Why worry about the Ten Commandments, if you are disregarding the Sabbath?

[jochanaan]

...Clearly "breaking bread" means the Eucharist...

But does it in every case? I am looking at Luke 24, in which "he [Jesus] was known of them in breaking of bread." (vs. 35) This meal at Emmaus was highly unlikely to have been the Eucharist instituted at the Last Supper, for the Last Supper was actually a Passover meal, a Seder, and the meal Jesus blessed in Emmaus seems to have been an ordinary supper. Remember that they didn't know until the moment they recognized Jesus that He had been resurrected!

 

[Cliff2]

You are right, but that just validates that everyday should be to the Lord, not just one...


But for Sunday worship, we know the Apostles gathered to break bread on the first day of the week..

Acts 20:7
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.

That was a Saturday night meal. If indeed it was the Sabbath of which I do not but let's say it was.

Why was Paul going to break the Sabbath in the morning by travelling so far. No Sabbath keeper in those days would even think to do what Paul did.

 

[repentant]

That was a Saturday night meal. If indeed it was the Sabbath of which I do not but let's say it was.

Why was Paul going to break the Sabbath in the morning by travelling so far. No Sabbath keeper in those days would even think to do what Paul did.

So Saturday is the first day of the week too? lol. And the next morning would have been Monday, so your theory makes no sense..

Actually I think I may know what you are trying to say here, but it has nothing to do with what I said. You are saying that I said that this was on the Sabbath, which I did not. I am stating that the Apostles gathered on the first day of the week, Sunday, to celebrate the Eucharist..

 

[repentant]

But does it in every case? I am looking at Luke 24, in which "he [Jesus] was known of them in breaking of bread." (vs. 35) This meal at Emmaus was highly unlikely to have been the Eucharist instituted at the Last Supper, for the Last Supper was actually a Passover meal, a Seder, and the meal Jesus blessed in Emmaus seems to have been an ordinary supper. Remember that they didn't know until the moment they recognized Jesus that He had been resurrected!

This was after His ressurection and He celebrated the Eucharist with them. Notice how they reconized Him when He broke the Bread? In other words, when He did that, they remembered the Eucharist He institued, by seeing Him doing it again. That's how they knew it was Him.

Yes the Last Supper was a Passover meal, but also the insitution of the Eucharist. A normal passover meal would not have included eating Jesus' Body and drinking His Blood. Remember Jesus is the Passover Lamb....how you can say the Last Supper was not the Eucharist is beyond me..

 

[tall73]

If He does care, why didn't Jesus mention it to the rich man or anyone else? There is also no support that the seventh day was actually the last day of the week either. There is no mention at all in the NT of keeping the Sabbath, but there is mention of the Apostles gathering to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday.

The disciples were said to keep it on the Saturday before the resurrection. Again, the church knew well enough when it was when they were actually keeping it.

 

[repentant]

The disciples were said to keep it on the Saturday before the resurrection. Again, the church knew well enough when it was when they were actually keeping it.

Yes they did, but that still doesn't take from the fact that no one was once ever commanded in the NT to keep it. None of Paul's letter's mention a command to keep it, Jesus never mention to keep it. This is what I mean by never mentioned. And like I said they also gathered and worshipped on Sunday.

 

[tall73]

You are right, but that just validates that everyday should be to the Lord, not just one...

The same either or statement again.

We can give every day to the Lord and still keep Sabbath.

Or do you not keep Sunday AND every day?

But for Sunday worship, we know the Apostles gathered to break bread on the first day of the week..

Acts 20:7
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.

First off, you might want to read the replies to other people This was already addressed at length in my reply to your orthodox brother.

A. it does not always mean that they had the eucharist. But it is likely here.

B. The eating was after midnight. So it would be on Monday if this is indeed Roman reckoning. The meeting was hardly a regular meeting, occuring at the time it did.

......

