The history of how Sunday worship came about

[The Liturgist]

At the time of the Reformation, Protestants recognized as canonical books of the Bible the 39 Hebrew books recognized by the Jews and called by Christians the Old Testament, and the 27 Greek books universally accepted by Christians as the New Testament. In dispute were 12 books or parts of books written in Greek and referred to by Protestants as the Apocrypha, because their origins were “hidden”, that is, unknown. The fundamental difference is that the books of the Apocrypha is that there not in the Hebrew Bible. These books of the Apocrypha only exist in Greek; there are no Hebrew texts of these books. Obviously they do not belong to the Old Testament, but also, neither do they belong to the New Testament and this is the reason they are not included in the christian canon.

That’s inaccurate - because the KJV includes the Apocrypha, the Church of England has always regarded them as Deuterocanonical, reading them for edification but not doctrine under the 39 Articles and now, since the 39 Articles are no longer in effect in most major Anglican churches, reading them for doctrine as well, and the Lutherans, as @MarkRohfrietsch can attest, have an open canon.

Additionally fragments of apocryphal works such as 1 Enoch have been found amidst the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as fragments that correspond with the Septuagint.

Also the idea of a “Hebrew Bible” is misleading considering large portions of it are written in Aramaic.

The Masoretic Text has substantially fewer Christological references than the Septuagint; compare Septuagint Daniel with Masoretic Daniel. Or compare Septuagint Esther with Masoretic Esther, which is devoid of prayerful content, unlike the Septuagint version, and which Martin Luther wished to delete (St. Athanasius also wished to delete Esther, but desired to include Judith).

I will go on record as saying my favorite chapter of any book in the Old Testament is Wisdom chapter 2.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That’s inaccurate - because the KJV includes the Apocrypha, the Church of England has always regarded them as Deuterocanonical, reading them for edification but not doctrine under the 39 Articles and now, since the 39 Articles are no longer in effect in most major Anglican churches, reading them for doctrine as well, and the Lutherans, as @MarkRohfrietsch can attest, have an open canon.

Additionally fragments of apocryphal works such as 1 Enoch have been found amidst the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as fragments that correspond with the Septuagint.

Also the idea of a “Hebrew Bible” is misleading considering large portions of it are written in Aramaic.

The Masoretic Text has substantially fewer Christological references than the Septuagint; compare Septuagint Daniel with Masoretic Daniel. Or compare Septuagint Esther with Masoretic Esther, which is devoid of prayerful content, unlike the Septuagint version, and which Martin Luther wished to delete (St. Athanasius also wished to delete Esther, but desired to include Judith).

I will go on record as saying my favorite chapter of any book in the Old Testament is Wisdom chapter 2.

The post you are quoting from is not inaccurate at all. What is inaccurate in the post you are quoting from? You simply ignored the content of my post and started talking about stuff I was never talking about. I believe your post here to be a little misleading to be honest though in regards to the KJV including the Apocrypha but let me simply show why I say this so it might be helpful. I say this because it was only all the KJV bibles published before 1666 that included the Apocrypha and even then they were only ever included separately or as an appendix to the main Canon to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name, "The Apocrypha" (see Wiki).

Also the idea of a “Hebrew Bible” is misleading considering large portions of it are written in Aramaic.

What is misleading about calling the "Hebrew bible" the Hebrew bible? That is what it is! The context to my earlier post if you followed the conversation was what books the Jews decided on that made up their bible which is mainly Hebrew. I never once said the Hebrew bible is made up of only Hebrew scripture. You may want to read this article here in regards to why some Aramaic is used in the Hebrew bible (Daniel and Ezra) of the old testament. Let's put all this in context and perspective though. Biblical Hebrew is the main language of the Hebrew Bible (old testament). Aramaic accounts for only about 250 verses out of a total of over 23,000 (see linked article above). Though all of this is a little off topic to the OP here. So if you want to discuss it further please make a new OP and send me a link and let's all respect the OP's thread.

Take Care

 

[The Liturgist]

I say this because it was only the KJV bibles published before 1666 that included the Apocrypha and even then they were only ever included separately or as an appendix to the main Canon to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name

Funny, because I have a KJV printed a few years ago with the Deuterocanonical Books included! And this website says the Deuterocanonicals were included until 1885: APOCRYPHA KJV

Of course both dates are wrong, because the KJV is the Bible the Church of England historically read from, and also the Protestant Episcopal Church, and lessons from the deuterocanonical books were always read in the Church of England (except when the Book of Common Prayer was banned entirely under the dubious reign of Cromwell), and also in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and in the American church from 1892 onwards.

In fact, I know where you are getting the 1666 date from: the publication of the first Irish edition of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which was unpopular among Irish Protestants for its inclusion of lessons from the Deuterocanonicals. But indeed, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the US began reading from the Deuterocanonicals in the 1928 revision, and at the time, the KJV was the standard Bible in those churches, so this disproves your point.

