Scholars on BOTH sides agree - Saturday is the seventh day - the Sabbath of Exodus 20

[ToBeLoved]

It was his ministry. The Galatians started by walking in the Spirit, but then Judaizers came and told them they also had to be circumsized, and observe the Sabbath, etc.

what does that have to do with what the thorn was that Paul endured? Am I missing it?

 

[1stcenturylady]

what does that have to do with what the thorn was that Paul endured? Am I missing it?

I see the Judaizers as Paul's thorn in the flesh.

 

[BobRyan]

No one who knows the Bible can say that what happened in the Old Covenant called the law of sin .

hint: scripture is never called "The law of sin" - not even in Romans 7.


21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Paul says that in his flesh HE SERVES the LAW of sin. He is obedient to the LAW of SIN. which is EVIL - that is at WAR against the LAW of God.

Now lets go to Matt 17 - Moses and Elijah standing WITH Christ in glory -

Question: Since this is before the cross are they servants of sin, servants of the law of sin - the law opposed to "The LAW of God"???

We all know what the answer is -- the contrast in Romans 7 is between the sinful nature - vs - the LAW of God that is "Holy just and good".

Romans 7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
..
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

I guess we all know that a new thread is about to start.

What is your point with this post? I think I'm lost.

The point is that scripture, the Word of God, The Commandments of God, The TEN Commandments are NOT called "the LAW sin" or "the Law of sin and death" or "the law of sin and death and destruction" or any such thing. RATHER God's commandments are "holy just and good".

In fact "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19.

The very opposite of the "Law of sin and death" which is of course - the sinful nature in Romans 7.

Thus the 4th Commandment Sabbath cannot be swept aside as "part of the law of sin" or "part of the law of sin and death" or "part of the law of sin and death and destruction"

 

[BobRyan]

It was his ministry. The Galatians started by walking in the Spirit, but then Judaizers came and told them they also had to be circumsized, and observe the Sabbath, etc.

There is "be circumcised and observe the Sabbath" as a statement from Judaizers.

But we do have "EVERY Sabbath" BOTH Jews AND Gentiles gather in the synagogues to hear Gospel sermons in Acts 18:4 from Paul

Bible details matter.

 

[ToBeLoved]

There is "be circumcised and observe the Sabbath" as a statement from Judaizers.

But we do have "EVERY Sabbath" BOTH Jews AND Gentiles gather in the synagogues to hear Gospel sermons in Acts 18:4 from Paul

Bible details matter.

Yeah because no churches existed it was at the start of Christianity.

Paul clearly keeps the churches away from the Judaizers

 

[Copperhead]

There is "be circumcised and observe the Sabbath" as a statement from Judaizers.

But we do have "EVERY Sabbath" BOTH Jews AND Gentiles gather in the synagogues to hear Gospel sermons in Acts 18:4 from Paul

Bible details matter.

Sure, it would make sense that Jews and the gentile proselytes would meet in the synagogue on the Sabbath. Not quite sure that they went there to hear the "gospel sermons" as you put it. The passage states that Paul reasoned with them. That seems more like basic witnessing than a sermon. And, as a good evangelist would, he meets them on their turf to reason for the Messiah. Paul was a Jew and it was a common practice in the synagogue to discuss and debate different ideas.

 

[1stcenturylady]

There is "be circumcised and observe the Sabbath" as a statement from Judaizers.

But we do have "EVERY Sabbath" BOTH Jews AND Gentiles gather in the synagogues to hear Gospel sermons in Acts 18:4 from Paul

Bible details matter.

Who were they trying to convert who still needed to hear the gospel? Of course they went to the Synagogues on Saturday, but they gathered the believers together on the first day of the week.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
There is "be circumcised and observe the Sabbath" as a statement from Judaizers.

But we do have "EVERY Sabbath" BOTH Jews AND Gentiles gather in the synagogues to hear Gospel sermons in Acts 18:4 from Paul

Bible details matter.

Sure, it would make sense that Jews and the gentile proselytes would meet in the synagogue on the Sabbath. Not quite sure that they went there to hear the "gospel sermons" as you put it.