This is the problem with interpreting Scripture ones self. It has already been done over 1600 years ago by divinely inspired men. This is why there are over 25000 Protestants denominations and only ONE Orthodox Church...

yes, but all of that doesn't change when they broke bread:

Act 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.
Act 20:8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered.
Act 20:9 And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10 But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, "Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him."
Act 20:11 And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.

it was Monday morning.

That doesn't sound like a regular meeting to me. It was a midnight gathering on the eve of a journey.

Moreover, if it is by Jewish reckoning then Cliff is right. It is now on Sunday, but started on the night part of it, and he does not rest on Sunday but travels.

And the comment about interpreting Scripture privately is just a worthless jab. It sounds a bit like what you are accusing Woobadooba of.

 

[tall73]

Yes they did, but that still doesn't take from the fact that no one was once ever commanded in the NT to keep it. None of Paul's letter's mention a command to keep it, Jesus never mention to keep it. This is what I mean by never mentioned. And like I said they also gathered and worshipped on Sunday.

You can ignore the evidence all you want but even your own members admit that they not only kept the Sabbath but were in the synagogues next to the Jews for many years.

And so far there is not much proof of early Sunday observance.

 

[tall73]

This was after His ressurection and He celebrated the Eucharist with them. Notice how they reconized Him when He broke the Bread? In other words, when He did that, they remembered the Eucharist He institued, by seeing Him doing it again. That's how they knew it was Him.

a. Jesus did not eat, he vanished.

b. They did not eat, they ran.

c. Jesus already said He would NOT eat that meal again until it was fulfilled in the kingdom.

So that is not much of a eucharist. And as we have already noted, if breaking bread was a technical term then they did it every day.

Moreover, the resurrection was the FIRST FRUITS fulfillment. So again if there was any significance it was that, predicted many years before.

Yes the Last Supper was a Passover meal, but also the insitution of the Eucharist. A normal passover meal would not have included eating Jesus' Body and drinking His Blood. Remember Jesus is the Passover Lamb....how you can say the Last Supper was not the Eucharist is beyond me..

He is not denying that the Lord's supper was both the eucharist and the Passover. Though a number of Orthodox did in the thread regarding using leavened bread in the eucharist. Because if it was really a passover, and really the eucharist, then it had to be unleavened bread. And so too did this next meal which was during the feast of unleavened bread.

 

[repentant]

You can ignore the evidence all you want but even your own members admit that they not only kept the Sabbath but were in the synagogues next to the Jews for many years.

And so far there is not much proof of early Sunday observance.

What are you talking about? I already stated previously that the early Christians kept BOTH days. And I believe the Bible and the early 1st century Church Father's is proof enough. Definitly more proof than a 19th century self proclaimed "prophetess".

 

[tall73]

Yes they did, but that still doesn't take from the fact that no one was once ever commanded in the NT to keep it. None of Paul's letter's mention a command to keep it, Jesus never mention to keep it. This is what I mean by never mentioned. And like I said they also gathered and worshipped on Sunday.

So let's review what we have so far.

a. You contend that the NT never commanded keeping Sabbath. Yet Jesus in fact made numerous statements about it, and kept it.

b. The disciples kept it, and you admit the early church kept it.

c. Paul kept it.

d. The new covenant was to write the law on the heart.

e. Jesus said expressly that He did NOT come to do away with the law, and that it would not cease until heaven and earth passed away.

Now if Jesus truly meant that, there is no question why all these folks kept it. They saw it as in effect.

And for Sunday you have one meeting, at midnight, with a eucharist on Monday morning after midnight, and no biblical command whatsoever.

If you are so upset over the lack to your mind of a Sabbath command, (though they were all keeping it) why does it not trouble you that there was no Sunday command?

And finally, if you admit, and you have numerous times, that they kept Sabbath in the beginning, then why did the church dedicated to preserving that which is original and apostolic stop keeping it?

It would seem to me that what was original and apostolic would be what the apostles did.

 

[repentant]

The same either or statement again.

We can give every day to the Lord and still keep Sabbath.

Or do you not keep Sunday AND every day?