 

[The Liturgist]

The post you are quoting from is not inaccurate at all. What is inaccurate in the post you are quoting from? You simply ignored the content of my post and started talking about stuff I was never talking about. I believe your post here to be a little misleading to be honest though in regards to the KJV including the Apocrypha but let me simply show why I say this so it might be helpful. I say this because it was only the KJV bibles published before 1666 that included the Apocrypha and even then they were only ever included separately or as an appendix to the main Canon to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name, "The Apocrypha" (see Wiki).

What is misleading about calling the "Hebrew bible" the Hebrew bible? That is what it is! The context to my earlier post if you followed the conversation was what books the Jews decided on that made up their bible which is mainly Hebrew. I never once said the Hebrew bible is made up of only Hebrew scripture. You may want to read this article here in regards to why some Aramaic is used in the Hebrew bible (Daniel and Ezra) of the old testament. Let's put all this in context and perspective though. Biblical Hebrew is the main language of the Hebrew Bible (old testament). Aramaic accounts for only about 250 verses out of a total of over 23,000 (see linked article above). Though all of this is a little off topic to the OP here. So if you want to discuss it further please make a new OP and send me a link and let's all respect the OP's thread.

Take Care

Well, the topic of this thread has a very simple answer: the Apostles from the very first kept Sunday as a Holy Day of commemoration of the Resurrection of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, with Saturday a recollection of His repose in the tomb and Friday, of His crucifixion, and Wednesday, as a fast commemorating his betrayal.

See Acts, the Didache, etc. The Didache has been dated to the first century by the way.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Well, the topic of this thread has a very simple answer: the Apostles from the very first kept Sunday as a Holy Day of commemoration of the Resurrection of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, with Saturday a recollection of His repose in the tomb and Friday, of His crucifixion, and Wednesday, as a fast commemorating his betrayal.
See Acts, the Didache, etc. The Didache has been dated to the first century by the way.

The problem here however is that there is no scripture anywhere in the bible that says that Gods' 4th commandment has been abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest now is there? Also, let's be honest there is no scripture anywhere that says "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10 is Sunday or the first day of the week. That claim is also not biblical or supported in the scriptures. Both Sunday worship and the claim that Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day" are man-made teachings and traditions from some in the early church that have led many away from Gods' Word to break the commandments of God that Jesus warns us about doing in Matthew 15:2-9. As to the Didache? It is only a source outside of the scriptures and is one of the most widely disputed documents of our time that mysteriously turns up in the mid 1800's that scholars cannot even agree on speculating a date anywhere from the 1st Century to the 4th Century AD because there is no date and author attached to it. How does this supersede scripture? It doesn't. We either have scripture to support our views or we do not. As far as Sunday worship is concerned over Gods' 4th commandment of the 10 commandments that give us a knowledge of what sin is when broken *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; James 2:10-11 it seems there is no scripture to support doing away with Gods' 4th commandment over Sunday worship.

Take Care.

 

[The Liturgist]

The problem here however is that there is no scripture anywhere in the bible that says that Gods' 4th commandment has been abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest now is there? Also, let's be honest there is no scripture anywhere that says "the Lords day" of Revelation 1:10 is Sunday or the first day of the week. That claim is also not biblical or supported in the scriptures. Both Sunday worship and the claim that Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day" are man-made teachings and traditions from some in the early church that have led many away from Gods' Word to break the commandments of God that Jesus warns us about doing in Matthew 15:2-9. As to the Didache? It is only a source outside of the scriptures and is one of the most widely disputed documents of our time that mysteriously turns up in the mid 1800's that scholars cannot even agree on and date anywhere from the 1st Century to the 4th Century AD because there is no date and author attached to it. How does this supersede scripture? It doesn't. We either have scripture to support our views or we do not. As far as Sunday worship is concerned over Gods' 4th commandment of the 10 commandments that give us a knowledge of what sin is when broken *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; James 2:10-11 it seems we do not.

Take Care.

There is nothing in the New Testament however which would suggest Sabbath observance is still a thing. John 5, for example, can be added to the choir of voices in the Gospels and the Epistles, such as Acts 15, deprecating the Law. And I am not seeing any compelling arguments to this end.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Funny, because I have a KJV printed a few years ago with the Deuterocanonical Books included! And this website says the Deuterocanonicals were included until 1885: APOCRYPHA KJV

Of course both dates are wrong, because the KJV is the Bible the Church of England historically read from, and also the Protestant Episcopal Church, and lessons from the deuterocanonical books were always read in the Church of England (except when the Book of Common Prayer was banned entirely under the dubious reign of Cromwell), and also in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and in the American church from 1892 onwards.

