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

[tall73]

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.

You already admitted that the early church kept Sabbath and changed it years later at the council. And now your only argument is to say

a. you will pray for me

b. I am confused

c. I am too much into thinking for myself and can't back up my points.

These are not arguments for your side. They are personal attacks.

It is your contention, stylized nicely in your title, that the Orthodox church has been giving the truth since 33 AD. Well then, what day were they keeping then?

And if they didn't have all the truth until the last ecumenical council, then perhaps you should change that to "telling the truth since 787 A.D. "

I am off to bed. We can continue this later, hopefully on a factual vein, not a heated one.

God bless

 

[Nightfire]

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?

Is new wine poured into old wineskins? Hebrews 8:13 explained how: "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear" - the fading glory of the deadly letters written on stone would soon disappear (2 Cor. 3:7). So if you begin keeping the commandments without the light of the gospel, where do you end? How do you motivate limiting your observance to just the ten commandments, and not everything that constituted the old covenant? Can you motivate this choice from scripture, in a way that doesn't affect the ten commandments themselves?

If you haven't been circumcised as a Jew, that declares your position regarding God's covenant with Abraham and Israel, and to historical Judaism. Is it through the Ten Commandments - the law written on stone - that you have become a child of Abraham, a son of God? The Ten Commandments were the foundation of the Old Covenant (Deut. 4:13), but even though they aren't ever taken away, can they really be seen as the foundation of the New Covenant? Consider especially the words:

It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt​

If you keep the same law in the same way, how will you convince anyone you are under a new covenant, one that doesn't depend on the law, but on grace - that you aren't part of the old creation (with a perpetual seventh day), but a new creation that has entered the promised sabbath rest (the "today" Hebrews speaks of)?

"Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness, made the world; and Jesus Christ our saviour, on the same day rose from the dead." Justin Martyr (140 AD)​

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.?

You mean verse 20: "how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law." The accusation was that Paul required the Jews to "turn away from Moses" (by abolishing circumcision - another covenant (Gen. 17:10) reinterpreted on the basis of the new covenant Gal. 5:6)). There's no indication that Paul was confused - his policy was to become as a Jew for the Jews - i.e. respect their customs - without requiring them to become "gentiles". That's why, as a Pharisee, he regularly went to the synagogues to preach to the Jews, and as a gentile, he went to places like the Areopagus to speak the Stoics and Epicureans. He went to the Temple court, his gentile companions did not (Acts 21:29). This policy might be confusing to someone who thinks Jewish and gentile believers were immediately reconciled to a single perspective. If that were the case, it wouldn't have been necessary for Paul to write half his letters.

But what does James have to say about the gentile believers? Acts 21:25: "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."Would you place gentiles under the burden of a law Israel could not carry, in addition to the requirements of the Acts council?

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

Tell me, do you believe tradition provides authority? How can you believe 400 years of Sabbatarianism makes a strong case if you reject 1600 years of Sunday-worship? If you really want to show that your case is stronger, you have to do it from Scripture. Both traditions existed since apostolic times, and neither means anything, so the only argument available is to refute Sunday-keeping, or accept both. As has been said before on this thread, no Sunday-keeper has any problem with someone keeping the Jewish Sabbath. Rather, what is being questioned in this thread is how Sunday-keepers can still take the Ten Commandments seriously, and I think we should try to keep the focus on that question.

Ignatius (110 AD) wrote in his epistle to the Magnesians:

IX "If therefore those who lived in ancient observances attained unto newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living a life ruled by the Lord's day, whereon our life too had its rising through Him and His death ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... For if He should follow us in acting according to our acts, we are indeed undone. Therefore, becoming His disciples, let us learn to live in a way befitting Christianity."​

Your lenghty refutation of Barnabas did nothing to counter the application of Hebrews 4 to a spiritual sabbath observance.

I also challenge your claim that the Eucharist was first (and you imply, arbitrarily) changed to Sunday in response to the quartodecimans (by Pope Victor I - 189-199AD - who was particularly intolerant of any lack of uniformity). The truth is, as with the sabbath and/or Sunday, both traditions existed in the early church: by those adhering to the Jewish customs and dates, and those who preferred to emphasize Christ's central role, reinterpreting the Jewish traditions accordingly (just like He and his disciples did). Although Ireneaus (155-202 AD) allowed both traditions, he wrote:

“The Mystery of the Lord's Resurrection may not be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's Day, and on this alone should we observe the breaking off of the Paschal Feast.” (note "breaking off" - the issue was where to stop the feast, not where to start it; the problem with using a moon reckoning like the Jews did, was that it could stop on any day, rather than the preferred Sunday).
​

I refer you to the Wikipedia entry on Easter Sunday, particularly the piece surrounding the quartodeciman controversy.

