St. Justin Martyr Described Sunday Worship

[stranger]

All right, let's look at the Bible itself. What day of the week did the early Christian church worship on, when the church was lead by the Apostles?

When the Holy Spirit came on the Church at Pentecost, Pentecost was a Jewish Festival before it was a Christian event. Pentecost was on a Sunday.

Christians had gathered for worship on a Sunday, having no idea that they would experience the coming of the Holy Spirit. Then the Holy Spirit chose to descend on the Church on Sunday, confirming their choice of that day of worship.

How do we know that Pentecost was on a Sunday? Let's see what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about it.


<< PENTECOST


Name given by the Greek-speaking Jews to the festival which occurred fifty days (&#7969; &#960;&#949;&#957;&#964;&#951;&#954;&#972;&#963;&#964;&#951;, sc. &#7969;&#924;&#941;&#961;&#945; = "&#7716;ag &#7716;amishshim Yom"; comp. Lev. xxiii. 16) after the offering of the barley sheaf during the Passover feast . . . >>

<< The Feast of the Fiftieth Day has been a many-sided one . . . >>



<< Pentecost was thus the concluding festival of the grain harvest . . . >>


Link:

JewishEncyclopedia.com - PENTECOST


Fifty days after the Passover Sabbath is seven weeks and one day, which will always fall on a Sunday.

*

*

Rather strangely you do not see that 'Pentecost' including part of Sunday in most parts of the world PROVES that weekly sabbath includes part of Saturday in most parts of the world...

your argument disproves its own thesis ...

 

[Dale]

Stravinsk in post #17:
"From Acts chapters 2-9, the body of believers increases, and there is much preaching from Peter - but no change in the day of worship, and no preaching of a change in the day."

Do you deny that Peter preached on Pentecost, which means that he preached on a Sunday? Do you deny that the Holy Spirit first came on Pentecost, a Sunday?

You are correct that the Apostles did not preach about a change in the day, simply because they had more important things to talk about!

"You are absolutely correct about Pentacost falling on a Sunday, but the whole meaning of the holy-day is lost when people substitute a once a year event for every first day of the week."

Nobody substituted anything. I pointed out that Peter preaching on Pentecost, a Sunday, is evidence that less than a month after the Ascension, the Apostles were already preaching on Sundays!

Stravinsk in post #17:
"In every passage in Acts, the preaching and gathering of the disciples is on the Holy Sabbath."

To point out the obvious:
"When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place." --Acts 2:1
On Pentecost, a Sunday, they were gathered for worship.

"Then Peter stood up with the Eleven,, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: . . . " --Acts 2:14

Again, do you deny that Peter preached on Pentecost, a Sunday? Or that the Holy Spirit came on that day?


*

*

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Pentecost was observed by the Israelites in the Old Testament, yet they never saw it as a reason to conduct weekly worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath. Peter didn't just preach on a Sunday, he preached on Pentecost. The Holy Spirit did not just come down ona Sunday, it came down on Pentecost. Pentecost is an annual, not a weekly, observance, so it hardly entails a change in the day of weekly worship. Actually, since the chapter in the Bible that commands the observance of Pentecost (Lev 23) also commands the observance of the weekly Sabbath, if anything, it establishes the Sabbath.

 

[stranger]

Pentecost was observed by the Israelites in the Old Testament, yet they never saw it as a reason to conduct weekly worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath. Peter didn't just preach on a Sunday, he preached on Pentecost. The Holy Spirit did not just come down on a Sunday, it came down on Pentecost. Pentecost is an annual, not a weekly, observance, so it hardly entails a change in the day of weekly worship. Actually, since the chapter in the Bible that commands the observance of Pentecost (Lev 23) also commands the observance of the weekly Sabbath, if anything, it establishes the Sabbath.

