Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | mim | 227291 | ||
after the ressurrection of our Lord did the new christian (including apostles)continue to observe the sabbath along with the Lords day.Was passover and other traditional holidays still celebrated? Not in the law tradition,just observed. | ||||||
2 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Holmes | 227292 | ||
After the resurrection of our Lord did the new Christian (including apostles) continue to observe the Sabbath along with the Lords day? Was Passover and other traditional holidays still celebrated? Not in the law tradition, just observed. Hi Mim, The earliest Christians gathered on the seventh day (the Sabbath). • Acts 13:13-14 Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. • 42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. • Acts 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. • Acts 17: 2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, • Acts 18: 4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. They also observed Passover (Feast of Unleavened Bread). • Acts 20: 6 We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days. • 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. There are two scriptures that are often cited to show that the early Christians also gathered together on Sunday, the first day of the week. • Acts 20: 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. • Revelation 1: 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, Acts 20 states they gathered together on Sunday because they were travelling and intended to leave the next day. The “to break bread” refers to eating a meal together, not the LORD’s communion. They broke bread well after midnight, meaning it was Monday and no longer Sunday, which had ended at sunset. Revelation 1 is the only place in scripture that uses the term “LORD’s Day.” It does not make any reference to what day of the week it was. It may not refer to a specific day at all. Revelation details the events surrounding the LORD’s return and the “LORD’s Day” may be the same as the “Day of the LORD” which is so often found in prophesy concerning the same time frame. For your consideration, Holmes |
||||||
3 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227294 | ||
Holmes, These scriptures are rather devoid of context. It was certainly Paul's practice to go to the synagogues on the sabbath day in order to preach Christ to the Jews. This you have showed amazingly well. However, this doesn't show in any way that Christians were not meeting on the first day of the week. It simply doesn't address that. I think the 2 Corinthians passover passage also needs to be considered in context. Finally, two points with regards to the breaking of the bread. First, it would be quite remarkable if scripture intended to let us know they had lunch that day. Second, your estimate of that verse disagrees with how the church has always understood it. That should at least give you pause and cause you to consider on what basis you so readily dismiss it as not being communion. In many cases just listing a stream of verses is a good way to respond to a question. But it is indeed possible to misrepresent a verse simply by quoting it in the absence of any context or explination. Let me give you an example. Suppose I told you that it was wrong for people to use public water and I gave this verse to give support. Pro 5:15 Drink water from your own cistern And fresh water from your own well. Pro 5:16 Should your springs be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets? Pro 5:17 Let them be yours alone And not for strangers with you. Now, that might sound like a passage telling us what is right and wrong concerning water. However, simply posting that passage is the height of deception because within its context it has absolutely nothing to do with water or cisterns. Check the passage to see what I mean. We must have context, and that context can greatly impact the message of a verse that might have seemed to say another thing in absence of the context. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
4 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Holmes | 227295 | ||
First, it would be quite remarkable if scripture intended to let us know they had lunch that day. Second, your estimate of that verse disagrees with how the church has always understood it. Hi Beja, The breaking of bread is mentioned as the reason they had gathered together, not that they had lunch that day. This is no different than the early Christians of Acts 2:46: Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart. Were these new Christians having communion every day? No, they were taking their meals together. Also, Paul was planning on leaving the next day. If the purpose was to have communion on Sunday, then why did Paul wait well into Monday to break the bread? Now note the context of verse 11: “When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left.” No mention of it as communion, no mention of wine, only that Paul had “eaten,” on Monday, not Sunday. If “the church” has always understood it to be communion, maybe you could explain why they understand it that way. For your consideration, Holmes |
||||||
5 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227297 | ||