Lastly, is there any special reason why you suppose the expression "breaking of the bread" doesn't refer to the Lord's supper in this instance? The specific time they got around to the physical act is irrelevant - the fact is that the disciples met for the purpose of breaking bread, an act they are said to have been "devoted to" (Acts 2:42), on the first day. If they were not gathered for communion, they would have eaten at home (1 Cor. 11:20-22; 33-34). Acts 20:7 is a Saturday night meeting (i.e. evening of the first day, Sunday) that carries over to early Sunday morning, and there is no law that prevents Paul from travelling on Sunday - neither Christian nor Jewish.

 

[tall73]

Is new wine poured into old wineskins? Hebrews 8:13 explained how: "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear" - the fading glory of the deadly letters written on stone would soon disappear (2 Cor. 3:7). So if you begin keeping the commandments without the light of the gospel, where do you end? How do you motivate limiting your observance to just the ten commandments, and not everything that constituted the old covenant? Can you motivate this choice from scripture, in a way that doesn't affect the ten commandments themselves?

A. No one is keeping the commandment without the light of the gospel. Again you interject that if anyone keeps the law they must be legalists, under the old covenant, etc.

B. Yes, the old covenant is gone. But don't just quote a little, quote the whole thing. The problem with the old coveanant was what exactly?

If you haven't been circumcised as a Jew, that declares your position regarding God's covenant with Abraham and Israel, and to historical Judaism. Is it through the Ten Commandments - the law written on stone - that you have become a child of Abraham, a son of God? The Ten Commandments were the foundation of the Old Covenant (Deut. 4:13), but even though they aren't ever taken away, can they really be seen as the foundation of the New Covenant? Consider especially the words:

It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt​

If you keep the same law in the same way, how will you convince anyone you are under a new covenant, one that doesn't depend on the law, but on grace - that you aren't part of the old creation (with a perpetual seventh day), but a new creation that has entered the promised sabbath rest (the "today" Hebrews speaks of)?

A Because we don't keep them the same way. We keep them through Christ in us.

B. Again, quote the whole passage.

Was the problem with the law in the old covenant? Is that why it was removed? The covenant is not the law. The covenant is the AGREEMENT, the mutual promises that are made between two parties.

Here are the old covenant promises first:

Exo 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel:
Exo 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine;
Exo 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."
Exo 19:7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him.
Exo 19:8 All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

The promises of God (in blue) were to bless the people andmake them his treasured possession. The promise of the people (in red) was to obey all the Lord will do. They affirmed this more than once.

The problem is that the people continually broke their promise, and received the covanental curses rather than the blessings they would have received.

In the new covenant God does not change the law. He changes the nature of the promises. In fact the people do not make promises at all in the new covenant. God says that He Himself with write the law on their hearts and minds (Christ will live in them, and as John says His commands are not burdensome).

He also affirms that He will forgive their sins, and they will be His people again. They will not continue to suffer under covanental curses. It is a total reversal of the old covenant system, and it is all by God's doing for them.

Note what the text says:

Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Heb 8:9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."
Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The fault of the old covenant was not God's law. It was with the promises of the people. Paul says the same thing in Romans 7, that the law is spiritual, but he is unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. But now that Christ came in, He lives in Paul, forgives his sin, and through the Spirit Paul can now fulfill the law (not for salvation, but because he has the mind of the Spirit):

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The emphasis is not on the external laws of stone, quite true. The emphasis is on Christ who fulfills in us the law in a way that we never could on our own, simply looking at the external law.

 

[tall73]

"Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness, made the world; and Jesus Christ our saviour, on the same day rose from the dead." Justin Martyr (140 AD)

Justin Martyr's sentiment is nowhere expressed in the new covenant that you quoted in Hebrews. But the law written on the heart was.

You mean verse 20: "how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law." The accusation was that Paul required the Jews to "turn away from Moses" (by abolishing circumcision - another covenant (Gen. 17:10) reinterpreted on the basis of the new covenant Gal. 5:6)). There's no indication that Paul was confused - his policy was to become as a Jew for the Jews - i.e. respect their customs - without requiring them to become "gentiles". That's why, as a Pharisee, he regularly went to the synagogues to preach to the Jews, and as a gentile, he went to places like the Areopagus to speak the Stoics and Epicureans. He went to the Temple court, his gentile companions did not (Acts 21:29). This policy might be confusing to someone who thinks Jewish and gentile believers were immediately reconciled to a single perspective. If that were the case, it wouldn't have been necessary for Paul to write half his letters.