Acts 18
4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

1. That means that the Gospel sermons in the synagogues "every Sabbath" were not "Just for Jews"
2. It means gentiles were already gathering the synagogues every Sabbath - even without Paul
3. It means that those (be they Jew or Gentile) after hearing Paul - KEPT coming back every Sabbath in the Synagogue to hear more. And we see this again in Acts 13 where it is the GENTILES that ask for more Gospel preaching "the next Sabbath".

The passage states that Paul reasoned with them. That seems more like basic witnessing than a sermon.

A distinction without a difference. Look up the "sermon on Mars hill".

And, as a good evangelist would, he meets them on their turf to reason for the Messiah.

You realize that you are arguing that Paul was meeting with those gentiles "on their turf" to preach the Gospel about the Messiah - in the Synagogues every Sabbath --- right???

Paul was a Jew and it was a common practice in the synagogue to discuss and debate different ideas.

In Acts 13, and 17 and 18 it is the gentiles primarily who are being won over -- in the synagogues... every Sabbath.

What we never see is "hey gentiles ... come and meet with us some more - TOMORROW... more gospel preaching.. no need to wait for NEXT Sabbath".

 

[Copperhead]

And according to the predominately Jewish makeup of the early church, when did the 1st day of the week begin? That is very telling right there.

A day begins in the evening, from the Genesis creation account where each day God called it the evening and the morning. Not the morning and the evening as we would reckon things now. The first of the week would begin on Saturday evening. And the eve/morn reference would seem to fit better with the situation where Paul is speaking to midnight (Acts 20:7) because he was leaving the next day, Eutychus fell out the window because he is tired after eating the havdalah meal of that evening that closes the Sabbath and ushers in the new week. (oft times called the Lord's Supper even in a strictly Jewish context).

So yes, the believers did meet on the first of the week. But to impose that it was Sunday morning as has been the tradition we have come accustomed to does not mean that it was Sunday morn when the believers in Acts met. All the scripture tells us is that it was the first of the week.

Not arguing for or against a particular time for weekly service. Just adding some perspective.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 13

14 But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. 15 After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.” 16 Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said,

“Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: ... 27 For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him. 28 And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed. ...39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. 40 Therefore take heed, so that the thing spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon you:

42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out , the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.

Paul Turns to the Gentiles
44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.

Who were they trying to convert who still needed to hear the gospel? Of course they went to the Synagogues on Saturday,

The text is clear -- as it turns out.

they gathered the believers together on the first day of the week.

No text says that every week day 1 they gathered for worship. And we both know it.

 

[Copperhead]

A distinction without a difference.

That seems to be your "go to" phrase that you seem to use in a lot of posts to counter folks. Even then, it depend on perspective.

 

[BobRyan]

And according to the predominately Jewish makeup of the early church, when did the 1st day of the week begin? That is very telling right there.

Saturday evening at sunset.

And the eve/morn reference would seem to fit better with the situation where Paul is speaking to midnight (Acts 20:7) because he was leaving the next day, Eutychus fell out the window because he is tired after eating the havdolah meal of that evening that closes the Sabbath and ushers in the new week. (oft times called the Lord's Supper even in a strictly Jewish context).

So yes, the believers did meet on the first of the week. But to impose that it was Sunday morning as has been the tradition we have come accustomed to does not mean that it was Sunday morn when the believers in Acts met.

What is more - the text says they specifically met because Sunday was going to be all-day-travel for Paul.

It does not say they did this every week - or that Paul traveled very Sunday. This is not a weekly event - rather it is a single instance where nothing at all is said about "worship on the Lord's Day" or "We gather weekly on week-day-1" or "we would like to remind you that every week-day-1 is our day of worship" etc.

All the scripture tells us is that it was the first of the week.
Not arguing for or against a particular time for weekly service. Just adding some perspective.

true and the text is significant both for what it does say ... and for what it does not say.

 

[BobRyan]

That seems to be your "go to" phrase that you seem to use in a lot of posts to counter folks. Even then, it depend on perspective. If I am reasoning an issue with someone over coffee does not mean that I am giving them a sermon.

