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

[BobRyan]

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]

AI goes to post NT traditions and non Bible sources to try and figure that one out.

Interesting help from the Catholic Church explains why AI can not find any commands for Sunday keeping in the actual New Testament.

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".


page 243

"nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

 

[BPPLEE]

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.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

1. Acts 20:7 does not say they met every Sunday. Rather it is an account of one meeting on one Sunday
2. Acts 20:7 calls the day "week day 1" not "the Lord's day"
3. Acts 20 does not tell the reader that week day one is a holy day, or rest day.
4. They came to break bread on week day 1 because Paul would be leaving the next day. If they were meeting every week day 1 then they would meet no matter who had travel plans for the next day. The reason they are having communion on week day one, according to the text, is that Paul would be leaving the next day.
5. The meeting is on both Sunday and Monday since at sunset on Sunday it flips over to Monday in Bible models of time reckoning, which cant be a basis for making either Monday or Sunday a weekly day of worship
6. Since this is the one and only church meeting on Sunday mentioned in all the Bible, this is the place to inform the church to stop worshiping "every Sabbath" as in Acts 18:4, to start calling "Week day 1" the "Lord's day" and to keep week day one as a day of rest and worship. Nothing is said about any of that on this , the only such record of a preaching service on week day 1 where the day of the week is mentioned for Sunday.

 

[BPPLEE]

Ha

1. Acts 20:7 does not say they met every Sunday. Rather it is an account of one meeting on one Sunday
2. Acts 20:7 calls the day "week day 1" not "the Lord's day"
3. Acts 20 does not tell the reader that week day one is a holy day, or rest day.
4. They came to break bread on week day 1 because Paul would be leaving the next day. If they were meeting every week day 1 then they would meet no matter who had travel plans for the next day. The reason they are having communion on week day one, according to the text, is that Paul would be leaving the next day.
5. The meeting is on both Sunday and Monday since at sunset on Sunday it flips over to Monday in Bible models of time reckoning, which cant be a basis for making either Monday or Sunday a weekly day of worship

Having communion on Sunday is not forbidden

 

[BobRyan]

In post #2 the Catholic church is calling the Sabbath the Lord's day in the OT because of Isaiah 58:13 where the Sabbath is called "The Holy day of the Lord"

 

[BobRyan]

Having communion on Sunday is not forbidden

True. Acts 20 does not say it is forbidden to break bread on Tuesday or Sunday or Thursday.

But the opening post is about the popular idea that Sunday is supposed to be the weekly day , holy day, of worship as if the NT had called for it

 

[BPPLEE]

True. Acts 20 does not say it is forbidden to break bread on Tuesday or Sunday or Thursday.

But the opening post is about the popular idea that Sunday is supposed to be the weekly day , holy day, of worship as if the NT had called for it

Well you're right, it's a tradition, it's not a command found in the Bible

 

[BobRyan]

Well you're right, it's a tradition, it's not a command found in the Bible

And it is not a tradition found in the NT as if some text had said "it is our tradition to meet for worship every Sunday" or "it is our tradition to break bread each Sunday and call it the Lord's day". Nothing at all is said in the entire Bible about having some sort of worship event on every Sunday

 

[DamianWarS]

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. ?​

Honestly, this whole argument assumes the NT was supposed to give us a new version of Leviticus. It doesn’t. There’s no command for Sunday, yeah—but there’s also no command for Christians to keep the Sabbath as a covenant sign either. The NT just doesn’t legislate worship-day rules at all.

Acts 18:4 isn’t Christians “keeping Sabbath”—it’s Paul preaching to Jews in a synagogue. If we turn Acts’ descriptions into commands, then we also need to meet daily, sell everything, and preach till midnight.

“Lord’s Day” isn’t defined in the NT, but the earliest Christians (1st/2nd century) consistently used it for Sunday, not Saturday. That’s long before Rome had institutional power, so the “Catholic Church invented Sunday” narrative isn’t historically accurate.

Bottom line: the NT emphasizes freedom of days (Rom 14:5) and the passing of Sinai’s covenant markers (Col 2:16–17). It tells Christians to gather, not which day they must gather.

So pointing out “there’s no Sunday command” doesn’t prove Sabbath is binding, it just proves the NT isn’t a rulebook for weekly holy days.