By no means. I have no problem with gentiles being gentiles. The Jerusalem council of chapter 15, as well as Peter's encounter with Cornelius make that plain. In fact, as James notes, it wa foretold long before. They gave them only a few requirements from the law of Moses that they needed to follow. But a few notes on that decision:

a. The requirements themselves were derived from the law. They were the requirements of the "foreigner among you". In other words the Judaizers who initially wanted full conversion were instead told that the gentiles need not become Jews to become Christians. Instead they were to follow only the laws that Gentiles were always required to.

b. Both Jew and Gentile are saved by faith (v. 11)

c. The ten commandments however were not in view. Otherwise the gentiles are strangely asked to observe only one of them, the commandment regarding idols. In fact what is in view is precisely what they said, the law of Moses. The law that Moses recorded in his own hand and set next to the ark. The ten commandment law in stone, within the ark, was not mentioned here.

d. Paul himself makes reference to the 10 commandments in Romans 7. He speaks specifically of the law not to covet. He saw the righteous requirements of the law being fulfilled in himself and the primarily gentile Roman church.

e. James says immediately after giving the requirements that Moses is preached every Sabbath in the synagogue. They were still attending the synagogue at that time on the Sabbath . And it would be clear even to the Judaizaers that the requirements given were in line with the Torah.

 

[tall73]

Tell me, do you believe tradition provides authority? How can you believe 400 years of Sabbatarianism makes a strong case if you reject 1600 years of Sunday-worship? If you really want to show that your case is stronger, you have to do it from Scripture. Both traditions existed since apostolic times, and neither means anything, so the only argument available is to refute Sunday-keeping, or accept both.

a. No I do not believe that tradition holds authority. Now that does not mean I dismiss history. History is valuable to gain insights. But what is original is what is important. And that is precisely my point. What a council decided years later does not change the original deposit.

b. I don't reference 400 years as a means of providing authority. I reference it to point out the inconsistency on the church's part, of saying they have the original faith ,but giving it up.

c. I have provided quite a few texts that show that Christians were meeting in the synagogue, as well as the facts that Jesus did not abrogate the commands, in fact the law was written on the heart. But you, saying I need to prove my point from Scripture, have no Scripture that places Sunday in the new covenant. You just lept 100 years to Justin Martyr who simply said that was when they met because of the resurrection.

d. Please understand my real position. I have no problem with Sunday worship. I don't mind if people keep both. It is fine to worship in honor of the resurrection. But my point is that the claim to have what is ORIGINAL is not true. Sunday, though not harmful in my opinion, and potentially a blessingl, was a later addition to the original deposit of faith. Sabbath was original to the Christian faith, and yet abandoned. If you want to worship on Sunday, that is great. But don't just toss out a command of God and say that the later instituted tradition of Sunday worship replaces it and is the new Sabbath in the new covenant.

 

[tall73]

As has been said before on this thread, no Sunday-keeper has any problem with someone keeping the Jewish Sabbath. Rather, what is being questioned in this thread is how Sunday-keepers can still take the Ten Commandments seriously, and I think we should try to keep the focus on that question.

The only way you can do that is to apply the Sabbath command to Sunday, for which there is no Scriptural support. The nature of the new covenant is spelled out, and Sunday is not in it.

Ignatius (110 AD) wrote in his epistle to the Magnesians:

IX "If therefore those who lived in ancient observances attained unto newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living a life ruled by the Lord's day, whereon our life too had its rising through Him and His death ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... For if He should follow us in acting according to our acts, we are indeed undone. Therefore, becoming His disciples, let us learn to live in a way befitting Christianity."​

--------------------
(The following info on the longer and shorter readings is taken from the introductory material to the Ignatius letters in Cleveland Coxe's Ante-Nicene Fathers, American edition)

There are shorter and longer versions of Ignatius. Opinions vary as to which is legitimate. There are two Greek recensions containing both the long and short versions. For some time scholars preferred the shorter. But the discovery of an old Syriac version also contained the longer reading, re-igniting the debate.
---------------------------------

The shorter version of Ignatius, which you read, is taken by most to be a repudiation of Sabbath and upholding Sunday. But in fact, that is not necessarily the case. But more than that, the longer reading is in fact in support of the Sabbath, but without the Jewish traditional requirements. In other words, Jesus' way of keeping it. In the longer Sunday is upheld as being above Sabbath. Likely the longer is a later reading that was put back into Ignatius, but still shows an important perspective on Sabbath keeping.