Holmes, It says Paul extended his message until midnight. You are going by pure assumption when you say that the meal came afterwards, and indeed if you honestly think it was simply an ordinary meal then why would you think they didn't eat prior to midnight? Nothing in the text suggests the meal happened the next day. And additionally, if the meal had happened an hour after midnight, which there is no reason to believe, there is nothing to say that it would then follow that they saw it as a monday event rather than a continuation of the sunday worship. If you would like some explination as to why we would believe this was indeed communion then I would rather quote at length one a bit more knowledgable than myself. Here is John Gill on the issue. With regards to their coming together to break bread: not to eat a common meal, or to make a feast, or grand entertainment for the apostle and his company, before they departed; but, as the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist", by which the Lord's supper was called in the primitive times; or as the Arabic version, "to distribute the body of Christ", which is symbolically and emblematically held forth in the bread at the Lord's table. Now on the first day of the week, the disciples, or the members of the church at Troas, met together on this occasion, and the apostle, and those that were with him, assembled with them for the same purpose; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, "when we were come together"; Paul and his company, together with the church at Troas; for it is plain from hence that there was a church in this place, not only by disciples being here, but by the administration of the Lord's supper to them; and so there was in after ages. Who was the first pastor or bishop of this church, is not certain; perhaps Carpus, of whom mention is made in 2Ti_4:13 though he is said to be bishop of other places; See Gill on 2Ti_4:13. In the "second" century, in the times of Ignatius, there were brethren at Troas, from whence he wrote his epistles to the churches at Smyrna, and Philadelphia, and who are saluted in them by the brethren at Troas (k): in the third century, several martyrs suffered here, as Andreas, Paulus, Nicomachus, and Dionysia a virgin: in the "fifth" century, Pionius, bishop of Troas, was present at Constantinople at the condemnation of Eutyches, and afterwards he was in the council at Chalcedon; and even in the "eighth" century mention is made of Eustathius, bishop of Troas, in the Nicene council In Christ, Beja |
||||||
6 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Holmes | 227298 | ||
Beja, After Paul prolonged his message until midnight, Eutychus fell asleep and landed hard on the floor. Paul revived him. The very next thing to happen was Paul got up and “had broken bread and eaten." Then he resumed talking until daybreak. That is not an assumption. It is what the scripture says. Monday began at sunset. No need for anyone to take my word, your word, or John Gill’s word. They can just read Acts 20 and determine the truth for themselves. Holmes |
||||||
7 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227305 | ||
Holmes, I stand corrected regarding the timing of the meal in acts 20. I suppose I need to brush up on Acts some. I was running out of time for church and I was far more alarmed by your use of passover feast verse and spent my time double checking its context. Anyways, I clearly mispoke and it was right for you to correct me. However, as I stated in my previous post, even the fact that the meal took place after midnight impacts nothing in the discussion for the reason I stated. In addition to this, it would be rather misleading to focus this discussion on acts 20 in the first place. It was fitting for you to correct my error however for the convesation to remain at acts 20 unduely gives the impression that it is the basis of believing the early christians met on sunday when it is not. To suggest that sunday worship is based on acts 20 and a stray comment in revelations is to set up a straw man. A much more compelling arguement is made from 1 Cor 16:1,2. Now there is a passage I personally find to impact the discussion of when the early church met. Jonathan Edwards discusses this passage very well in "The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath." And even beyond all of these things we still focus on the wrong aspect. Looking at the ventures of the apostles and trying to piece together their mindset is all well and good but it is to never trump clear teaching which we have regarding the Christian's observance of sabbaths. Col 2:16,17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. I have no expectations of persuading you regarding any of this. But I hope to establish that verses showing Paul went to evangelize Jews during the sabbath and presenting the case for sunday worship in unduely weak light is not sufficient to upset either the conscience of those who meet at sunday or the fact that the churches of God have always affirmed that the first day of the week is the day which scriptures displays as fit for the gatherings of the saints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
8 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Holmes | 227314 | ||