First off, you might want to read the replies to other people This was already addressed at length in my reply to your orthodox brother.

A. it does not always mean that they had the eucharist. But it is likely here.

B. The eating was after midnight. So it would be on Monday if this is indeed Roman reckoning. The meeting was hardly a regular meeting, occuring at the time it did.




yes, but all of that doesn't change when they broke bread:



it was Monday morning.

That doesn't sound like a regular meeting to me. It was a midnight gathering on the eve of a journey.

Moreover, if it is by Jewish reckoning then Cliff is right. It is now on Sunday, but started on the night part of it, and he does not rest on Sunday but travels.

And the comment about interpreting Scripture privately is just a worthless jab. It sounds a bit like what you are accusing Woobadooba of.

Yes it clearly means the Eucharist, the proof is on the other quotes that mention breaking of bread.

I believe you need to read the quote again. It says that they gathered to break bread on the first day of the week. If it was truly at night, then I believe the writer the Apostle Luke would have made a mention of it, or even said the second day of the week. Also notice it says Paul's preaching was prolonged until midnight, not at midnight. His preaching occured after the breaking of bread, and lasted until midnight. So therefore the breaking of bread was day time Sunday, first day of the week just as Luke described.

The breaking of bread refer's to him eating, because in this context it states that he ate.

I don't understand how people can make the Scripture's say what they want. It clearly says they broke bread and Paul's preaching was prolonged until midnight. Yet you and other's try to twist it to mean that all of this happened at midnight.

 

[tall73]

What are you talking about? I already stated previously that the early Christians kept BOTH days. And I believe the Bible and the early 1st century Church Father's is proof enough. Definitly more proof than a 19th century self proclaimed "prophetess".

Oh, there it is, the EGW argument. Where in this thread did I ever cite Ellen White?

I guarantee you that jochanaan never did as he does not even accept EGW.

I accepted the Sabbath before I read EGW. And I don't refer to her at all as an authority upholding it. So I can only assume you are making assumptions, just as you accussed woobadooba of.

Now here is the real issue. You say they kept both. But then you say

a. we don't know what day.
b. there was never a command (though there was clearly not for Sunday, and the command was always there for the Sabbath , with Jesus sayng He was not coming to do away with the commands)
c. The early church kept it, but it is orthodox and original to do away with it.

So again, how is abandoning what the apostles did orthodox, original and apostolic?

 

[tall73]

Yes it clearly means the Eucharist, the proof is on the other quotes that mention breaking of bread.

yes I already said it likely was here. But then if you stress the fact that Paul ate, maybe it wasn't. I am willing to have my mind changed.

I believe you need to read the quote again. It says that they gathered to break bread on the first day of the week. If it was truly at night, then I believe the writer the Apostle Luke would have made a mention of it, or even said the second day of the week.

If it was truly night? How many times is it midnight, but not night?

Also notice it says Paul's preaching was prolonged until midnight, not at midnight. His preaching occured after the breaking of bread, and lasted until midnight. So therefore the breaking of bread was day time Sunday, first day of the week just as Luke described.

a. you assume a few things, ie Roman reckoning.

b. the text does not say he ate before. It says he ate in vs 11, after the death of eutychus, after midnight.

The breaking of bread refer's to him eating, because in this context it states that he ate.

Oh, so now it doesn't mean eucharist?

It says
a. they met to break bread.

b. He broke bread.

Now wouldn't it make sense that if they met to break bread and then he actually broke it that it would be the eucharist? Especially when you just went to great pains to say that is what it meant?

Or maybe none of them were a eucharist and they got together to eat and send off Paul.

I don't understand how people can make the Scripture's say what they want. It clearly says they broke bread and Paul's preaching was prolonged until midnight. Yet you and other's try to twist it to mean that all of this happened at midnight.

No it says they gathered TO break bread, and then it later records him doing just that.