Here is the longer:

Chapter IX.-Let Us Live with Christ.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things49 have come to the possession of a new50 hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance51 of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death-whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith,52 and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master-how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.53

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me; "54 and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am; "55 how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, "He will come and save us."56 Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat."57 For say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread."58 But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.59 And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day,"60 on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, "whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things,"61 who are "lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."62 These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing up wealth63 insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!

This statement gives us some important information.

a. That Sunday was already recognized as the Lord's day at this time according to verse 59, in honor of the resurrection.

b. Whoever authored the longer portion does not think that Christians should keep Sabbath after the Jewish traditions that Jesus denounced, but does think that they should keep it. (lukewarm drinks, Sabbath day's journey etc. are repudiated.) Instead they were to celebrate it in a spiritual way in contemplation of the Scriptures etc.

Now back to the shorter reading. the Greek of vs. 50 does not support the reading given.


And here is a link to the Greek.

http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-magnesians.htm#IX


Now a few notes:


a. there is no word for day, hmera , it is supplied a a substantive.

b. The Greek manuscript discovered with Siniaticus actually has the word zwhn which is not present in this Greek version provided by the web site. They omitted this, following the Latin translations.

c. There is evidence from the next phrase "in which", which is in the feminine, that there is a feminine word being referenced.. The aforementioned hmera, or zwhn could be that word. But since the one is clearly present in the Greek (Zwhn) but the other is not present in any text, but was assumed, then the issue is rather clear.

d. The word translated as "no longer keeping the Sabbath" is just the participle form, and translating it literally Sabatizing would be accurate.

e. Moreover, as commentators have pointed out, the context is referring to the prophets of old. No one suggests that they kept Sunday. So the reading is much better rendered.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer sabbatizing, but living in the observance of the Lord's own life (or own way of living), by which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death-whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith .....

In other words the text is saying that the prophets lived according to the Lord's own way of life (keeping the Sabbath without the Jewish traditions).

If the longer reading is to be viewed as valid, then it harmonizes with this rendering well. If it is not valid then it was added later to clarify the text according to the later author's thinking. And it endorses the Sabbath, but not after the Jewish manner of legalism. He is telling them to keep the Sabbath, but not in the old way. And if not then he is simply saying to live after the Lord's way of life, and that of the prophets (not keeping the pharisaical traditions of the Sabbath).

 

[TexasSky]

a. You quoted the text from Genesis. People could not have been working 7 days a week when God instituted the day as they had only been alive for one day. It was at creation.

b. THe early churhc has this authority from where? You say from God, but you give no demonstration of that. And moreover, the early church is not agreed on this at all. Some say it was replaced, some say it was just done away with, some say it was only added because of Jewish transgression as a punishment, some say it was just pointing forward to a thousand years of peace after the 6k years of this earth, etc.

But if you mean the early church in Acts, then they kept the Sabbath and attended the synagogues.

The report of the seventh day of rest in Genesis is not, at that point, a commandment. It is narrative by the writer. "This is why we do this."

The command to rest one day is given in Exodus, and yes, people were very likely to be working continuously by that time.

 

[TexasSky]

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matt. 7:21

"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done." Rev. 20:13

"If you love me, you will obey what I command." Jn. 14:15

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy." Ex. 20:8

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Romand 3:23

"For by grace are ye saved through faith, not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:7-9

"If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

 

[TexasSky]

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that when the Pharisees told Christ He was sinning "by not keeping the Sabbath," He chastized them and told them that they had made the rituals of men above the law of God, and the INTENT of the law was more important to God - and yet, here we are - debating whether or not men and women who love Christ will go to hell for worshipping Him on "a Sunday instead of a Saturday?"

 

[tall73]

Your lenghty refutation of Barnabas did nothing to counter the application of Hebrews 4 to a spiritual sabbath observance.

Actually it did a couple of things:

a. It showed that Barnabas was trying to do away with any meaning to the Jewish law, even during the Jewish dispensation.

b. It showed that Barnabas has an unusual approach to Scripture.

c. It showed that the spiritual application that he made of the Sabbath is not in line with the text in Hebrews.

In Hebrews as I noted the issue is not Sabbath observance anyway, but a call to not fall back from God's salvation rest.

Barnabas however applies the rest to a thousand year period, not to salvation. And his dates for the period have not come about.