 

[DamianWarS]

Honestly, this whole argument assumes the NT was supposed to give us a new version of Leviticus. It doesn’t. There’s no command for Sunday, yeah—but there’s also no command for Christians to keep the Sabbath as a covenant sign either. The NT just doesn’t legislate worship-day rules at all.

Acts 18:4 isn’t Christians “keeping Sabbath”—it’s Paul preaching to Jews in a synagogue. If we turn Acts’ descriptions into commands, then we also need to meet daily, sell everything, and preach till midnight.

“Lord’s Day” isn’t defined in the NT, but the earliest Christians (1st/2nd century) consistently used it for Sunday, not Saturday. That’s long before Rome had institutional power, so the “Catholic Church invented Sunday” narrative isn’t historically accurate.

Bottom line: the NT emphasizes freedom of days (Rom 14:5) and the passing of Sinai’s covenant markers (Col 2:16–17). It tells Christians to gather, not which day they must gather.

So pointing out “there’s no Sunday command” doesn’t prove Sabbath is binding, it just proves the NT isn’t a rulebook for weekly holy days.

@BobRyan, to add, I would also say the law of Christ is distinctly different than the Mosaic law or if you choose the 10 commandments. These laws spoon-feed the requirement, giving us a clear approved/not approved list but can also be exploited, are at risk of legalistic creep, not to mention they don't critically address our moral responsibilities (I may actually keep the 10 but hate my neighbour at the same time). This is a lot of what Christ addresses when he addresses the Pharisees.

The Israelites needed a concrete instruction to reinforce and keep core monotheistic values and civil order as defined by God, not by surrounding pagan cultures. Even a cursory reading of Exodus quickly shows that Israel was not mature to make these choices themselves. These laws themselves function as a type of polemic to these other cultures, as well as a guide for Israel, so that they may show order under God and they themselves may be recalibrated. Christ reframes it to a heuristic approach of law over giving a specific list or requirements (Matthew 22:37-40). This forces us to both critically approach our moral and faith responsibilities under Christ as well as rely on the HS for guidance over a check list approach. in fact, this is exactly how the NT frames it in Gal 3:23-25 "But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." Teaching "you must worship on x day" would be counterproductive to this focus.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

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. ?​

Christians must not use the AI to find Biblical answers

 

[DamianWarS]

Christians must not use the AI to find Biblical answers

[DISCLAIMER: THIS RESPONSE WAS GENERATED BY AI, PROMPTED WITH THE QUOTED POST]

Balanced & Reasonable​

“AI is just a tool, like a concordance, commentary, or Bible dictionary. Christians have always used tools to help study Scripture. What matters isn’t who helps you look something up, but whether the conclusions are tested against Scripture itself.”​

​

Direct but Respectful​

“AI doesn’t replace the Holy Spirit or personal study. It simply gathers information quickly. If someone is grounded in Scripture, AI is no more dangerous than using a commentary from a pastor they’ve never met.”​

​

Pointed / Reddit-style​

“Christians have been using non-inspired tools for centuries—Strong’s Concordance, lexicons, sermons, study Bibles, YouTube pastors. AI is just a faster index. The authority is still Scripture; the tool doesn’t change that.”​

​

Historical Angle​

“The early church copied manuscripts, consulted teachers, and debated theology. Using tools to study the Bible is nothing new. Technology changes—interpretation standards don’t.”​

​

If You Want a Slightly Snarky Version​

“So Christians shouldn’t use AI, but we can use Google, commentaries, sermons, and study Bibles written by fallible humans? The issue isn’t AI; the issue is discernment. Test everything, hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21).”​

[DISCLAIMER: THIS RESPONSE WAS GENERATED BY AI, PROMPTED WITH THE QUOTED POST]

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

[DISCLAIMER: THIS RESPONSE WAS GENERATED BY AI, PROMPTED WITH THE QUOTED POST]

Balanced & Reasonable​

“AI is just a tool, like a concordance, commentary, or Bible dictionary. Christians have always used tools to help study Scripture. What matters isn’t who helps you look something up, but whether the conclusions are tested against Scripture itself.”​