Hi Beja, I think we can worship God and our Lord Jesus Christ on any day and at any time. The question was if early Christians observed the Sabbath along with Sunday and did they celebrate Passover. Based solely on scripture, it is apparent the early Christians did met on the Sabbath and did observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Scripture also shows they met on other days of the week, including Sunday. I am presently in an international Bible study program which has students from about a 100 different churches or denominations. It is a very mainstream Protestant organization. A recent study concerned the Sabbath. It was from this study I learned of the Sabbath meetings given in Acts. It also presented the two given scriptures to support Sunday worship. It was not my intent to take anything out of context or setup a straw man or an unduly weak argument in favor of Sunday worship. I am glad that you appreciate that the two scriptures offered are a weak argument. I do not find 1 Cor 16:1-2 to be any stronger. When I find scripture that is in disagreement with my beliefs or in conflict with other scripture, then it is I who am wrong. God rested on the seventh day, then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. There was Adam and Eve at the time, the father and mother of us all, no Hebrews and no Christians. Where does God bless and sanctify the first day? Where does it state that he changed the Sabbath to Sunday? Holmes |
||||||
9 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227320 | ||
Holmes, I am eager for this thread to end on some point that serves to edify, so let me make my cheif point a response to something which you have said that I agree entirely on. You said, "I think we can worship God and our Lord Jesus Christ on any day and at any time." With this I agree. I do not take the things which I am saying so far as to make sunday the day we "must" worship. And our disagreements will be minor if you do not take what you are saying to the point that you suggest saturday is the day we "must" worship. Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. Now, that being said, I would offer an important qualification and I only bring this up out of concern who might be reading this thread and how they would take it. We should not let the fact that we may, within bounds of Christian liberty, gather for worship on any day be twisted into the perversion that we gather for worship on no day. We should not jump from the fact that since everyday is holy to the Lord, then at no day do I need to set aside time for Christian fellowship specifically. We are clearly commanded to gather with Christian fellowships not simply in classes, not simply for music, not seminaries, not in para-church organizations, but we are to gather as churches. If that church wishes for their day of gathering to be saturday, I have no issue with it. If it be sunday, all is well. But we are to gather as Churches for mutual edification and accountability, and out of obedience. Now, I will say something small about your closing question, in which you ask where scripture changes the sabbath to sunday. I'll leave it to two simple points. 1. Nowhere does scripture state, "Now sunday will be the new sabbath." I do not suggest you will find such a statement. What we see however is the combination of two things. First, the sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Second, there is clearly a high reverence and perhaps even bias towards meeting on the first day of the week. In 1 Cor 16:1,2 we even see it to be a matter of Paul's teaching, in my opinion. He taught them that on the first day of the week their offering was to be collected. What shall we suggest about it? That they met on saturday then were commanded to come give their offering the next day on which they were not to meet? And this was not something peculiar to the church in Corinth as if it was convenient for them to do so on the first day and for that reason it was to be the first day. No, instead we see Paul affirming that this is exactly what he taught to the Galatian Christians. In other words, we see that Paul habitually taught that on the first day of the week it was proper to fulfill this religious duty. However, even if that passage isn't persuasive to you it still ought to be evident that sunday holds itself to be a favorite meeting time. So in short, if you wish to see where the doctrine is coming from, it is in the sabbath being fulfilled and no longer binding, and the pattern we see. 2. If any would truely wish to know truth on this topic and be either confirmed in their belief or corrected of their error, he must go to those who are its chief defenders. In a word, the puritans. I am a babe in Christ compared to many who walk today, how much more so the giants of the past? For a man to think sunday worship holds no basis because I can not convince them would be comparible to a man thinking he had disproved the doctrine of particular redemption without having ever read John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," his masterpiece on the topic. In other words, go to those who have defended it so well and read them. Many will say, no, let us simply stand on God's word. Amen, and I agree. However, would you have a man show if you are in error in how you understand God's word? If not, then why do we discuss? If you do then find that man who is mighty in scirptures. And often you will find those men have long left to be with the Lord. They have left their teachings in books. Books which seek to explain the word of God. I pray no man would dismiss the historical teachings of the Church until they have first understood why the Church has understood scripture to teach those things, and that they would hear them from the very best of those who have articulated and defended the position. In Christ, Beja |
||||||