Its all rather true and is a sad reflection on traditional religion ... it's notable that Rome still seeks rather obviously spurious excuses for having substituted, for Hebrew Christiain days kept by Jesus ,any pagan celebration which came to hand as close in timing ... I have even seen argument that there are three nights between Good Friday and Easter Sunday to try to prove that Christian tradition is in line with Jesus' saying that he would keep the sign of Jonah... that is how truly desperate and bizarre mass religion has become in keeping with the prophecy of its apostasy - 2 Thessalonians 2:3

There is no way back because anyone who disagrees is excommunicated or branded a heretic , no matter what the scripture of God says , however clearly ... the thing to remember is that it MUST be so ..Jesus said that he cannot return until after the whole world worships the Satan [transformed as an 'angel of light' to convince many this is the Messiah, the Christ, the saviour of a then-more-troubled world ... 'antichristos' in Greek means 'one in place of Christ' , unsurprisingly a title assumed by popes [Vicarius Filii Dei means just the same in Latin: 'in the place of the son of God' ]

the question about weekly sabbath is ' Does any man have the right to change the perpetual covenant of God as a pagan Roman emperor did [supposedly he became a christian by confession on his deathbed , but also declared himself to be a god during his lifetime by Roman tradition for emperors to be gods ... most who know scripture would call that blasphemy]

Rome supposedly crucified Peter, yet claims that Peter gave them authority which Jesus denied to all his followers [telling them that he alone was the master of his congregation of saints who were all equals] ... Rome asserts it has authority to change God's perpetual covenants, the authority not of a saint, but of a pagan sinner, authority which Jesus certainly never gave up to anyone according to his words in scripture ... Jesus is head of his congregation of saints , no-one can rely upon anyone in place of Christ...

The point Paul made though is that this MUST happen [2 Thessalonians 2:3]... one cannot stop the power of tradition wielded by the antichrist from changing everything holy by scripture for worthless pagan god's traditions dressed up as christian... it has taken over Christianity almost completely, as it must [Rev 13:3-8], only saints will resist, not sinners , and very few of these [Matt 7:14] :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Matthew 7:23 And then [at Jesus' return] will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Exodus 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

Note that the new covenant is ALSO with ONLY the children of Israel :-

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Some christians want to claim they are Israel to be under Grace, but they refuse the perpetual covenant about the true sabbath in favour of a pagn sun-worship day imposed originally by Rome [by force of arms, crucifying and throwing to the lions of the Hebrew Christian saints who would not conform to Sunday practices in place of holy sabbaths , saints as 'heretics' from the Roman paganised version of Christianity

 

[Audiomatic]

I suppose one of you will turn out to be "right" at the expense of the rest of us. 2nd Timothy 2:14: Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 2;16 I'm going shun profane (unsanctified) and vain babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness 2:17 and their word will eat as doth a canker (meaning gangrene).

I suppose I've done all I can. You're on your own. Good luck "winning" this important argument.

 

[stranger]

I suppose one of you will turn out to be "right" at the expense of the rest of us. 2nd Timothy 2:14: Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 2;16 I'm going shun profane (unsanctified) and vain babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness 2:17 and their word will eat as doth a canker (meaning gangrene).

I suppose I've done all I can. You're on your own. Good luck "winning" this important argument.

The spirit of God will reveal all truth eventually to all [Joel 2:28, John 16:13], all will know the inevitable future in due course , but for now only a few can follow the strait narrow way of sainthood in this life [ Matt 14:7, 2 Timothy 2:19 ,Matthew 7:23]

Many will be saved [Rev 7:9-10] but few find the way of perfect love now , so it is God who makes the saints, faith that defeats Satan so men stop sinning comes by being sealed by God's one spirit of all truth , it is a gift , not a belief in what sinners say as in diverse religious traditions...

Until then we ave the few words of God through the saints and prophets and Jesus...

My point is that religion ignores most of the words, even to not even including all the words of Christ in its faith in sinners' spin upon the scripture...

we KNOW the scripture is not of any spin , we KNOW religion is divided, we can at least accept all the scripture IF we say we believe in it, but religion does nt do this because the message would be [and is] unpopular to the ironic point that even here at CF , those who appeal to the words of Jesus can be treated as 'heretics' to tradition , hounded into corners out of sight , even ostracised and banned , I have seen it happen many times to friends ... in the NAME [only] of love ... this truly is not Jesus' way ,buut it is the way of religion predicted by Jesus for this planet for now...

This censorship of discussion will give way to even more Draconian means before the antichrist takes full control of the world and dictates world religion to an impressed humanity, opposed not by any sinner, but by the few saints yet alive by then...

The saints had but one purpose for now in this earth, to reach a remnant few of the lost House of Israel and trigger their coming to faith by means of God through spreading the real gospel ,underlined by Paul, of the new covenant with those whose fathers broke the old covenant Heb 8:8-13, Jer 31:31-34]

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers ..

hat one word 'their' alone demolishes the whole basis of modern Christianity by means of the bible , showing the deceit in tradition of men, of sinners.

the new covenant of Grace is with those whose fathers broke the old covenant, and they were rejected, but now are unconditionally forgiven... no-one else is mentioned in the new covenant for the very good reason that the few are to be kings and priests who minister to the many, one does not need everyone as kings and priests!