 

[repentant]

So let's review what we have so far.

a. You contend that the NT never commanded keeping Sabbath. Yet Jesus in fact made numerous statements about it, and kept it.

b. The disciples kept it, and you admit the early church kept it.

c. Paul kept it.

d. The new covenant was to write the law on the heart.

e. Jesus said expressly that He did NOT come to do away with the law, and that it would not cease until heaven and earth passed away.

Now if Jesus truly meant that, there is no question why all these folks kept it. They saw it as in effect.

And for Sunday you have one meeting, at midnight, with a eucharist on Monday morning after midnight, and no biblical command whatsoever.

If you are so upset over the lack to your mind of a Sabbath command, (though they were all keeping it) why does it not trouble you that there was no Sunday command?

And finally, if you admit, and you have numerous times, that they kept Sabbath in the beginning, then why did the church dedicated to preserving that which is original and apostolic stop keeping it?

It would seem to me that what was original and apostolic would be what the apostles did.

For your "Monday" Eucharist theory see my last post.

I already stated that the EOC has services on Saturday. Why do you try to show otherwise?

Sunday is part of the New Covenant. Our salvation rests on what happened on Sunday, more so than remember an Old Covenant Law. New surpasses Old.

About the Church supposedly not keeping it. They don't keep it like it was kept in the ealry days. Why did the ancient Christians keep it to begin with? Well Christianity was something new, and they didn't quite know what to do. They felt that had to hold on to the Old Law. But what does Paul say numerous times in His letter's? He says we are no longer under the Law? Eventually regular Sabbath keeping was outdone by the more important Sunday observance of the ressurection. The ECF's who all agreed on everything, and had to for things to pass or for it to be Ecumenical, all guided through the Holy Spirit, makes decisions. If they did away with the Sabbath as it was early on, it was through guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And yes I contend that the NT never once mentions a commandment to keep the Sabbath. Mentoin of Jesus or the Apostles keeping it, is not a command to keep it. Again Jesus would have metioned as a need for salvation if it was needed. What people fail to see is that everything in the OT, sacrifices, passover, circumcision, were ALL fullfilled through Jesus. That is why we no longer do any of these. Or do you sacrifice, and are circumcised because God commanded it?

 

[repentant]

yes I already said it likely was here. But then if you stress the fact that Paul ate, maybe it wasn't. I am willing to have my mind changed.



If it was truly night? How many times is it midnight, but not night?



a. you assume a few things, ie Roman reckoning.

b. the text does not say he ate before. It says he ate in vs 11, after the death of eutychus, after midnight.



Oh, so now it doesn't mean eucharist?

It says
a. they met to break bread.

b. He broke bread.

Now wouldn't it make sense that if they met to break bread and then he actually broke it that it would be the eucharist? Especially when you just went to great pains to say that is what it meant?

Or maybe none of them were a eucharist and they got together to eat and send off Paul.



No it says they gathered TO break bread, and then it later records him doing just that.

Wow you are so confused. The beggining of the passage when it says the Apostles gathered to break bread, this was the Eucharist. This was BEFORE Paul preached UNTIL midnight. When later it mentions PAUL ALONE breakig bread, and ate, this is when PAUL ATE. The two are seperate occurences and the writer Luke made perfectly sure that we knew that Paul in breaking bread by himself was eating.

I think you need to understand the difference betwen until and at. Luke clearly says they gathered on the 1st day of the week Sunday, not Monday, and Paul preached until midnight after they had gathered and breok bread..

Stop twisting my words around. Now I am getting upset. I am done.

 

[repentant]

Now here is the real issue. You say they kept both. But then you say

a. we don't know what day.

I said God never specified an exact day. The Jews kept it on Saturday. Doesn't mean it was a day that God specifically chose.

 

[tall73]

For your "Monday" Eucharist theory see my last post.

I already stated that the EOC has services on Saturday. Why do you try to show otherwise?

You have jumped across the board from saying

a. we don't even know the day
b. the early church kept it
c. The modern church keeps it, but not in the same way the early churhc did
d. Sunday is your true Sabbath
e. The councils said to not rest but you do.