In fact, I know where you are getting the 1666 date from: the publication of the first Irish edition of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which was unpopular among Irish Protestants for its inclusion of lessons from the Deuterocanonicals. But indeed, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the US began reading from the Deuterocanonicals in the 1928 revision, and at the time, the KJV was the standard Bible in those churches, so this disproves your point.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make to what you posted earlier or have a misunderstanding of what was posted earlier. I was not meaning that there are no KJV editions written after 1666 that include the Apocrypha, I was trying to make the point that they were mainly included pre 1666 afterwards not so much. I can see how you may have misunderstood this so made a slight edit to my original post so there is no misunderstanding. The point you missed however to your earlier claims was that in any of the KJV bibles that include the Apocrypha (most modern versions do not include them as they are not considered scripture); only include the Apocrypha to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name, "The Apocrypha". This will be my last post to you on this topic as it is off topic to the OP. Please feel free to start up a new OP and send me a link if you like.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

There is nothing in the New Testament however which would suggest Sabbath observance is still a thing. John 5, for example, can be added to the choir of voices in the Gospels and the Epistles, such as Acts 15, deprecating the Law. And I am not seeing any compelling arguments to this end.

Well that is not true at all. Let's look at what the scriptures say...

GOD'S 4TH COMMANDMENT AS TAUGHT IN THE NEW COVENANT

[1]. Jesus teaches us how to correctly keep the Sabbath showing that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath *see Matthew 12:1-8; 10-12; 24:20; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:1-10; 13:14-16; 14:1-5; John 7:22-23; 9:14; Mark 1:21; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16; 31; Luke 14:1; 23:56
[2]. Jesus teaches us that he is the creator and Lord of the Sabbath that he made for all mankind *see Mark 2:27-28
[3]. Jesus looking into the future expected all his disciples to be still keeping the Sabbath well after His death and resurrection at the destruction of Jerusalem and onward *Matthew 24:20; Matthew 13:18
[4]. Jesus as our example kept the Sabbath as did all the disciples and Apostles even after the death and resurrection of Jesus *see Luke 4:16; Luke 23:55-56; Acts of the Apostles 13:14; 13:27; 13:44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4; Revelation 1:10
[5]. We are told in Hebrews 4 that the Sabbath remains for the people of God to enter into by faith where it is written in Aramaic "therefore it remains for the people of God to keep the Sabbath" or in the Greek "there remains (left behind) a Sabbath rest for the people of God. *see Hebrews 4:1-11.

...................

So no dear friend there is plenty of scripture here showing that God's 4th commandment like all the 10 commandments are all re-stated in the new covenant as the standard of Christian living as proven above. Yet in response not a single scripture that says God's 4th commandment is now abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest. Sunday worship according to the scriptures is a man-made teaching and tradition that has led many away from God and His Word to break the commandments of God according to Jesus in Matthew 15:2-9.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

John 5,

What is it that you believe that is in John 5 that says Gods' 4th commandment is abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest? There is nothing there.

for example, can be added to the choir of voices in the Gospels and the Epistles, such as Acts 15, deprecating the Law. And I am not seeing any compelling arguments to this end.

Acts of the Apostles 15 does not help you either here. Acts of the Apostles 15 was never over the question is Gods' 10 commandments a requirement for Christian living it was over the question is "circumcision" from the law of Moses a requirement for salvation and it was this question that Acts of the Apostles 15 was seeking to answer not are God's 10 commandments still the standard for Christian living that according to the new covenant scriptures give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing) and evil (moral wrong doing); sin (moral wrong doing) and righteousness (moral right doing) *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172. As we read in the context of Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2 [1], And certain men who came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, EXCEPT YOU BE CIRCUMCISED AFTER THE MANNER OF MOSES YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.

NOTE: ACTS 15:1 is the question that needs to be answered and the topic of conversation and CONTEXT of the chapter of ACTS 15. Here we have Jewish believers coming to Paul and Barnabas saying if the new GENTILES believers are not circumcised and made proselytes then they cannot be saved. This is the chapter context and issue of contention.

[2], When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, THEY DETERMINED THAT PAUL AND BARNABAS AND CERTAIN OF THEM SHOULD GO UP TO JERUSALEM UNTO THE APOSLTLES AND ELDERS ABOUT THIS QUESTION.

NOTE: ACTS 15:2 Which question? Weather your salvation depends on being CIRCUMCISED. The question here was never over is God's 10 commandments a requirement for Christian living. They then traveled to Jerusalem about this question to determine if new gentile believers needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Once they got to Jerusalem, the question was then asked and the discussion continued with the Pharisees stating their case first in Acts of the Apostles 15:5..

An interpretation of Acts of the Apostles 15 has Paul in contradiction with Paul when he says sometime latter after the decision at Jerusalem to the Corinthian gentile believers in 1 Corinthians 7:19 [19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD. Acts 15 was never over the question are God's 10 commandments still the standard for Christian living. It was over the question is circumcision a requirement for salvation for gentile believers (Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2).

Take Care.