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

For sake of showing His power by prophesying the end from the beginning, God simply has to state who will be His priests and kings under the king [Messiah, Christ] of kings ... those people are the descendants of Israel , children of the tribes that Jesus confirms are the only ones sealed under the new covenant [Rev 7:3-8] ... The OT and NT agree as one , as they must to be the ONE word of God, but neither Jews nor Christians , as sinners, accept every word of God yet , nor could it seems , divisio between and within religions because men believe sinners and ignore the words of saints!

It makes no sense whatever to believe sinners and ignore the saints, yet it is worldwide , religion is divided and so almost all simply cannot be true ... goa step further and compare it to the scripture and one finds no denomination is true to scripture, they are all mies away from even following the new covenant , do not understand even the only reason Jesus gave for first coming :

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

Is that not bizarre that most who call themselves 'Christian' have never read and understood what Jesus said was his only reason for being here as a man? Does it not make one want to seek the reason from scripture why almost the whole of modern 'christian' religion has clearly gone astray from what it pretends to believe in ?

Is it not worth discussing then , until God tells us all the whole truth ?

 

[Steve Petersen]

This is interesting stuff. You guys have certainly done some research. But I thought the question was whether the early Christian church gathered on the Sabbath or on Sunday? So what if Paul preached in the synagogues on the Sabbath? He preached any day of the week! In Troas, "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. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together." 1) This doesn't sound to me like a synagogue. 2) We think of Sunday as the first day of the week (any mistranslation notwithstanding). Also, "And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep;" I can't think of a single instance where a person fell asleep in church on the Sabbath. People fall asleep in church on Sunday!

Glad I could help clear things up. Love!

It was and still is customary in Judaism to meet together at the conclusion of the weekly sabbath on Saturday after sundown. In Judaism this is called Havdallah. The Jewish day if from sundown to sundown in the patter of Genesis 1. Paul's preaching until midnight was the 'the first of the week', that is after sunset Saturday. Preaching until midnight would have entailed a few hours, not a day and a half.

Is it not possible that the earliest Jewish believers in Jesus kept the weekly sabbath AND also did Havdallah together on Saturday night (the first of the week)?

 

[stranger]

It was and still is customary in Judaism to meet together at the conclusion of the weekly sabbath on Saturday after sundown. In Judaism this is called Havdallah. The Jewish day if from sundown to sundown in the patter of Genesis 1. Paul's preaching until midnight was the 'the first of the week', that is after sunset Saturday. Preaching until midnight would have entailed a few hours, not a day and a half.

As God well knows, sunset does not define a time unless one says WHERE the sunset is [also sunset does not even occur daily in many places in the world! One has to state where the sunset is to get a time ... God did NOT create local time, which has indeed varied several times since its modern inception , showing ,alongside its built-in contradictions, that it is not compatible with God's timekeepng for Holy days]

Is it not possible that the earliest Jewish believers in Jesus kept the weekly sabbath AND also did Havdallah together on Saturday night (the first of the week)?

The scripture says about keeping one anual sabbath from evening to evening :-
Leviticus 23:32 It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

I can see nothing in scripture about prolonging sabbaths , on the contrary God commands that the next day is for labour , not resting or ritual :-

Exodus 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You can see lots of references to Sunday worship in the early Church. Gotta love Justin Martyr! Another good one is, if I remember the names right, a letter from Pliny regarding the Christians who gathered on Sundays. If you search "apologetics Pliny Sunday worship" you'll probably turn up something. Even the resurrected Jesus broke the bread (Lk 24:30) on Sunday (Lk 24:1).

Um... Jesus broke the bread right before He was crucified, which was Thursday or Friday, I think. In the book of asks, it describes how they came together on the first day of the week to break bread and heard a message from Paul in Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians 11 and we see in 2 Corinthians 16 where they gave offerings on the first day of the week. But we see in scripture, especially in the book of Acts, where they came together as a body daily but taking the communion and giving offering they did on the first day of the week.