​

Direct but Respectful​

“AI doesn’t replace the Holy Spirit or personal study. It simply gathers information quickly. If someone is grounded in Scripture, AI is no more dangerous than using a commentary from a pastor they’ve never met.”​

​

Pointed / Reddit-style​

“Christians have been using non-inspired tools for centuries—Strong’s Concordance, lexicons, sermons, study Bibles, YouTube pastors. AI is just a faster index. The authority is still Scripture; the tool doesn’t change that.”​

​

Historical Angle​

“The early church copied manuscripts, consulted teachers, and debated theology. Using tools to study the Bible is nothing new. Technology changes—interpretation standards don’t.”​

​

If You Want a Slightly Snarky Version​

“So Christians shouldn’t use AI, but we can use Google, commentaries, sermons, and study Bibles written by fallible humans? The issue isn’t AI; the issue is discernment. Test everything, hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21).”​

[DISCLAIMER: THIS RESPONSE WAS GENERATED BY AI, PROMPTED WITH THE QUOTED POST]

But AI is more than just summary. AI is to use fake voices, fake images, videos and what not. Christians use AI for prayers, teachings, sermons. Where is the authenticity? Where is the heart that God desires? We worship the Lord with new hearts of flesh, and not like machines. Prayers, sermons it's not about using beautiful words, but words from a heart that fears and love the Lord.

Yes, technology is just a tool. A good servant but a terrible god, it can become easily our idol. So in sense technology is not bad, but it is the way we use it. AI however, is much much worse.

We can have a discussion, but I want a discussion with a human being, not AI

 

[DamianWarS]

But AI is more than just summary. AI is to use fake voices, fake images, videos and what not. Christians use AI for prayers, teachings, sermons. Where is the authenticity? Where is the heart that God desires? We worship the Lord with new hearts of flesh, and not like machines. Prayers, sermons it's not about using beautiful words, but words from a heart that fears and love the Lord.

Yes, technology is just a tool. A good servant but a terrible god, it can become easily our idol. So in sense technology is not bad, but it is the way we use it. AI however, is much much worse.

We can have a discussion, but I want a discussion with a human being, not AI

AI has many outlets, some are for pure entertainment but others can be used for critical discourse/study. the video/image content doesn't have a goal of accuracy in retelling accounts but rather is entertainment driven.

we typically know the difference quite easily. we don't watch Charlton Heston to understand who Moses was even if he is famous for dipicting him. so a measure of common sense is still needed and like any mediums we can't lump it all together and say because some things are bad then it's all bad. for example the Internet clearly has inappropriate and moral failures throughout, but that doesn't mean we should never use it. AI is not some self thinking machine with all these goals to corrupt reality. people are still controlling the content, AI is just the tool they use.

the church historically has used a lot of prewritren content for expression of worship outside of the Bible. liturgy, songs, prayer, ceremonial aspects, preaching, devotionals, meditation, etc.... the fact that we are going off a script doesn't make it insincere, certainly we can challenge these things but when I sing a favorite hymn I still need to find a place in my heart where I can personally use the hymn to give glory to God rather than just mechanically string the words together. Sometime I identify with the words so much that I find it some of the best ways to expression my deep feelings. The words and music together may be beautiful in their arrangement but those things themselves do offer worship to God, it is still through the heart not the physical (or audible) thing. no matter how melodic if there is no love, it's just a resounding gong.

certainly AI can be used irresponsibility, (so can tongues as Paul made that very clear) so we still need to critically approach these tools and ensure they are being used to edify and build the church or as a tool to love others while giving glory to God over a competing focus which indeed can be forms of idolatry, non different than any "thing". AI is has more rapid results so ifnit has a negative/positive impact that too can manifest quicker but that's not AI's problem, that's still a user problem and AI is still just a tool (regardless of how big the tool is, it's still a tool)

its also very much the future. you may reject it today but it's rapid development will force you to approach it down the road. I guarantee there will be AI translations of the Bible and AI content through the church in all aspects mentioned above. we can't just deomonize it but rather learn how it can be used still as a responsible tool. If Hitler liked apples does this mean that apples are evil and we should stay away from them? certainly not, and such a conclusion would be absurd, but is AI no different? AI doesn't corrupt everything it touches and it's still on us to critically and faithfully use it to give glory to God over "thing"