His whole purpose was to say that the Sabbath was not in effect because it was ONLY eschatological. But he obviously ignores the fact that Jesus and the early church kept the day, and that Jesus said it was for man. It was not just a theory of a thousand year reign It is a day to spend with God for our benefit, as Christ and His disciples did.

I also challenge your claim that the Eucharist was first (and you imply, arbitrarily) changed to Sunday in response to the quartodecimans (by Pope Victor I - 189-199AD - who was particularly intolerant of any lack of uniformity).

I assume you mean easter not eucharist. But in any case, it is clear that both were eventually kept. What is not clear was whether Easter Sunday was originally kept. We see Luke referencing the feast of unleavened bread, Paul's wanting to be at pentecost etc. We also see that Christ said that He would eat the passover with them when it was fulfilled in the kingdom.

But we don't see any reference to Easter Sunday being a yearly ritual in the Scriptures.

The truth is, as with the sabbath and/or Sunday, both traditions existed in the early church: by those adhering to the Jewish customs and dates, and those who preferred to emphasize Christ's central role, reinterpreting the Jewish traditions accordingly (just like He and his disciples did). Although Ireneaus (155-202 AD) allowed both traditions, he wrote:

“The Mystery of the Lord's Resurrection may not be celebrated on any other day than the Lord's Day, and on this alone should we observe the breaking off of the Paschal Feast.” (note "breaking off" - the issue was where to stop the feast, not where to start it; the problem with using a moon reckoning like the Jews did, was that it could stop on any day, rather than the preferred Sunday).
​

I refer you to the Wikipedia entry on Easter Sunday, particularly the piece surrounding the quartodeciman controversy.

Both by 155 you mean? Granted, and this was after the Roman church had already played up the weekly Sunday celebration. I have come accross that particular wikipedia article before. But if you notice, it doesn't exactly support your position.

a. It notes that Socrates cited it as the consequence of tradition.

b. It notes that the primarily gentile west, and particularly Rome, were the first to press for it. The same ones that led the way in dropping the Sabbath, and coincidentally, the ones most surrounded by the anti-Jewish sentiment in Rome at the time.:


Socrates Scholasticus, History book 5, 5th century http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26015.htm
For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.

I don't have original source material on Epiphanius (if anyone knows of its availablity on the web, please post! ) but from what I have read he seems to state that the controversy arose after the Jewish heiarchy in Jerusalem gave way to a more gentile one following the destruction of the temple and the flight to Pella. This too was in a period where any association with Jews was highly dangerous. So it would make sense for the new gentile administration to make a new Christian tradition that set them apart from the Jews. If anyone has more informatin on his comments regarding the issue, that would be great.

Finally it seems the council again was the one that made thefinal change, and if the record of the emporer's words are accurate it was done to distinguish from the Jewish practice. You don't have to read documents of that era for long to realize that their theology was in some ways done in oppositon to the Jews.

Lastly, is there any special reason why you suppose the expression "breaking of the bread" doesn't refer to the Lord's supper in this instance? The specific time they got around to the physical act is irrelevant - the fact is that the disciples met for the purpose of breaking bread, an act they are said to have been "devoted to" (Acts 2:42), on the first day.

Actually I don't have a problem with it being one or not. You already quoted Acts 2 stating that it was done EVERY DAY as I myself did.

My point is simply the same as what Repentant's wound up being, that context must determine it. It is not a technical term.

If they were not gathered for communion, they would have eaten at home (1 Cor. 11:20-22; 33-34).

The problem in Corinth was that they were eating it as a regular meal, not recognizing the Lord's supper. Some ate too much, some not enoug.h It just says that the Lord's Supper was not to be treated as a normal meal, so when they were having it they should not eat it as such. They could eat at home of they were hungry.

But it never says that they didn't have meals together for fellowship at times.

As I said at the outset though, it is LIKELY that this was a eucharist celebration. But the term is always interpreted in context, as even Repentant wound up acknowledging.

Acts 20:7 is a Saturday night meeting (i.e. evening of the first day, Sunday) that carries over to early Sunday morning, and there is no law that prevents Paul from travelling on Sunday - neither Christian nor Jewish.[/quote]

I mentioned that it is possible it is a Saturday night meal. And I also have no issue with the traveling. But our friend Repentant who believes the day to be a new Sabbath might. For that matter the council itself said if possible to rest. Was Paul not aware of that same tradition?

Likely Paul was not aware of any of this because what we have is simply a gathering on the night Paul was about to set off. . It was one in a number of chronilogical refernces to dates that framed Paul's journey.