 

[stranger]

Um... Jesus broke the bread right before He was crucified, which was Thursday or Friday, I think. In the book of asks, it describes how they came together on the first day of the week to break bread and heard a message from Paul in Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians 11 and we see in 2 Corinthians 16 where they gave offerings on the first day of the week. But we see in scripture, especially in the book of Acts, where they came together as a body daily but taking the communion and giving offering they did on the first day of the week.

You ignore that Jesus came to Jerusalem to celebrate annual Passover with his disciples and set the passover meal as his annual remembrance day ... the disciples were mostly Jews, they knew it was an annual celebration that pointed toward the messiah bringing in the new covenant ,so those whose fathers broke the old covenant are forgiven [Heb 8:8-12]

It is no great consequence whatever that they ate together occasionally, nor was it always on the same day.

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer:

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You ignore that Jesus came to Jerusalem to celebrate annual Passover with his disciples and set the passover meal as his annual remembrance day ... the disciples were mostly Jews, they knew it was an annual celebration that pointed toward the messiah bringing in the new covenant ,so those whose fathers broke the old covenant are forgiven [Heb 8:8-12]

It is no great consequence whatever that they ate together occasionally, nor was it always on the same day.

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer:

Exodus 12: 1-3, 6, 11
Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying "This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: 'On the tenth of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household..............Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight........And thus you shall eat it; with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD's Passover.

In Exodus we are told that the passover is to be celebrated on the 10th day of the first month and continue into the 14th day. It does not establish a specific day (like Sunday-Saturday) but it establish what day (numerically) they should observe the Passover.

In Matthew 26:17, 20
Now on the first day of the Feat of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"....When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve

Continuing on Matthew 26:26-30 Jesus institudes the Lord Supper and afterwards
31 continues saying
"Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written:
'I will strike the Shepard, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered..."

So we see Christ talking about His Betrayal and if you continue reading all throughout Matthew 26, it establishes that Christ dies either the same night or the next day from instituting the supper. We know that He resurrected on the first day of the week, so we can assume that He died on Thursday/Friday (I don't know Jewish calendar very well, sorry).

And it does matter when we take the communion, because every time we take it, it says that we are proclaiming the Lord's death and that we need to examine ourselves before taking it. And we see in scripture that they broke bread on the first day of the week. If you can show me in scripture where they took it any other time I will be fine with others taking it then but if not, i will continue to follow the example set forth in scripture .

 

[Steve Petersen]

Exodus 12: 1-3, 6, 11
And it does matter when we take the communion, because every time we take it, it says that we are proclaiming the Lord's death and that we need to examine ourselves before taking it. And we see in scripture that they broke bread on the first day of the week. If you can show me in scripture where they took it any other time I will be fine with others taking it then but if not, i will continue to follow the example set forth in scripture .

Unleavened bread COULD be eaten anytime, but was MANDATORY for Jews during Passover.

When eating unleavened bread, Jews pronounce a blessing saying 'Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe,who brings forth bread [lechem] from the earth.' This does not negate the fact that they are eating unleavened bread; it merely puts unleavened bread within the category of bread.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Unleavened bread COULD be eaten anytime, but was MANDATORY for Jews during Passover.

When eating unleavened bread, Jews pronounce a blessing saying 'Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe,who brings forth bread [lechem] from the earth.' This does not negate the fact that they are eating unleavened bread; it merely puts unleavened bread within the category of bread.

I am not speaking of the unleavened bread when they ate it under the Old law, I am specifically speaking of the unleavened bread and drinking the fruit of the wine in remembrance of the Lord's death, the communion. He instituted it so that when we eat the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine it in remembrance of Him. And we see in 1 Corinthians where the Apostle Paul had to correct the Corinthians in the way and manner in which they took the Communion.

I said this to another poster before so I will repeat it here:

Example of them taking communion on the &#8220;first day of the week (Sunday)&#8221;:
&#8220;Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread , Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.&#8221; Acts 20:7

&#8220;I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, thought many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.&#8221; 1 Corinthians 10:15-17

&#8220;Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be fractions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord&#8217;s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you; that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, He broke it and said, &#8220;Take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.&#8221; In the same manner He also took the cup after supper saying, &#8220;This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.&#8221; For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord&#8217;s death til He comes.

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord&#8217;s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, less you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.&#8221; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34


Example of giving on the first day of the week:
&#8220;Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also; On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper that there be no collections when I come. And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. But if it is fitting that I go also, they will go with me.&#8221; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4


Taking communion a very serious matter and I think we should do it in the way scripture has ask of us.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I am not speaking of the unleavened bread when they ate it under the Old law, I am specifically speaking of the unleavened bread and drinking the fruit of the wine in remembrance of the Lord's death, the communion. He instituted it so that when we eat the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine it in remembrance of Him.

