance among believers.

Practical Implications for Believers​

Believers are encouraged to remain steadfast in faith through:

• Scripture study and discernment to identify false teachings bibleprophecyreport.com+1.
• Prayer and spiritual vigilance to maintain alignment with God’s truth biblestudytoolbox.com.
• Community engagement to support one another in faith and resist moral and doctrinal compromise catholicus.eu.
• Living a faithful example to witness the Gospel amid societal and ecclesial challenges catholicus.eu.

Summary​

The Great Apostasy encompasses both historical and prophetic dimensions: it refers to the corruption and loss of true Christian teachings over time...

reddogs said:

The Great Apostasy encompasses both historical and prophetic dimensions: it refers to the corruption and loss of true Christian teachings over time...

Click to expand...

Yet since the time of Jesus there have always been a remnant true to the Kingdom rather than to religion. It could go on forever and may do so until Jesus’ prophecy is fulfilled where this Kingdom and not religion is taught throughout the world. Then the end will come.

timothyu said:

The Lord’s day is not the Sabbath and no one in the beginning took the Lord’s Day as a sabbath as they clearly broke fast on the Lord’s day. Besides, 2 day weekends were never in vogue until the 20th century so the day of rest remained the day before the Lord’s day. Rather than declare two days the gentile church took it upon themselves to pull a switcheroo in an attempt to pull away from Judaism using the feeble excuse that proclaiming Saturday as the sabbath would be promoting judaiser rather than gentile sentiments. This of course no doubt was because Jesus and the apostles only posed as Jews rather than the spawn of 70 nations that had rebelled against God. Somehow we must have mistakenly assumed the Hebrew people were God’s chosen when obviously it was the gentiles… not.

Jesus made it clear when He asked the apostles who people said He was, that humans would tell their own truths over the truths of God, then and always. That has never been more evident than today where truth is individually what 8 billion people want it to be.

Click to expand...

The Sabbath is the Lords Day of the Lord thy God, not Moses' sabbath, or the Jews sabbath, or anyone else's sabbath.

Leviticus 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

We see the same.

Deuteronomy 5:12-13
12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. 13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: 14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

Again the same.

Exodus 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

It was not 'Moses' sabbath.

Leviticus 19:1-2
1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. 3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19:30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 26:2 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

Isaiah 56:4-6
4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Ezekiel 20:12-13
12Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. 13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

Ezekiel 20:16 Because they despised my judgments, and walked not in my statutes, but polluted my sabbaths: for their heart went after their idols.

Ezek 20:19-24
19I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them;
20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God. 21 Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; they polluted my sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness. 22 Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth. 23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; 24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols.

Ezekiel 22:8 Thou hast despised mine holy things, and hast profaned my sabbaths.

Ezekiel 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

Ezekiel 23:38 Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths.

The Lord claims the sabbath as His very own. It is a day, therefore it is literally, the Lord's day. This clear so how many times must the Lord call the sabbath His day to understand that there is only one day in the scriptures that would be referred to as the Lord's day? Other than the seventh day sabbath, the Lord's day can also refer to the day on which He will return to this earth. That is all. Sunday, or the first day of the week is never referred to as the Lord's day in the scriptures.

This title was only applied to Sunday later on, to cover their deception. It was applied by those who brought in the apostasy that changed the true church that Christ and the apostles established.

reddogs said:

This title was only applied to Sunday later on, to cover their deception. It was applied by those who brought in the apostasy that changed the true church that Christ and the apostles established.

Click to expand...

Different Lord’s day. They saw Sunday as the day He arose, overcame death. Still wasn’t a sabbath.