I think you can understand if I am a bit confused as to your actual meaning.

Sunday is part of the New Covenant. Our salvation rests on what happened on Sunday, more so than remember an Old Covenant Law. New surpasses Old.

The new covenant says that the law is written on the heart. It says nothing at all about Sunday.

How can the law be surpassed if it is an integral part of the new covenant?

About the Church supposedly not keeping it. They don't keep it like it was kept in the ealry days. Why did the ancient Christians keep it to begin with? Well Christianity was something new, and they didn't quite know what to do. They felt that had to hold on to the Old Law. But what does Paul say numerous times in His letter's? He says we are no longer under the Law? Eventually regular Sabbath keeping was outdone by the more important Sunday observance of the ressurection.

And yet when James said that some were saying that Paul taught the Jews to renounce the law he did not agree with that statement and undertook a plan to show otherwise. James said to him in Acts 21 that all of Jerusalem was zealous for the law.

This was AFTER the Acts council. So how was it that Paul was so confused as to keep the Sabbath, be a part of those who kept the Sabbath, etc.?

The church kept the Sabbath for 400 years. That is a long time to be confused. The Coptics must still be confused.

The ECF's who all agreed on everything, and had to for things to pass or for it to be Ecumenical, all guided through the Holy Spirit, makes decisions. If they did away with the Sabbath as it was early on, it was through guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That is your view. But please do not refer to yourselves as the original faith then. It was not. The original faith was made up of the apostles who kept they day just as Jesus did, who had the law written on their hearts.

And yes I contend that the NT never once mentions a commandment to keep the Sabbath. Mentoin of Jesus or the Apostles keeping it, is not a command to keep it. Again Jesus would have metioned as a need for salvation if it was needed.

None of the law saves you, so how could it be a necessity of salvation? The Acts council repudiated that notion, and so did Paul, etc.

What people fail to see is that everything in the OT, sacrifices, passover, circumcision, were ALL fullfilled through Jesus. That is why we no longer do any of these. Or do you sacrifice, and are circumcised because God commanded it?

What I see is that Hebrews says

a. the priesthood changed

b. Jesus is the sacrifice

d. the law was written on the heart.

Of course we also see the early church keeping passover. It was changed to Sunday first by the Pope remonstrating the quartodecimans, and then later by the council. And instead we see another institution with no support in the original community, that of Easter Sunday.

You can say that Sunday was in the new covenant, but you have to prove it. You can say that Sabbath was done away with but you can't demonstrate anything other than the councils and some of the church fathers (but not others) that show it.

So again, how can you really say you have the original faith handed down from Jesus?







.

 

[tall73]

Wow you are so confused. The beggining of the passage when it says the Apostles gathered to break bread, this was the Eucharist. This was BEFORE Paul preached UNTIL midnight. When later it mentions PAUL ALONE breakig bread, and ate, this is when PAUL ATE. The two are seperate occurences and the writer Luke made perfectly sure that we knew that Paul in breaking bread by himself was eating.

I think you need to understand the difference betwen until and at. Luke clearly says they gathered on the 1st day of the week Sunday, not Monday, and Paul preached until midnight after they had gathered and breok bread..

Stop twisting my words around. Now I am getting upset. I am done.

Not agreeing with you is not the same as twisting your words. It said they gathered together to break bread. It did not specify that they had already done so, but merely the occassion that they gathered for.

The only time it specifically says bread was broken was when it relates Paul breaking it.

Now just before this you went on a long path to prove that breaking bread meant the eucharist. Now you are saying it is up to context.

Then the facts are that there is no context that demands that this is a eucharist at all. The whole purpose was likely a meal before Paul left.

 

[repentant]

You are one confused person. I will pray that God shows you the light. The EOC IS the Church of the Apostles. If you fail to see that, that is your loss. It is the only Church that resembles the ancient Church. All our Church Father's are successors of the Apostles themselves. You are to much into thinking for yourself, and make claims that you can't even back up.