No argument there. Passover was about him from the beginning.

 

[stranger]

Taking communion a very serious matter and I think we should do it in the way scripture has ask of us.

Which is why one should read the scripture and discover taht there is no doubt whatever that Jesus was celebrating Passover in what was renamed as the 'Last Supper' to hide that it was Passover.

The communion of Jesus Christ with anyone who is worthy to follow him was set by Jesus as a continuation from Passover which he fulfilled as the sacrificial Lamb of God , it is thus annual , not weekly ... people break bread and drink wine at many times, communion is a memorial ceremony for those who have departed iniquity [ceased all unlovingness, become obedient to Christ in his command as their Lord to not sin, but love in all things because they love God]

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Jesus' measure of worthiness in which every man must enquire of themselves is whether one has given up sin completely for that year since last communion with him

Finally when he returns , he states explicitly that he will take none whoare still sinners , it matters not what sinner priests in frocks and divided churches teach, these are Jesus teachings :-

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread , Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."
Acts 20:7

At no point does that verse suggest that it was an annual thing that they did. It shows that they did that often. And if you read in 1 Corinthians 11 when Paul is correcting them about taking the Lord's Supper, at no point did he tell them to take it annually.

 

[stranger]

'breaking bread' is simply an idiom meaning eating a meal... it does not mean 'keeping Passover' even though one does have a meal at Passover , as indeed the above quoted scripture rather proves...

Further, the Holy days of God are Hebrew days, not the kind that most keep in modern times... the ways of measuring days and times have been changed, but not by God

If the 1st day of the week were holy [for which there is no command of God at all , as distinct from commands to keep many memorial holy days which modern religion spurns in favour of pagan days] then it still would not be Sunday ...

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

God's sabbaths are a perpetual covenant ,changing to keeping re-named pagan days surely is disobeyng God , but even worse, mankind has thus forgotten, through altering traditions, the memorial sabbaths set by God to show mankind God's plan for our future... modern Christian ritual is thus renamed and meaningless copying of paganism.

Why keep renamed empty pagan days in place of the days God and Jesus named as holy memorials to His plan for all time? ...

The holy days are recorded , none correspond with modern Christian tradition of sinners , and all Jesus' followers became saints [or fell away] , not sinners... it tells the tale of modern religion's apostasy which Jesus also predicted... and said MUST happen before his return... why ignore him and the prophets and saints in favour of inconsistent interpretations of sinners who keep renamed pagan days in place of God's stated Holy memorial days?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

There are some denominations that read Acts 20:7 as a proof that the "Lord's Supper" should be taken each Sunday morning! First notice that this was after the Days of Unleavened Bread (verse 6). Paul was preaching a farewell meeting, not on Sunday morning, but on Saturday night. It was after midnight (verse 7) that they broke bread because they were hungry. When they "had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day," Paul departed.
So this was just an ordinary meal!
The same expression "break bread" is found in Acts 27:34-35. "Wherefore I pray you to take some meat . . . he took bread . . . and when he had broken it, he began to eat." Also Acts 2:46: "And breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness." This could not possibly have been the "Lord's Supper" or, more properly, Passover, because Paul says that if we take it to satisfy our hunger we take it to our condemnation (I Corinthians 11:34). In that day, everyone "broke bread" at ordinary meals, because they did not have the kind of bread that we slice. Jesus broke bread because it was at the Passover supper, while eating a meal.​

Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986)

 

[Stravinsk]

"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread , Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."
Acts 20:7

At no point does that verse suggest that it was an annual thing that they did. It shows that they did that often. And if you read in 1 Corinthians 11 when Paul is correcting them about taking the Lord's Supper, at no point did he tell them to take it annually.

Is the Phrase "First Day of the Week" Properly Translated in the New Testament?

My comments at bottom (under Strav) - though it is neccessary to read the article first.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Is the Phrase "First Day of the Week" Properly Translated in the New Testament?

My comments at bottom (under Strav) - though it is neccessary to read the article first.

Interesting. 'On the first of the week'

The Torah requires that Jews count the days after passover until the Feast of Weeks 50 days later. Shavuot it is called; literally 'weeks'.

On the first of counting of the feast of weeks?