You placed a lot of weight on the mere preference/suggestion that some difference existed between a sermon and "reasoning" in these Sabbath synagogue events -- yet in both the case of Acts 17 and Mars hill reasoning=sermon and in the case of Acts 13 reasoning=sermon.

This is by definition "a distinction without a difference".

It is highly doubtful that Paul was addressing the assembled body as a whole in the synagogue. More likely one-on-one or a few

Interesting speculation

However on this topic - the Bible evidence dictates otherwise as we just saw in Acts 13.

Not only the whole assembly but ALSO the next Sabbath - "almost the entire town"

6 minutes ago #250

 

[Copperhead]

I did overlook that further in your post. My bad.

But to be fair here, the original post that I used for the basis of my contention was the post that referenced Acts 18:4. And for that particular verse, I think I was correct in my assertion. But you threw me a curve ball and argued from other verses that were not part of your initial reference of 18:4.

And still, the first of the week began at sundown Saturday evening in that era. That would have been the standard since the early church was primarily of Jewish believers. So really, it is just picking and squabbling over essentially a non issue regarding about 7th day or 1st day. Just a divisive topic that has been argued form a perspective that doesn't take the context of the time these thing were written down for us into account.

 

[BobRyan]

I did overlook that further in your post. My bad.

But to be fair here, the original post that I used for the basis of my contention was the post that referenced Acts 18:4. And for that particular verse, I think I was correct in my assertion.

You could speculate a lot into the void if just basing it on one text . but we see a pattern for Paul and speculation in direct contradiction to it - is not as "compelling" as it could be.

In any case - I choose to stick with the actual Bible examples of how it was working - and the idea that the details in the previous chapter inform and guide the reader when coming to another instance of it in later chapters.

And still, the first of the week began at sundown Saturday evening in that era. That would have been the standard since the early church was primarily of Jewish believers.

Agreed. Still is the case for those who choose to affirm the Bible Sabbath.

So really, it is just picking and squabbling over essentially a non issue regarding about 7th day or 1st day.

Only if you are talking about "one meeting in Acts 20 that may not even be a weekly meeting at all".

But that is not what this thread is about.

This thread is about the Bible Sabbath of Exodus 20:11 - the 7th day of the week and the fact that everyone on both sides agrees that Christ was raised on week-day-1 which is Sunday. That makes the Sabbath, the 7th day in Gospel times - our Saturday (Friday evening to Saturday evening).

 

[Copperhead]

Yes, we should all agree the Yeshua was resurrected on the Feast of First Fruits (the 1st of the week following the Passover and the start of the counting of the weeks till Shavuot/Pentacost/Feast of Weeks) and fulfills the meaning of the festival as was established in scripture, since He is the first fruits of the resurrection for those that believe and trust in Him. But we have to be a little honest, there is no clear mandate that our gatherings be legally tied to the first of every week because of that, and it makes Sunday the new Sabbath. That is more tradition than a new mandate laid out in scripture. Neither does it support a mandated Sabbath observance. I mean, if it is so important to some about the day for church gatherings because of Yeshua's resurrection, why is it not also equally important to observe the Passover season when Yeshua was killed and resurrected instead of observing a pagan festival dedicated to the fertility goddess Ishtar which includes fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs?

The types of issues are casualty victims of when the church hierarchy, especially after the 3rd century, went out of its way to separate from anything that smacked of Jewish. Since then it has been hotly debated, especially recently.

The one occurrence where Sunday is mentioned as a meeting day in 1 Corinthians 16, all that is specified is that collections of offerings be made on the first of the week, and does not specifically negate or support a Sabbath observance on the part of believers. Actually, many of the believers in the book of Acts met daily. If we are going to get literal and picky about such things, should not we also follow the pattern of the early believers and meet daily?

I really don't concern myself with any legalities of whether Sabbath or Sunday is the only way to do things, or even arguing over Easter, simply because there is a inherent risk of encroaching into legalism.... On both sides of these types of issues. When we cut thru the clutter, many times pride is the basis of such arguing of these issues. Sometimes it is wise to take Romans 14 to heart.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, we should all agree the Yeshua was resurrected on the Feast of First Fruits (the 1st of the week following the Passover and the start of the counting of the weeks till Shavuot/Pentacost/Feast of Weeks) and fulfills the meaning of the festival as was established in scripture, since He is the first fruits of the resurrection for those that believe and trust in Him. But we have to be a little honest, there is no clear mandate that our gatherings be legally tied to the first of every week because of that, and it makes Sunday the new Sabbath.