 

[tall73]

The report of the seventh day of rest in Genesis is not, at that point, a commandment. It is narrative by the writer. "This is why we do this."

The command to rest one day is given in Exodus, and yes, people were very likely to be working continuously by that time.

God blessed and sanctified it , setting it apart for holy use, then, not in Exodus.

 

[tall73]

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Romand 3:23

"For by grace are ye saved through faith, not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:7-9

"If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

I have no problem with those texts.

I think woobadooba's point is simply that faith should express itself by obedience, as James notes.

 

[tall73]

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that when the Pharisees told Christ He was sinning "by not keeping the Sabbath," He chastized them and told them that they had made the rituals of men above the law of God, and the INTENT of the law was more important to God - and yet, here we are - debating whether or not men and women who love Christ will go to hell for worshipping Him on "a Sunday instead of a Saturday?"

I for one have never said that someone is going to hell for worshipping on a Sunday.

But more than that, their rituals were added TO the law. Christ said that he was innocent in regards to the law.

In other words, Jesus kept it as it was intended. He didn't say, don't bother with keeping it as it was intended. He said, don't burden it beyond what it was intended.

And Jesus never disputed the day. He disputed the manner of keeping it which they had made a curse rather than a blessing.

 

[JimfromOhio]

And Jesus never disputed the day. He disputed the manner of keeping it which they had made a curse rather than a blessing.

Doctors, Police Officers and those who HAVE to serve on Sabbath Day (Saturday) when we teach that they are to observe their Sabbath Day on the 7th day regardless what day it falls (which means any day of the week).

Mark 3:4
Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

Colossians 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.


Hebrews 4:9-10 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.

Genesis 8:4
and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

Something about the "seventh" in the Bible. Seven is a special number.

Every seven years, settle all debts.
Every seven years, a portion of the farm land is to rest.

Even circumstances must be performed AFTER 7th day. Genesis 17:12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised.

Leviticus 23:41
Celebrate this as a festival to the LORD for seven days each year. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come; celebrate it in the seventh month.

Leviticus 25:8
[ The Year of Jubilee ] " 'Count off seven sabbaths of years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbaths of years amount to a period of forty-nine years.

Leviticus 26:21
" 'If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve.

I can go on and on.

Celebrate Christ's Resurrection: Revelation 1:10
On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.

Acts 20:7
[ Eutychus Raised From the Dead at Troas ] On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

 

[the1888message]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Comandments were given to the "Jews"? It is not, we know that at one point in time it was given to the children of Israel not just the Jews which were a part of the children of Israel at MT Sinai.

The Sabbath is first written about way back in Genesis well before the "Jews".

Well do we need to keep them? As a follower of Christ the Commandments of God can not condemn me for a Christain is in Christ and not under the Law. That is of course until we transgress the law.
read 1 John 2:1-6.

Peace and Grace
David

 

[tall73]

Well do we need to keep them? As a follower of Christ the Commandments of God can not condemn me for a Christain is in Christ and not under the Law. That is of course until we transgress the law.
read 1 John 2:1-6.

Peace and Grace
David

Er...not following you. Until we trangress the law? I understand that we are to walk as He walked...

 

[Cliff2]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Comandments were given to the "Jews"? It is not, we know that at one point in time it was given to the children of Israel not just the Jews which were a part of the children of Israel at MT Sinai.

The Sabbath is first written about way back in Genesis well before the "Jews".

Well do we need to keep them? As a follower of Christ the Commandments of God can not condemn me for a Christain is in Christ and not under the Law. That is of course until we transgress the law.
read 1 John 2:1-6.

Peace and Grace
David

You are right about the Sabbath and the Jews.

There were no Jews around when the first Sabbath was kept.

 

[Katarn]

This is going off topic slightly, but why do you SDAs (and other "Sabbath keepers"), then, ignore the first part of the command to work for six days? The Amplified Bible says:

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your domestic animals, or the sojourner within your gates" (Exodus 20:9-10).

I just find that slightly weird and perhaps contradictory. I'm probably wrong somewhere along the line...

As has been said so many times, we are not bound by the legalisticness in the law. Christ came and fulfilled the Law and it is in Him the required obedience to the Law is achieved in Him. So, in Christ, we do keep this commandment legalistically. We use our freedom from the Law to worship Christ and remember that He rose from the dead [on Sunday] and that the Holy Spirit came down from heaven [on Sunday]. The two greatest events in Christianity happened on Sunday, which I find very weird if Saturday is still so totally important now.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), could easily point out this inconsistency to the embarassment of those Christians calling for the Ten Commandments to not be removed on the grounds that their visibility in public places will discourage lawlessness, while the very same Christians are being "lawless" by breaking the 4th Commandment.

They would not be so stupid to make such a claim if they truly understand the Bible when it clearly states that we are no longer bound by the legalisticness of the Law. Mind you, I wouldn't put it past the ACLU. They themselves are hypocritical with whose civil rights they choose to protect [in protests and what have you]. What they really mean is that they'll make a stand against any attempts to belittle civil rights [in any matter even when the security of the nation is at risk] other than those rights of Christians, Christianity, and the Church in which they [sometimes] actually join those seeking to belittle their civil rights. I have no respect what-so-ever for those double-standard hypocritical people.

 

[Nightfire]

In the new covenant God does not change the law. He changes the nature of the promises. In fact the people do not make promises at all in the new covenant. God says that He Himself with write the law on their hearts and minds (Christ will live in them, and as John says His commands are not burdensome).

I think Paul contradicts your argument:

Col. 2:13-14
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Rom. 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.​

The "written code, with its regulations", clearly refers to the law from which we have been released, not the covenant or the promises. "...if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law" (Gal. 5:18). Why else would Paul consider it a threat to say: "who lets himself be circumcised ... is obligated to obey the whole law"? (v.3)

The promises made to Israel remains, as Paul says: "Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy" (Rom. 15:8-9). All God's promises are confirmed in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). Where they were once confirmed by the law, they are now confirmed by God's grace. Maybe you underestimate the significance of the law being written on our hearts, rather than on Moses' stone tablets.

I don't have original source material on Epiphanius (if anyone knows of its availablity on the web, please post! ) but from what I have read he seems to state that the controversy arose after the Jewish heiarchy in Jerusalem gave way to a more gentile one following the destruction of the temple and the flight to Pella. This too was in a period where any association with Jews was highly dangerous. So it would make sense for the new gentile administration to make a new Christian tradition that set them apart from the Jews.

And what is wrong with being set apart from the Jews? Didn't Jesus himself start that tradition, which was continued by the apostles? Christian persecution was a given before Constantine put a stop to it by making Christianity legitimate. How would distancing themselves from the Jews help their cause? Jerusalem was in gentile hands before and after the destruction of the Temple - but while Christians could be reasonably tolerated as a sect of Judaism, after the Jewish patronage had been removed, they were persecuted simply as atheists (i.e. not believing in the Roman gods - as we see in Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan). There is also no "new gentile administration" in the church, since it fled from Jerusalem intact (as God promised it would, and Jesus assures us in Revelations - 90AD). The church grows, and the need for a collected canon and frequent councils become apparent. The council wasn't some state-run institution disconnected from and possibly undermining the church - they represented the church. Leaders were selected by the clear principles set out by the apostles, and they simply exercized their authority (the "keys" Jesus gave to the church).

Finally it seems the council again was the one that made thefinal change, and if the record of the emporer's words are accurate it was done to distinguish from the Jewish practice. You don't have to read documents of that era for long to realize that their theology was in some ways done in oppositon to the Jews.

You are apparently viewing this from the perspective that there was some kind of great conspiracy (no doubt reasoning from the present backwards, like the Mormons do to prove the "great apostasy": things are not as we think they should be, therefore there must have been some grand corruption). The council - like the individual voices that preceded it - pointed out that there were parallel traditions: Christians keeping the sabbath according to Jewish tradition, and keeping the Sunday according to "ancient" Christian tradition. For the sake of unity and clarity, there was a need for further councils like the first one in Jerusalem. There were similar differences regarding the paschal feasts, the observances of moons and days (or not), religious dietary requirements, and even of denominations (Paul/Apollos/Cephas/Christ). These differences already existed in Paul's time, and we can see how he addressed all of them. If he had reservations about gentiles who did not keep the sabbath, or kept both the sunday and the sabbath, it stands to reason that he would have weeded it out at the root - as he did with circumcision - but he didn't. Peter (Cephas) was head of the church in Rome, and Apollos (who "watered what Paul planted") was head of the church in Alexandria, where the tradition of keeping the Sunday originated. Paul had no problem with their teachings, and when he did, he corrected them (Gal. 2:11-16). It is significant that there it was the Jews who shied away from the gentile believers or forced them to follow Jewish customs, and they were reprimanded.