True - the term"Sabbath" in the New Testament never means "week day 1".

That is more tradition than a new mandate laid out in scripture.[

true.

I mean, if it is so important to some about the day for church gatherings because of Yeshua's resurrection, why is it not also equally important to observe the Passover season when Yeshua was killed and resurrected instead of observing a pagan festival dedicated to the fertility goddess Ishtar which includes fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs?

Or ask it this way... if Passover-and-Easter is a celebration of the once-in-his-life death and resurrection,
and if Christmas is the celebration of His once-in-his-life birth... then what is it that is "7 day cycle" about his resurrection??

The types of issues are casualty victims of when the church hierarchy, especially after the 3rd century, went out of its way to separate from anything that smacked of Jewish. Since then it has been hotly debated, especially recently.

The one occurrence where Sunday is mentioned as a meeting day in 1 Corinthians 16, all that is specified is that collections of offerings be made on the first of the week, and does not specifically negate or support a Sabbath observance on the part of believers.

In fact it is more of a "lay up in store by himself at home" event. Since no worship and no gathering of the saints of any kind is mentioned in 1Cor 16 -- and the day is merely week-day-1 even in this example! ... still not giving week-day-1 any title of honor or significance in the text!

Actually, many of the believers in the book of Acts met daily. If we are going to get literal and picky about such things, should not we also follow the pattern of the early believers and meet daily?

I really don't concern myself with any legalities of whether Sabbath or Sunday is the only way to do things, or even arguing over Easter, simply because there is a inherent risk of encroaching into legalism.... On both sides of these types of issues. When we cut thru the clutter, many times pride is the basis of such arguing of these issues. Sometimes it is wise to take Romans 14 to heart.[/QUOTE]

But Paul does say this --

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"1Cor 7:19

Which includes "not taking God's name in vain" -- even though that commandment is never mentioned by any NT writer.

 

[Copperhead]

Which includes "not taking God's name in vain" -- even though that commandment is never mentioned by any NT writer.

Most see that as using God's name as a swear word. I see it much deeper. The implication of "take" God's name in vain is better viewed as how we represent or carry God's name, as how the meaning of the Hebrew word "nacah" is viewed. There are many who claim God, but are very poor representatives of God's name and bring dishonor to Him. So they could be taking the name of God in vain just by their poor representation of Him.

 

[ToBeLoved]

True - the term"Sabbath" in the New Testament never means "week day 1".



true.



Or ask it this way... if Passover-and-Easter is a celebration of the once-in-his-life death and resurrection,
and if Christmas is the celebration of His once-in-his-life birth... then what is it that is "7 day cycle" about his resurrection??



In fact it is more of a "lay up in store by himself at home" event. Since no worship and no gathering of the saints of any kind is mentioned in 1Cor 16 -- and the day is merely week-day-1 even in this example! ... still not giving week-day-1 any title of honor or significance in the text!

Actually, many of the believers in the book of Acts met daily. If we are going to get literal and picky about such things, should not we also follow the pattern of the early believers and meet daily?

I really don't concern myself with any legalities of whether Sabbath or Sunday is the only way to do things, or even arguing over Easter, simply because there is a inherent risk of encroaching into legalism.... On both sides of these types of issues. When we cut thru the clutter, many times pride is the basis of such arguing of these issues. Sometimes it is wise to take Romans 14 to heart.

But Paul does say this --

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"1Cor 7:19

Which includes "not taking God's name in vain" -- even though that commandment is never mentioned by any NT writer.[/QUOTE]
What is the 7 day cycle of His resurrection you speak of?

 

[BobRyan]

What is the 7 day cycle of His resurrection you speak of?

There is no 7-day-cycle in the resurrection of Christ -- people of their own "tradition" like to insert one and so have a memorial and worship - every 7 days (week-day-1).

But the only 7 day cycle event that we have for memorial - is creation week. The Bible Saturday Sabbath.