It is only logical that the Bible reflects Jewish tradition, and through it establish the foundation of what was to become the Christian tradition. The new covenant Jesus heralded through his resurrection was the catalyst for this change. The New Testament is a record surrounding the acts of Jesus and his first apostles, not a canon of tradition. The Jewish Pascha gave way to the Eucharist without Jesus expressly announcing it "replaced", and under Peter and Paul's direction the intention of circumcision was superceded by baptism (Col. 2:11-12). To observe these changes, we have the history of the church, and there is no evidence of any conspiracy by so-called "gentiles" (as if, after Christ, there could be anything inherently wrong with being a gentile) to use Christianity as a convenient anti-semitic platfrom. That is a recent invention, and a convenient one, seeing that the Bible is 90% Jewish. It seems more likely that this trend is simply a continuation of the Judaizing influences that have always been part of the church. Paul was critical of this tendency, and explicitly includes the old sabbath observance as a stumbling block in Gal. 4:9-11 (also Col. 2:16 - cf.

Please understand my real position. I have no problem with Sunday worship. I don't mind if people keep both. It is fine to worship in honor of the resurrection. But my point is that the claim to have what is ORIGINAL is not true. Sunday, though not harmful in my opinion, and potentially a blessing, was a later addition to the original deposit of faith. Sabbath was original to the Christian faith, and yet abandoned. If you want to worship on Sunday, that is great. But don't just toss out a command of God and say that the later instituted tradition of Sunday worship replaces it and is the new Sabbath in the new covenant.

Sabbath was original to the Jews, and continued by those Jews who became Christians. They "remembered the sabbath day" (of the old creation) by celebrating God's rest on the seventh day of creation. The seventh day of the week is a copy, a shadow of the day of creation - not in itself meaningful. Christians who believe enter the reality of that rest - present tense (Heb. 4:3). The second-century fathers show that the vast majority of Christians met on Sunday and did not keep the Sabbath (110AD). They give no clues that would suggest that Sunday was a recent innovation.

We live on the edge of the God's sabbath day, expecting the resurrection. Like all the other laws, the sabbath Moses recalled at Horeb is fulfilled - past tense. Not invalidated, for the same reason the knowledge of your schoolmaster (Gal. 3:24) does not become invalid the moment you graduate.

Sunday worship is a consequence of the new covenant. Therefore it is not and can never be simple a "moved Sabbath", as if Jesus made no difference. Before Jesus' resurrection, there are many indications of Him and his followers doing something on the sabbath, after his resurrection (and He was on earth for almost 5 weeks afterwards) there are none. Instead, there are numerous indications of Him and his followers doing things on the first day of the week, and you suppose this is somehow insiginificant, or circumstantial at best? Why make a point of mentioning a meeting on the first day of the week if that day was like any other, or if the significant assembly was in fact the day before, as it was for the Jews (synagogue simply means "assembly")?

...what is being questioned in this thread is how Sunday-keepers can still take the Ten Commandments seriously, and I think we should try to keep the focus on that question.

The only way you can do that is to apply the Sabbath command to Sunday, for which there is no Scriptural support. The nature of the new covenant is spelled out, and Sunday is not in it.

And just because you think it is impossible does not make it so. With God, all things are possible, and changing our perspective from an earthly reality, where certain days and weeks have physical significance, to a heavenly reality, where we find (present tense) our true rest, is exactly what Jesus came to do. It's not in the gospel, it is the gospel.

 

[Nightfire]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Comandments were given to the "Jews"? It is not, we know that at one point in time it was given to the children of Israel not just the Jews which were a part of the children of Israel at MT Sinai.

See [SIZE=-1]Ex. 31:13 and Neh. 9:14. It also bears direct relation to their deliverance from Egypt: Deut. 5:15. That it was a new commandment to them (even though God had already "created" an eternal rest from the beginning), is evident in Ex. 16:23. They had no knowledge of how it should be kept, hence the explanation.[/SIZE]

The Sabbath is first written about way back in Genesis well before the "Jews".

But it was only introduced to mankind through Israel, on their flight through the desert, and only became a covenental agreement at Horeb:

Deut. 5:2-3
The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.​

Also:

Psalm 147:19-20
He has revealed his word to Jacob,
his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation;
they do not know his laws.
Praise the LORD.​

As Ex. 35:2 says, the seventh day was their holy day. We, as gentiles, only have part in the promises God made to Israel through the new agreement - the new covenant - God made with the rest of the world: that He is willing to graft everyone into true Israel through Christ. We don't come into that agreement through the law, but through the Spirit (Gal. 3:2).

You are right about the Sabbath and the Jews.

There were no Jews around when the first Sabbath was kept.

Have you looked up the word "sabbath" in the Bible? Where does God first explain it?